The Accords That Stall the Strait
How Washington’s search for a bigger diplomatic trophy leaves the energy shock unresolved.
US policy toward Iran has quietly inverted the order of operations. Instead of first removing Iran’s ability to weaponize the Strait of Hormuz and then building a broader regional architecture on top of that, the White House is trying to book the bigger diplomatic trophy up front through an expanded Abraham Accords. That inversion helps explain both the widening gap between presidential commentary and Iranian behavior, and the growing disconnect between equity markets that trade the headline “deal” story and bond markets that trade the underlying energy and inflation constraints.
The narrow strategic objectives are straightforward: degrade Iran’s nuclear capability and permanently remove its ability to hold the global economy at risk by constricting the Strait. Those goals are concrete, time-sensitive, and closely linked to how long the current energy disruption lasts. But in recent weeks, the administration’s revealed preference has shifted toward securing a larger diplomatic breakthrough that folds additional Muslim-majority states into normalized relations with Israel as part of any Iran deal, even as Iranian and regional red lines remain far apart.
Markets are already splitting on how to price that choice. Equity indices have repeatedly rallied on Trump’s “we are close” and “deal” language, treating a clean diplomatic settlement as the central case. Bond markets, by contrast, have been repricing toward higher and more persistent inflation risk, reflecting the reality of an unresolved Strait-of-Hormuz constraint and a conflict that has shifted toward an economic war of attrition. One market is tracking the political narrative; the other is tracking the underlying constraint set.
This is where the sequencing problem becomes dangerous. The broader diplomatic architecture may still be a worthwhile long-term objective, but it is poorly sequenced relative to the immediate problem. Reporting indicates that some US partners were taken aback by Trump’s push to tie Abraham Accords expansion to the current Iran confrontation, and in some cases openly scoffed at the idea. That reaction makes strategic sense. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other Gulf states have limited reason to assume additional political risk while Iran retains meaningful coercive capacity through the Strait, missile forces, and proxy infrastructure.
The Abraham Accords likely become more achievable after Iran is visibly hobbled, because the regional sales pitch changes from “join now while the threat still stands” to “the immediate threat has been reduced; now build something durable.” Pursuing the reverse order does not solve the Iran problem. It makes the near-term problem harder to solve.
Meanwhile, the global energy clock continues its mechanical countdown. In a sustained closure scenario, the world can absorb disruption for a short period through inventories and emergency measures, but SPR draws and stock releases can only smooth the path temporarily; they cannot create new barrels or restore normal transit through the Strait of Hormuz. As the disruption extends, supply tightness becomes more acute, price volatility rises, and the risk of broader economic damage climbs with it.
Inside Iran, the partial restoration of internet access has been used to reinforce a story of endurance and resistance at home, not de-escalation, which helps the regime sustain domestic tolerance for a prolonged economic confrontation. The key analytical point is not whether every Iranian believes that story, but whether the state can preserve enough internal cohesion to continue operating inside an economic war of attrition. This is not messaging for Western consumption. It is domestic narrative management with real stakes.
This is the ideological reality that much Western analysis still underweights. The IRGC is not best understood as a standard profit-maximizing petro-state manager. It is a revolutionary organization that treats petroleum revenue as a tool in service of regime survival, deterrence, and regional influence. Under that framework, compromise on the nuclear program or on coercive leverage in the Strait is not experienced as ordinary bargaining. It is experienced as strategic disarmament.
That helps explain why Iran has shifted fully into its economic phase: accepting significant domestic pain in exchange for prolonging the confrontation and betting that US political will erodes faster than its own. Trump has publicly acknowledged that Tehran believes it can outwait him. The uncomfortable implication is that, absent decisive action, the timetable for energy markets and US political tolerance both work in Iran’s favor, while the administration drifts further toward the kind of drawn-out diplomatic quagmire it has repeatedly promised to avoid.
The restored internet amplifies this trap rather than relieving it. Once the regime has sold a story of endurance and resistance at home, it faces a narrower band of acceptable external behavior: too little retaliation looks weak, too much invites a heavier American response, and the middle ground is difficult to calibrate under degraded capabilities and dense US surveillance. That is why the most credible Iranian response paths still appear to lean toward renewed escalation risk rather than clean de-escalation.
This leaves the United States in a dangerous policy window. Washington still retains clear military capability to reopen the Strait and degrade key Iranian assets in a focused campaign. But current policy choices suggest that maximizing the odds of a visible diplomatic breakthrough is now competing with, and in some cases constraining, the willingness to incur the costs of decisively neutralizing Iran’s coercive leverage. One of the central pricing gaps in global markets now flows directly from that conflict: equities are tracking the political narrative of imminent resolution, while bonds are tracking the underlying logistics, inflation risk, and timelines. That gap will not remain this wide indefinitely.
That is the real danger. The issue is not simply whether a larger regional diplomatic vision is desirable. It is whether the pursuit of that vision is delaying action on the narrower objective that matters most right now: removing Iran’s ability to hold the global economy hostage through the Strait of Hormuz. If that sequencing error continues, the costs will not remain theoretical. They will show up in energy prices, risk premiums, and the policy choices available once delay has already eroded optionality.
Disclaimer: This note is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment, financial, or legal advice. The information contained herein is based on current market observations and analysis, which are subject to change without notice. All investments involve risk, including the loss of principal. We do not provide personalized recommendations, and readers should conduct their own due diligence or consult with a qualified professional before making any investment decisions.