The US seeks a deal that will allow it to withdraw from the conflict without political cost
America seems to be searching for (dignified) ways to escape the pit it dug for itself in the Middle East, with Donald Trump engaging in his favorite tactic... making erratic statements to evade the trap. After all, it is no secret that Donald Trump’s policy moves more on the level of pressure and negotiating bluffs rather than a viable strategy of exclusion. The US seeks a deal that will allow it to withdraw from the conflict without political cost, presenting a potential suspension of the Iranian nuclear program as a success. On the other hand, Iran appears willing to endure economic pressure and negotiate within limits, without making substantial concessions such as the surrender of uranium.
All this comes at a time when forces in Ukraine are facing severe shortages, particularly in anti-aircraft defense, as admitted by Volodymyr Zelensky. The military situation is suffocating, and the course of the war does not justify the optimism of Western rhetoric. It is clear that Ukraine is approaching a point of military collapse. In this environment, Europe is faced with multiple, self-reinforcing crises. The rise in energy costs, combined with geopolitical tensions, is burdening EU economies and increasing the risk of recession and stagflation, as highlighted in estimates by the International Monetary Fund. Thus, the ability to continue financial and military support to Ukraine is being called into question, as European resources appear limited and competitive.
Negotiating bluff
The situation surrounding the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz continues to escalate. Yesterday, Donald Trump stated that he is "finally opening them," emphasizing that he is doing it for China and for the entire world. This only confirms that the dual blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is, in reality, a myth: Iran blocks them only partially (allowing passage to those it wishes), while the United States (supposedly) blocks all traffic associated with Iran. Washington claimed to have blocked Iran: now no ship departing from or heading to Iranian ports will be able to pass through Hormuz. A total blockade (applying not only to oil and gas but to any cargo) usually serves as a pretext or prelude to war. At least, this has almost always been the case in world history.
The White House follows suit
But the White House is following its own path here, imposing a blockade after a war—or, at least, in the pause between two acts of war. Having failed to force Iran to capitulate militarily, it wants to bring it to its knees economically—by cutting off its ability to sell oil and restricting the supply of foreign currency, food, and other provisions. Then, according to Washington's strategic analysts, Iran will inevitably surrender.
Iran's endurance and the limits of the blockade
The calculation is strange. Iran has just experienced massive bombings and the death of its top leadership, and it is ready for a long confrontation with the United States. Famine will not hit the country—wheat supplies, for example, come from Russia (and could be increased), and the soybean required for livestock can be imported by land if necessary. Yes, inflation will reach historic highs—both the economy and Iranians will be hard-pressed, but they will endure. And this is despite the fact that the effects of the blockade will not be felt immediately—it would have to be maintained for several months to have a significant effect. Trump's problem is that he simply does not have that time.
Risk of a global energy crisis
A few months of a blockade on Iran will cause a crisis not only for the Iranian economy but for the global economy as well. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz to Tehran alone will not work—the Iranians will retaliate by maintaining their own restrictions on the passage of tankers through the Strait. As a result, the Strait of Hormuz will not function properly—the global shortage of oil and gas will continue, leading first to a further increase in prices and then, as a consequence, to a decrease in consumption and a recession for the global economy, including the US itself. Is this what Trump wants?
Bluff or exit strategy from the war?
Of course not—he doesn't want any blockade. The blockade is just another bluff, a show of his determination to play the long game. But it doesn't work that way: first, because the Iranians are willing to outlast the White House, and second, because they are practically certain that America is already aiming for a way out of the deadlock in which it has led itself. The fact that the talks in Islamabad did not result in an agreement should not cause confusion—the ceasefire is still in effect (until Monday) and "something could happen in the next two days."
What is the point
Trump himself stated this after leaks indicated that a new round of talks could take place as early as today. Vice President Vance stated that the United States could scale back the military operation because they have achieved their goals and are now simply waiting for Iran to agree to hand over all enriched uranium stockpiles to America and open the Sea of Hormuz. But it's the same old story—it should have been clear for years that Iran would not hand over the uranium. Especially after Trump's assassination of Ali Khamenei, the man who banned the development of a nuclear bomb and was killed because he was allegedly planning to build one. It's not about the uranium or the Strait, is it? So what is the point?
The deadlock of negotiations with Iran
The goal is to give the United States the opportunity to withdraw from the war they started. To do this, Trump must declare the United States the winner because Iran agreed to stop its nuclear program. Washington previously demanded its total dismantling, but now agrees to a 20-year suspension. The Iranians are willing to agree to five years, but that is not enough for the Americans, because even the most naive person would then begin to doubt America's victory. A deadlock? Of course, but if both sides do not want to continue fighting, it is easy to find a way out.
No alternative
The Iranians did not want war in the first place—they were attacked under false pretenses. They also didn't want to build a bomb (but now, finally, they will have to—they have no other choice). Thus, in an agreement with the United States, the Iranians could stipulate the renunciation of nuclear weapons (and even agree to the downgrading of their uranium)—they have always stated this. But what will actually happen in five to ten years is a completely different story and a different administration in Washington. The current one needs an argument to get out of this adventure—and Trump will insist that "Iran gave up the bomb" and will turn a blind eye to the fact that no uranium was transferred to the United States. The White House has no alternative anyway: it does not want a resumption of hostilities and cannot maintain a long-term blockade of Iran on its own.
Ukraine's "virtual" success
Ukraine's much-hyped offensive began triumphantly and is progressing successfully in the pages of Ukrainian and Western media. Every headline proves that the brilliant Ukrainian army, with the help of talented journalists, can defeat everyone: · "The Secretary General of NATO stated that victory is a distant dream for Putin"; · "Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces: the Ukrainian army captured 50 square kilometers in a month"; · "Russia carried out its largest raid in two weeks, with 324 drones, but the Ukrainian air defense shot down 309"; · "After the sabotage by partisans near Pokrovsk, the Russian army is facing a supply crisis"; · "Ukrainian forces captured Russian positions and took prisoners using only ground robots and drones." This Hollywood image is further intensified by the joyful news of Europeans trying to put sums of money into Zelensky's hand.
Promises of aid and real shortages
The image projected is that of an army achieving constant successes, reinforcing an almost "cinematic" narrative of victory. This image is bolstered by announcements of European and NATO support for Kyiv, with significant amounts and equipment being announced. First, NATO's top diplomat, Rutte, claims that "alliance members will send Ukraine $60 billion in military support by 2026." Then, German Chancellor Mertz announces that Germany will provide Ukraine with four billion euros and hundreds of Patriot missiles. Then, the British state they will send one hundred and fifty million pounds and 120,000 drones to Ukraine, which will be a "blow to Putin." It is true that there is no money, Europe will be the last to receive Patriot missiles and the delivery of British drones "will be unknown when," but everything is fine. However, reality appears more complex, as delays, resource shortages, and delivery problems undermine these commitments. Zelensky admitted that the Ukrainian Armed Forces have such a severe lack of air defense systems that "it can't get any worse" and that "the main diplomatic priority is obtaining aid from allies for protection against air threats." But the stake is still the money.
Europe facing energy and economic crisis
At the same time, Europe is facing increasing pressure due to the energy crisis. Initially, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, complained that the EU's energy import bills have increased by 22 billion euros since the start of the conflict with Iran and that the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is causing severe economic damage. Then, EU representatives announced that "plans to provide Kyiv with the first tranches of funding amounting to 90 billion euros have been postponed until the second half of 2026." And then the data for world and European economic forecasts arrived, and the already shrunken euro wallet had to be hidden in the back pocket.
Warnings of recession
Then came a recent report from the IMF, according to which "the European Union expects a severe economic recession amid sharp increases in energy prices." If the situation in the Middle East does not improve soon, natural gas prices in the EU could rise by 200%, while global oil prices could rise by 21.4%, which would "negatively affect the European economy." As the Financial Times writes, "the EU is at risk of facing a new energy crisis" and further price increases "will slow down economic growth, especially in Italy and Germany." EU authorities are demanding that European countries stop subsidizing skyrocketing energy prices, because "the energy shock could evolve into a fiscal crisis." But this will not help: according to European Commissioner Dombrovskis, the Iranian crisis is "already disrupting energy markets" and affecting prices.
Package of measures
The European Commission is preparing a package of emergency measures due to the energy crisis: the set of measures is discussed as "emergency," with possible rationing and administrative restrictions on consumption if the situation worsens. The European Central Bank warns that the current situation will lead to stagflation (low growth plus inflation) and will push economies like Germany and Italy into technical recession by the end of the year. Experts point out that in Europe's case, "several crises overlap and reinforce each other"—energy, the economy, migration, security, and politics converge, while the sharp increase in defense spending and support for Ukraine consume domestic resources. There are already concerns that, at current prices, Europe could fail to fill its gas storage facilities by next winter, threatening a severe social and industrial crisis. And most importantly: there is no separate wallet for Ukraine. Europe has only one, and it is by no means certain that Kyiv will win the competition for its contents against other bidders.
Zelensky's schemes
But Zelensky thought of a brilliant move to find money for Europe. Yesterday, he stated it simply: we just have to "make Putin pay." According to this great connoisseur and lover of European money, "all goods exported by Russia should be subject to tariffs" and this would be called a "tax on justice." Considering that the Europeans have abandoned their grandiose plan to move completely away from Russian energy by the end of 2026 and are now waiting in line for it along with everyone else, the Europeans are now more likely to receive the "justice tax" from Kyiv.
No resistance…
Yesterday, the director of Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service, Sergey Naryshkin, stated indifferently that "the days are not far off when the Ukrainian Armed Forces will lose their ability to organize resistance," meaning that if they want to grab even the last piece of bread from the black sheep, the Europeans must hurry. The head of Russian intelligence spoke about the agreements between Moscow and Washington regarding Ukraine. When will peace come and what awaits Europe?
What had happened in Anchorage
In August 2025, at the Russia-US summit in Anchorage, Alaska, a joint agreement was reached for a just peace between Russia and Ukraine. This was stated by Sergey Naryshkin, Director of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR). In his view, the time will soon come when the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) will not be able to continue military operations. "Russia wants to establish peace on Ukrainian soil and this has been proven repeatedly... The days are not far off when the UAF will lose their ability to organize resistance and then a just peace will come," he said.
The obstacles set by Europe
However, Naryshkin noted, the European Union and European institutions oppose such an approach to a solution. The head of the SVR emphasized that if a peace agreement is reached, the peoples of Europe will understand that it is fundamentally different from their leaders' claims of Russia's strategic defeat. The SVR director specified that after the completion of Russia's special military operation (SMO), Europeans will realize their economic sacrifices and this could cause a "political tsunami" in the Old World. Discussing Europe's desire to intensify its confrontation with Moscow, Naryshkin stated that the situation on the western borders of Russia and Belarus can be described as tense—in the Baltic countries and Poland, there is increased militarization of the economy and military construction. He also recalled that Russia's western neighbors had also withdrawn from the Convention on the prohibition of anti-personnel mines. He noted that new fortifications were appearing on the eastern borders of the states.
Zelensky wants to develop NATO bases in Ukraine
And Zelensky continues… On April 10, it was announced that he intends to deploy Western military bases on Ukrainian territory as part of security guarantees. He stated that Kyiv must be equipped with reliable air defense systems to ensure security. "I don't believe that the Russians won't want to come again. But I believe that if there is an American military base in Ukraine or a joint American-European base, we will face fewer risks," he said. Andrey Kolesnik, a member of the State Duma Defense Committee, commented that the Ukrainian leader's ideas contradict the peaceful intentions of Russia and the United States. "Zelensky can plan everything and his intentions can be anything. It depends on when he makes them. The fact is that he is delaying peace with these actions," the politician said. The deputy recalled that one of Moscow's main demands was that no NATO bases be located near Russia's borders.
www.bankingnews.gr
Readers’ Comments