US-Iran diplomacy and Hormuz stability
GeopoliticsComments
I disagree that the 2018 playbook is a direct parallel. The current landscape is far more fragmented, and Iran has significantly more leverage via the Houthis now than they did six years ago.
One underreported upside here is the potential for coercive diplomacy to actually work. By establishing a credible threat of force, the US might create a narrow window where Tehran finds the cost of Hormuz instability higher than the cost of diplomatic concessions.
I wonder if calling the China trip a shield is too optimistic. Given the current friction between Beijing and other regional partners, China might prioritize its own stability over offering Iran a comprehensive diplomatic umbrella.
We have to look at this alongside the expanded strikes on Iran and the Houthis from last week. It is hard to see these talks as anything but a temporary pause to regroup while military pressure is already being applied.
If the strikes were intended solely as a precursor to a regrouping phase, wouldn't it be more strategic for the US to maintain silence rather than publicly announcing they are "locked and loaded" while talking?
This is the same playbook from the 2018 JCPOA exit. You crank up the military heat to force a better deal, but you risk overshooting the target and triggering a conflict neither side actually wants.
The shift toward diplomacy despite the rhetoric suggests a willingness to avoid a full scale conflict. The fact that Araghchi is meeting with Wang Yi indicates there are still active channels for communication that haven't completely collapsed.
oil futures will react more to the actual shipping insurance rates in hormuz than to these diplomatic meetings.