Hassan Dergham

At 10 a.m. Washington time, Donald Trump moved to impose a blockade on Iran’s ports just hours after the unprecedented direct meeting between the two countries in Islamabad. It was not a mere detail, but a signal that the confrontation had shifted from the negotiating table to the arena of economic pressure.

The Islamabad talks reflected an extraordinary level of importance and representation. The U.S. delegation was led by Vice President J.D. Vance, joined by Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, and a broad team of advisers. Iran’s delegation was headed by Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, alongside Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, Ali Bagheri Kani of the Supreme National Security Council, and other senior advisers, underscoring the political and security weight on both sides.

At the core of the deadlock were five major sticking points: dismantling versus freezing the nuclear program, immediate versus gradual lifting of sanctions, security of the Strait of Hormuz, sovereignty over the missile program, and the nature of a ceasefire, permanent or temporary. After 21 hours of negotiations, the rounds ended without agreement. Washington insisted its offer was “final,” while Tehran rejected what it called “dictates.”

The deeper impasse lay in the nature of the deal itself. Washington, through war and more than 21,000 strikes on vital regime infrastructure, sought parallel political concessions, something Tehran could not accept. The first encounter thus ended without breaking the thick wall between the two sides.

As expected, more time and additional rounds will be needed before the two-week deadline expires, to reach a settlement acceptable to both Trump and Tehran. In this context, the port blockade emerged as a tool to intensify economic pressure on Iran, whose maritime revenues amount to nearly $300 million daily, over $100 billion annually.

Yet the move carries implications beyond the military sphere, thrusting the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical energy arteries, back into the heart of the conflict. Analysts cited by The Economist warn that while the blockade is militarily feasible, its economic and political costs globally are incalculable.

The loss of Iranian oil alone is not catastrophic, but combined with massive Gulf volumes trapped behind a near-closed strait, the world faces a dual supply shock. With OPEC+ output already 7 million barrels per day below capacity and stockpiles being drawn down, Brent crude could surge to $150 a barrel within weeks.

The risks extend beyond Hormuz. Escalation could target Gulf oil facilities and threaten Red Sea shipping, placing the global energy system under unprecedented strain. Any blockade would quickly become unsustainable without a sharp price spike, risking global economic turmoil and years of recession.

Lebanon at a crossroads...

Lebanon, meanwhile, stands at a perilous crossroads. The war has inflicted devastating losses, displacement, death, destruction, villages torn apart, bridges demolished, entire communities uprooted, and border towns razed along with their landmarks, schools, hospitals, homes, and farmland. Casualties have surpassed 2,000 dead and 4,000 wounded.

Against this backdrop, today’s meeting is not a detail but a lifeline for Lebanon, a chance to catch its breath and test whether its trajectory can be partially decoupled from regional escalation. Yet between Israel’s conditions, Lebanon’s internal complexities, and the primacy of U.S.–Iran negotiations, the margin for success remains narrow.

It is unlikely that today’s direct meeting, the first between Lebanon and Israel since 1983 under U.S. auspices, will yield a comprehensive ceasefire. At best, it may lead to a conditional return to Resolution 1701, or minimally, to Trump’s demand to neutralize Beirut, perhaps even the southern suburbs, until the two-week deadline expires. A broader U.S.–Iran deal could eventually fold Lebanon into its framework, addressing disarmament, Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories, prisoner returns, and a political accord redefining sovereignty between the two countries.

Meanwhile, daily bloodshed continues in southern Lebanon. Israeli incursions expand, pushing toward Bint Jbeil, a town of symbolic and strategic weight. Netanyahu’s aim appears to go beyond military gains, seeking to entrench them as bargaining chips in future security arrangements with Iran and Lebanon.

But this path collides with harsh realities. Lebanon cannot be expected to confine its arms absent a clear ceasefire, Israeli withdrawal, and prisoner releases, core elements of any “step-for-step” approach. Israel, despite its military and intelligence superiority, has not dismantled Hezbollah’s arsenal after more than two years of strikes, assassinations, and bombardments. Any attempt to impose unilateral terms risks proving futile.

The stakes extend far beyond Lebanon. This is a pivotal moment: either a historic settlement reshaping U.S.–Iran relations, or a wider escalation sought by Netanyahu but avoided by Trump, who faces mounting domestic opposition to the war ahead of midterm elections.

In either case, the world is witnessing a redefinition of the global order amid intensifying U.S.–China rivalry. The confrontation now spans energy routes from Hormuz to the Strait of Malacca, and trade and technology wars, from rare minerals, which China seeks to weaponize economically, to the race for dominance in semiconductors and artificial intelligence.

Major powers and regional actors are recalibrating: China leans toward de-escalation, Europe watches with concern, and Gulf states adopt caution and neutrality.

Yet escalation may not be the final word. Indicators suggest both sides will return to the negotiating table, driven by internal needs. CNN has reported discussions of a second direct meeting before the ceasefire expires.

It is difficult to imagine Trump emerging from this confrontation without a political victory, likely in the form of a grand bargain with Iran that ends decades of hostility and ushers in a new balance in the Middle East and beyond.

In this transformation, the question will not be who wins the war, but who sets its rules.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Annahar.