[This Iran war post is even thinner than usual at launch due to still being a bit addled from travel. Please come back at 7:30 AM EDT or refresh your browsers then for a final version]
After various reports suggesting that President Trump considers a more violent attack on Iran too risky and that continuing the blockade would be effective, and even depicting the administration as considering declaring victory and withdrawing, the latest reading on the Trump Fever Chart is that President Trump is back in favor of a more violent attack. Even now that it has withdrawn from Iran, Iran’s threats to challenge the blockade, including attacking the US Navy, do not seem to be getting enough attention. More on that in a moment.
The latest Trump sighting from the BBC sent oil prices to their highest since 2022, following reports that Trump will be briefed on new options for Iran.
Oil prices rose to their highest since 2022 on reports that the US military plans to brief President Donald Trump on new plans for potential action in the Iran war.
US Central Command is preparing plans for a “short and powerful” wave of strikes against Iran in a bid to break the impasse in negotiations with the country, news site Axios has reported. The BBC has contacted US Central Command and the White House for comment.
Brent crude rose nearly 7% to more than $126 (£94) a barrel at one point, its highest price since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine…
Brent crude oil prices briefly reached $126.31 per barrel in Asian trade, but fell to around $116 per barrel in European trade.
The average price of petrol in the UK now stands at 157p a liter, 24p more expensive than before the start of the war, according to car industry body RAC. Diesel costs around 189p per litre, an increase of 46p compared to pre-war prices.
But fuel prices are not the only potential impact. The British government has warned that its people could face higher prices for energy, food and flights as a result of the war.
As a side note, the fact that British authorities and their media outlets are now citing the broader costs of closing the Strait of Hormuz is significant.
Bloomberg’s headline screamed that the US-Iran standoff continues: US and Iran reach stalemate as oil prices rise to wartime highs
The United States and Iran show little sign of agreeing to break the deadlock and renegotiate peace talks, with President Donald Trump saying the naval blockade is working. U.S. military commanders are expected to brief Trump on new plans for Iran, including plans for a short burst of strikes against Iran to break the deadlock in negotiations. President Trump told Axios that blockading Iran’s ports would be “somewhat more effective than bombing” and would “suffocate” Iran by restricting oil exports.
Brent crude oil has soared to wartime highs as traders price in a further prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz, potentially breaking the fragile ceasefire between the United States and Iran that has been in place since around April 7. On Thursday, Brent crude rose as much as 7.1% to over $126 a barrel, before falling to $121.40.
Note that both stories are dependent on the underlying Axios account. And since the CENTCOM press conference requires analysis, it must have been scheduled in advance. 1 But the other side of the coin is that Professor Mohamed Marandi says that Iran expects further attacks by the United States and will need to do so fairly soon, given that the heat level in the Gulf is about to rise dramatically and that ground operations will be extremely difficult. 2
According to the Reuters article, there is at least some disagreement within the administration about what to do.
From the article:
U.S. intelligence agencies are studying how Iran would react if President Donald Trump declares unilateral victory in a two-month war that has left thousands dead and is a political liability for the White House, two U.S. officials and a person familiar with the matter said.
Intelligence agencies are analyzing this question, among other issues, at the request of senior government officials. The aim is to understand the impact of President Trump potentially withdrawing from the conflict, as some officials and advisers fear a landslide Republican loss in the midterm elections later this year, the people said.
Although no decision has been made yet, President Trump could easily resume military operations, but a quick de-escalation could ease political pressure on the president, but could ultimately leave behind an emboldened Iran that could retool its nuclear and missile programs and threaten America’s allies in the region…
It is not clear when the intelligence community will complete its work, but the agency has previously analyzed the likely reaction of Iranian leaders to the US declaration of victory.
A few days after the first bombing campaign in February, intelligence agencies assessed that Iran would likely consider it a victory if President Trump declared victory and the U.S. withdrew its troops from the region, one of the intelligence officials said.
If Trump instead says the United States has won but maintained a strong military presence, Iran is likely to view that as a negotiating tactic, but not necessarily an end to the war, the sources said.
“The CIA is not familiar with the intelligence community’s reported assessment,” Liz Lyons, the agency’s director of public affairs, said in a statement after the article was published. The CIA declined to answer specific questions from Reuters about its current efforts against Iran.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment.
The reason I quote this article at length is not just a refusal to comment, but a denial by the CIA. CIA Director John Ratcliffe is a staunch supporter of Israel and recently traveled to Jerusalem in mid-April to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. One can assume that the Director of National Intelligence, like Tulsi Gabbard’s office, will need to consider de-escalation options to eliminate the CIA. Let me tell you, I don’t think it will be successful, but it’s an interesting attempt.
It’s easy to go back to what seems to be President Trump’s preferred option, even if it’s not as strong. The idea is to continue the U.S. blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, hoping that Iran will cry “Uncle” rather than have its oil wells damaged as its oil reserves become full.
That’s ridiculous. As we noted, Iran exported almost nothing in 2019 and 2020, but appears to have suffered no lasting infrastructure damage. Bloomberg helpfully indicated that it’s not the first time.
Iran appears to have found a way to keep enough pressure in old wells during the shutdown to prevent serious damage to the oil fields.
And, as I explained at length yesterday, Iran now has more export routes than it did then, including a railway to China, six corridors just opened by Pakistan, and an export route to Russia via the Capsian Sea.
However, the fact that Iran can tighten the US blockade does not mean that it is advantageous for it to sit back and accept the blockade (again).
Following reports that President Trump rejected Iran’s preconditions for negotiations and the outline of a naval blockade against Iran, there are reports that Iran is considering “unnegotiated options” to lift the blockade. https://t.co/gt79pALxaT
— Arya Yadeghaar (Backup) (@AryJeayBackup) April 29, 2026
The strategic reasons for Iran’s action are:
1. If Iran were to take on the US Navy, ideally sooner rather than later, it could throw a monkey wrench into CENTCOM’s attack plans.
2. If the game to be won is retaliation, then simply refusing to negotiate may not be an appropriate punishment for violating the ceasefire, especially given the actions of the United States.4
The US regime hijacked a ship carrying medical equipment, including dialysis supplies, and still holds 22 crew members https://t.co/6c5trxstGb
— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) April 29, 2026
3. If we believe that Iran is able to tighten the maritime embargo (as before), that means the Strait of Hormuz stalemate could continue until the US economy is so damaged that the regime cannot survive (but as Douglas McGregor and Daniel Davis’ discussion below suggests, Trump no longer cares about public opinion; otherwise he would work harder to find a way out). That may take time, especially given that large parts of Congress are controlled by the Israel lobby. Current impacts are expected to cause famine in some poor countries. The longer the Strait of Hormuz is closed, the faster the human costs will rise.
Given that Shiites believe in protecting the weak and innocent, it must be assumed that at least some Iranians are dissatisfied with Iran being a party to mass starvation, even if they are not the main cause. Similarly, from a more cynical power perspective, one could think that Iran has an obligation to show as much awareness as possible about the ongoing humanitarian crisis, and is doing everything it can to alleviate it while fighting an existential battle (a theme that has been absent from Iran’s highly adept messaging).
More cynically, Iran may want to prevent the global economic collapse that a prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz would cause in its own interests.
_____
1 This is pure speculation, but remember Larry Johnson’s report, confirmed by others, that President Trump asked the military to prepare for a nuclear attack on Iran, but the military flatly refused. One can imagine President Trump yelling that if they deny that option, he should tell them what they can do.
2 Media outlets have suggested that the attack was strictly a bombing, but since the US has so many special forces in the theater, Iran must believe it is actually happening.
3 It may look like coal to Newcastle, but if Iran can supply Russia with more oil in the face of severe global oil shortages, Russia should be able to increase its exports by a similar amount.
4 Iran may also believe that placing itself in a position to respond to President Trump on a regular basis is suboptimal. In chess, it is theoretically possible that in a perfectly played game, it is best for Black to fight to a draw, and for White to win. Similarly, Scott Ritter emphasized the effectiveness of the OODA loop in forcing the other person to respond to you.
