Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

"Blockade Instead of Trump Cards: Why Trump Neutralized Iran's Main Leverage — and What He's Asking For Instead"

The United States has imposed a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz following failed negotiations in Islamabad. However, behind the scenes, Washington is prepared for concessions, according to Politico, because without them there will be no deal.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

April 17, 2026 · 3 min read

"Blockade Instead of Trump Cards: Why Trump Neutralized Iran's Main Leverage — and What He's Asking For Instead"
Дональд Трамп (Фото: Ronda Churchill/EPA)

On April 21, 2026, the ceasefire regime between the United States and Iran expires. By that date, Washington must either reach an agreement or strike again. But according to sources familiar with negotiations and cited by Politico, Trump, despite all his rhetoric about "trump cards," may make real concessions — to close this war before the 2026 elections and record it as a victory.

From ultimatum to blockade

The logic of the moves is clear: after negotiations in Islamabad ended without agreement, Trump announced a blockade of vessels in the Strait of Hormuz. An official White House representative explained: the national security team developed a plan to break Iran's closure of the strait and neutralize the perception that Hormuz could serve as a distraction from the nuclear issue.

In other words, the blockade is not punishment, but a tactical move: to deprive Tehran of its main financial lever before the next round of negotiations. According to calculations by former CIA director David Petraeus, if Iran collects $2 million from each vessel, and over 100 ships pass through the strait daily — this is "a very substantial amount of hard currency" that allows Tehran to rebuild its destroyed army.

What Iran wants, and where the "red line" lies

The Iranian side presented a "five-point counter-proposal" at negotiations: cessation of US-Israeli strikes, security guarantees against future aggression, military reparations, and international recognition of Iranian sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz. The US rejected this proposal.

Analysts at Times of Israel note a contradiction: Iran believes it can extract major concessions on the nuclear issue and Hormuz, while Trump cannot give in to a country he has been bombing for weeks — and this threatens a stalemate or new escalation.

"We cannot allow a country to blackmail or make demands on the entire world — that is exactly what they are doing"

— Donald Trump, White House, April 14, 2026

Israel and Lebanon — a new variable

Parallel to the Iran track, the Trump administration made several diplomatic moves that changed the context. On April 16, Trump held separate talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Lebanese President Joseph Aoun — and announced a 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon. Trump also noted that while it would be "ideal" to complete an agreement with Iran by April 21, he is willing to extend the ceasefire if necessary.

This detail — about willingness to extend the ceasefire — contradicts the public narrative of "total victory" and represents the first publicly acknowledged flexibility by Washington.

Mediators keep the door open

Turkey, Pakistan, and Egypt are attempting to organize a new round of negotiations — mediators seek to narrow differences by the April 21 deadline. Trump stated that the next negotiations "could take place within two days" in Islamabad.

According to CNN, any Iranian agreement to remove highly enriched uranium and accept new enrichment restrictions will come only with the lifting of most sanctions — and billions of dollars will go toward rebuilding the Iranian army. This is the price Washington will either have to pay, or admit that there will be "no deal."

If the second round of negotiations does not produce results by April 21 and Trump does not extend the ceasefire — the next step, a strike on nuclear infrastructure, will become a test of whether the bluff was truly a bluff.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026