Ceasefire in Iran-US Conflict: Critical Test for Strait of Hormuz and Global Oil Supply

A big win for President Trump IF the Strait opens and stays open." As part of The Panel on "Special Report," that was my instant reaction when Bret Baier asked all five of us to assess the just announced two-week ceasefire in the battle with Iran. While Dasha Burns, Mark Penn, and Juan Williams demurred one way or the other, Kellyanne Conway agreed with me and elaborated, citing President Trump's long-established pattern of negotiation having brought about at least a temporary win. The test of how big a win it actually is will be revealed in the rest of the two weeks. The crucial issue is, can whomever in Iran wrote the check promising the Strait of Hormuz would open actually be able to cash it? If so, the world's oil supply will surge a bit and the remnants of the Iranian regime will have a chance to inventory the destruction that has rained down on their forces for five weeks.

TRUMP'S IRAN STRATEGY IS WORKING AND TEACHING OUR FOES WHAT DETERRENCE MEANS. If the Strait doesn't reopen to unmolested traffic, or the attacks on Israel and our Gulf allies don't cease, another round of the third Gulf war will soon commence. The first round began with the disaster of the invasion of Israel from Gaza and the massacre and kidnapping which followed on October 7, 2023. With a combination of help and hurdles, the U.S. under the (maybe) direction of President Biden stood with our embattled ally, and Israel struck back hard against Hamas to the south, Hezbollah to the north, and from the Houthis across the Arabian peninsula. The Jewish State absorbed the first direct attack from Iran with our help. The reality of the menace from Iran and its proxies was revealed to the world. When President Trump returned to the Oval Office, the Israelis got their hostages back because of pressure brought to bear by the president and his team. A ceasefire took hold, and the remnants of Hamas and the Hezbollah forces retreated to their tunnels and hideouts, all of their senior leadership dead.

IRAN REVEALS 10-POINT PLAN FOR PEACE WITH THE US – HERE'S WHAT'S IN IT. The next round began in June 2025, with Israel's Operation Rising Lion and ended with America's Operation Midnight Hammer. The Iranian nuclear program was obliterated and its air defenses shattered. The people of Iran then rose in December to demand change and were massacred in January. The world saw clearly the lunacy of the Khamenei 1.0 regime. The U.S. and Israel planned their next attack. They struck with devastating results on February 28 with Operation Epic Fury and Operation Roaring Lion. At the enormous cost of 13 precious American lives and a score of seriously wounded U.S. soldiers and dozens of casualties in Israel and the Gulf States, the allies shattered every aspect of the terrorist regime in Tehran. We don't know who is running what in Iran, but we have more forces en route and anywhere from a day to two weeks to assess the massive intelligence haul of the past 96 hours, which includes the near miraculous rescue of the downed American airmen and the fractured, frantic, and ineffective response of the disabled IRGC to the chance to capture one of our invaluable warriors.

The rescues humiliated the Iranian regime — again — and ongoing damage to their military industrial base continued unabated. Within the hours of the incredibly complex rescue missions also came the B-2s again, to drop Massive Ordinance Penetrators on two locations in Tehran in the midst of the rescue operation, as IRGC senior leadership unwisely gathered. The public doesn't know who is left alive on the IRGC side, but reports of a critically wounded Khamenei 2.0 and still more erasures from the IRGC command structure leave the regime tottering. There is still no internet for the people of Iran. The remnant is afraid of us, Israel, and their own people. President Trump issued his ultimatum. His never-evolving critics denounced his language though it got through to whomever is running the bunkers in Iran.

The broader implications of these events are starkly evident in the interplay between government directives and public access to information. The Iranian regime's control over its citizens is absolute, with internet shutdowns and censorship enforced by state actors, leaving the population in the dark about their own country's trajectory. Meanwhile, U.S. policy has relied on a mix of targeted sanctions, limited diplomatic engagement, and strategic military strikes to maintain pressure on Iran while avoiding full-scale conflict. This approach has created a paradox: the public in both nations is kept in the dark by their respective governments, yet the outcome of Trump's strategy hinges on a fragile balance of information leaks, covert operations, and the unpredictable calculus of regime survival. The stakes are high, and the consequences of miscalculation could ripple far beyond the Strait of Hormuz.

The recent post by President Donald Trump, which some critics have interpreted as a veiled threat against Iran, has sparked a firestorm of controversy. At the heart of the debate lies a pivotal statement: Trump's reference to a "civilization" that has oppressed Iran for 47 years through "extortion, corruption and death." This was not a call for violence against civilians but a pointed critique of the regime that has long dominated the region. Yet, the response from certain factions in the national security establishment has been swift and alarmist. Some analysts, many of whom have built careers on scrutinizing Trump's rhetoric, have claimed the post implied an imminent threat of nuclear strikes or disproportionate attacks on infrastructure. These interpretations, however, are far removed from the actual content of Trump's message, which focused on dismantling a regime perceived as a longstanding threat to global stability.

The online backlash was immediate and intense. Prominent figures on the left accused Trump of war crimes for suggesting actions against bridges and power plants, framing the rhetoric as a prelude to mass casualties. Social media platforms erupted with calls for condemnation, with critics painting a picture of a president willing to unleash chaos. Yet, just days later, the situation shifted dramatically. A key figure within Iran's leadership reportedly blinked, leading to a ceasefire that caught many observers by surprise. Suddenly, Trump's critics were no longer decrying him as a war criminal but celebrating "TACO Tuesday," a meme that underscored their abrupt reversal in tone. This 180-degree shift has left many bewildered, raising questions about the coherence of their earlier positions and the sudden prioritization of political expediency over consistent principles.

The broader context reveals a regime that has been systematically weakened over the past five weeks of intense conflict. Iran's military capabilities—once seen as a formidable force in the region—have proven largely ineffective against coordinated strikes targeting its infrastructure and leadership. The destruction of key elements within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has exposed vulnerabilities that were previously obscured by propaganda. While the regime's proxies remain active, their ability to mount effective resistance has been significantly curtailed. This has not only emboldened U.S. allies but also revealed a stark contrast between Iran's rhetoric and its capacity to defend itself. The question now is whether the new leadership emerging from the ashes of the IRGC can uphold the promises that secured the ceasefire. If not, Trump has signaled his willingness to resume operations with even more precise intelligence on the regime's inner workings.

Historical parallels offer a compelling lens through which to view this moment. In 1983, as the Cold War reached its zenith, President Ronald Reagan, alongside British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and French President Francois Mitterrand, defied enormous domestic and international pressure to deploy Pershing II missiles and nuclear-capable cruise missiles in Europe. This move was not merely a military decision but a strategic declaration of Western resolve against Soviet aggression. Similarly, Trump's actions in 2025 represent a calculated effort to reassert U.S. deterrence in the Middle East. The lessons from Reagan's era are clear: sustained commitment, even in the face of opposition, can reshape global power dynamics.

The parallels extend beyond military strategy. Just as Reagan's support for Afghan Mujahideen and his bold stance at Reykjavík helped tilt the Cold War in favor of the West, Trump's collaboration with Israel and Gulf allies has begun to unravel Iran's influence. The destruction of Iran's nuclear program and military-industrial complex—details of which remain largely classified—has been a decisive blow. Meanwhile, European allies, who once stood shoulder to shoulder with the U.S. during the Cold War, have shown signs of hesitation, a stark contrast to their unified front against Soviet expansionism. This divergence highlights the evolving nature of international alliances and the challenges of maintaining cohesion in the face of shared threats.

For Israel, the conflict has been a moment of reckoning. Its military capabilities, long underestimated by critics, have proven instrumental in countering Iranian aggression. Gulf State allies, too, have demonstrated a renewed commitment to regional security, recognizing the existential threat posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions and proxy warfare. These developments signal a tectonic shift in the Middle East, one that could redefine the balance of power for decades. Yet, as with any protracted conflict, the road ahead is fraught with uncertainty. The Iranian regime's survival hinges on its ability to adapt, but the damage inflicted over the past five weeks may be irreversible.

The U.S.-Israel-Iran struggle of 2025 and 2026 stands as a defining chapter in modern geopolitics. While the immediate ceasefire offers a temporary reprieve, the broader implications are profound. Trump's administration has reestablished deterrence not only in the Middle East but across global theaters, a legacy that may echo through future administrations. The collaboration between Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has set a new benchmark for counterterrorism and regime change, though the ethical and strategic ramifications remain subjects of intense debate. For now, the world watches as the pieces fall into place, with the hope that the Iranian regime's collapse—or transformation—will usher in an era of stability. Whether this vision materializes will depend on the choices made in the coming years, but one thing is certain: the West has regained a measure of control over a region long dominated by chaos and conflict.

The Iranian regime's internal instability has long been a flashpoint for regional conflict, with analysts warning that the collapse of its leadership structure could reignite hostilities in the Middle East. Recent intelligence assessments suggest that the regime's inability to control its military assets—particularly missile and drone forces—has reached a critical juncture. This vulnerability, attributed to either the death or incapacitation of key leaders, has raised fears that the fragile ceasefire currently in place may be on the verge of collapse. However, amid this turmoil, some observers argue that the Iranian people's long-suffering under decades of authoritarian rule and the region's fraught geopolitics have never been closer to a transformative shift since the 1979 revolution. The prospect of a new era, they suggest, hinges on whether the regime's internal fractures can be leveraged by external actors or if the cycle of violence will resume.

Meanwhile, in the United States, the political landscape remains deeply polarized, with the reelected President Donald Trump at the center of a contentious debate over his policies. Trump's administration has been marked by a firm stance on foreign affairs, characterized by aggressive trade measures, targeted sanctions, and a willingness to confront global adversaries. Critics argue that his approach—often described as "bullying" by opponents—has exacerbated tensions with nations such as China, Russia, and Iran. His decision to impose tariffs on key imports and to withdraw from international agreements has drawn sharp rebuke from Democrats and some moderate Republicans, who claim such actions have weakened America's global standing and alienated allies. Yet Trump's supporters praise his unwavering commitment to protecting American interests, pointing to his administration's efforts to bolster domestic industries and reduce reliance on foreign markets.

Domestically, however, Trump's policies have enjoyed broader acceptance. His economic agenda, which includes tax cuts, deregulation, and a focus on job creation, has been credited with revitalizing certain sectors of the economy. Supporters argue that his leadership has restored a sense of national pride and economic confidence, particularly among working-class voters. Critics, however, warn that these policies have exacerbated income inequality and contributed to long-term fiscal challenges. The administration's emphasis on law-and-order initiatives and its controversial rhetoric on immigration have also sparked fierce debate, with some lauding its perceived toughness and others condemning it as divisive and inhumane.

The Democratic Party, meanwhile, has faced its own share of scrutiny. Opponents of the party argue that its policies—ranging from expansive social welfare programs to progressive environmental regulations—have undermined American economic competitiveness and led to increased government debt. The party's support for international interventions, including its role in conflicts such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan, has been criticized by some as having weakened national security and drained resources. However, Democrats defend their record, emphasizing their commitment to social justice, climate action, and global cooperation. They argue that Trump's foreign policy has been reckless and destabilizing, with his alignment with certain hawkish factions leading to unnecessary conflicts and a loss of diplomatic leverage.

As the United States grapples with these domestic and international challenges, the trajectory of both major political parties remains uncertain. The Iranian crisis adds another layer of complexity, with the potential for renewed conflict threatening not only regional stability but also U.S. interests abroad. With Trump's re-election and his administration's continued focus on reshaping America's global role, the coming months will be critical in determining whether the nation can navigate these turbulent waters—or if the divisions at home and abroad will deepen further.