Daniel VO

Open source researcher

[Daniel VO @daniel_van0]

An article by Robert Kagan titled "Checkmate in Iran," published in The Atlantic, has finally injected a dose of realism into the delusional foreign policy discourse in Washington, where many observers and policymakers refuse to acknowledge the possibility of strategic defeat and remain in denial about the escalating global economic disaster.

The article contends, "Defeat for the United States is not only possible but likely." Kagan does not advise any particular policy actions (in fact he said in a TV interview, "I don't really know what the answer is"), but he seems to think that the U.S. will find a deescalation path, albeit one that leaves Iran in a dominant regional position.

I agree with Kagan on many points — in fact, I wrote on the third day of the war that American political discourse about Iran war was "overwhelmingly triumphalist, naïve, and insensitive to the seriousness of the moment." I contended that U.S. operations against Iran were "unsustainable," whereas the Iranian war effort was "sustainable," and I predicted that the Strait of Hormuz would remain closed and that oil prices would rise to $100-150/bbl (I now think $200+).

But I think that Kagan overcommits to the idea that Iran will control the Strait for the long term, restrict navigation through it, charge tolls, and "emerge from this war stronger than before the war began." He fails to discuss the scenario of a return to full-scale conflict, and the likelihood that a new round of prolonged conflict could severely weaken both the U.S. and Iran, as well as Israel.

To return to the chess analogy, this war could be still in its opening phase, on the verge of entering the middlegame, but not anywhere near a "checkmate" situation (Kagan wrote, "If this isn’t checkmate, it’s close"). Experienced chess players know that overconfident beginner/intermediate players often bring out their queen too early, overuse it, and sometimes end up getting trapped and losing this powerful piece early in the game.

That is the chess analogy that I would prefer. The U.S. has blundered early in the game, and clearly it is in a position that it could suffer a strategic defeat. But the U.S. still has a very powerful military and currently it is preparing to resume devastating attacks against Iran, even as Iran prepares precise attacks against economic infrastructure and shipping in the Gulf, as well as on Israel directly, U.S. bases, etc.

Is Trump really ready to walk away from the war, even as oil prices spike toward $200/bbl and Iran gloats over American weakness and cowardice? Or is he more likely to attempt a calibrated re-escalation (or a sudden and furious one)?

As the economic situation deteriorates and temperatures rise, one or both sides could take actions that trigger a return to full-scale conflict — even if neither side has a clear path to victory. The politicians and negotiators have had weeks to make progress toward a deal, and they failed.

I cannot pretend to know what the outcomes of this war will be. But in my view, Iran eventually will be forced to allow freedom of navigation — whether as a result of military, economic, or diplomatic pressures. In the meantime, I believe that the Strait of Hormuz closure will cause a crushing global economic recession (this is inevitable with or without a return to fighting). The oil spike will be severe but temporary (12-24 months). Eventually, oil and gas prices will fall back down due to "demand destruction" (economic inactivity), production increases elsewhere, and adoption of renewables.

By the time the Strait of Hormuz reopens, an exhausted world will have adapted to a new reality in which the Strait is no longer relied on, oil consumption is reduced, production outside the Middle East is increased, and the Gulf states are considered unsafe for investment, and unreliable trading partners. These developments ultimately would harm not only the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia, but also Iran itself.

Kagan is thus wrong when he writes, "the regime in Tehran currently stands to emerge from the crisis much stronger than it was before the war, having not only retained its potential nuclear capacity but also gained control of an even more effective weapon: the ability to hold the global energy market hostage."

There will be no clear victor in this war. If the U.S. and Iran cannot make peace, they will fight. And if they fight, everyone will lose. The whole global economy will suffer severely.

[Mat Nashed @matnashed]

Sudan's army is rewarding RSF defectors, while imprisoning and killing civilians they deem as "collaborators" based on flimsy intel.

The double standard has reinforced perceptions that Sudan's war is a war on civilians. #Sudan

My story for @truthout

https://t.co/mDJnI2iWPv

[Gregory Brew @gbrew24]

An argument I'm seeing is that the Strait of Hormuz is a "diminishing asset" for Iran, as the war is likely to incentivize regional states to develop alternative transit routes to reduce dependence on the Hormuz choke point.

It's true that alternative routes are likely (and a good idea! I've written about it), but arguing that this reduces Iran's potential leverage obscures the fact that any and all alternatives to Hormuz will lie within range of Iranian missiles and drones.

Hormuz is not Iran's only source of leverage in these negotiations. Its credible threat to lay waste to regional energy infrastructure if attacked is just as potent, and just as problematic.

[Karim Sadjadpour @ksadjadpour]

"The Iranian negotiation style is generally known in the world as the ‘bazaar style,’ which means continuous and tireless bargaining,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote in his 2025 diplomatic memoir. “This method is a process of interaction that requires great patience and time,” and thus, “he who gets tired and bored quickly will lose.” https://t.co/6RPjkzFCdg

[Tom Bike @tom_bike]

Unreported? 👇 252 m ship spotted in Strait of Hormuz entrance ON FIRE being approached by 4 large speedboats from Iran 🇮🇷 direction while another left the scene heading SE at

26.0972, 56.8303

2 DAYS AGO

[The Wall Street Journal @WSJ]

Exclusive: The United Arab Emirates carried out dozens of airstrikes against Iran beginning in the early days of the war, a deeper involvement than was previously known https://t.co/v5bwrMLKEd

[Daniel VO @daniel_van0]

The timestamps indicate that this destruction occurred after the RSF had been driven out of Khartoum, so it appears this neighborhood was deliberately demolished by Sudanese authorities. The heavily damaged intelligence service HQ and SAF General Command adjoin this area.

[Benjamin Strick @BenDoBrown]

Updated satellite imagery from March 2026 of Sudan's Khartoum on Google Earth shows impact of the widespread war on the country. For example, this destruction seen in the area near Khartoum Airport.

Location: 15.59743, 32.54336

[خبرگزاری تسنیم @Tasnimnews_Fa]

بر اساس متنی که هنوز نهایی نشده، در بازه ۳۰ روزه موضوع تنگه هرمز و محاصره دریایی پیش برده می‌شود و زمان ۶۰ روزه‌ای برای مذاکرات در مسئله هسته‌ای در نظر گرفته شده است

[خبرگزاری فارس @FarsNews_Agency]

🔴ادعای ترامپ درباره بازگشت تنگه هرمز به حالت قبل واقعیت ندارد
۱/۶

[(((James Acton))) @james_acton32]

The shifting descriptions of what’s in the deal make me suspect that the U.S. and Iran are further from agreement than tonight’s excitement on social media would suggest.

[Dr Andreas Krieg @andreas_krieg]

This is a solid and rare regional consensus telling Trump that escalation will be disastrous for the region, the world economy, and ultimately the US

On the other side of this consensus is Netanyahu

Whose side is @realDonaldTrump going to pick?

[Daniel VO @daniel_van0]

Excellent framing. I think Trump will choose Netanyahu + war, though I hope I'm wrong. A return to war could mean oil fires and spills throughout the Middle East, a years-long chaotic regional brawl, global economic recession and sovereign debt crises, massive destruction and unrest in Iran itself, and enormous secondary consequences including food/fuel shortages in parts of Africa that would cause famine, etc. https://t.co/OsdfY2MDnB

[الخارجية القطرية @MofaQatar_AR]

رئيس مجلس الوزراء وزير الخارجية @MBA_AlThani_ يجري اتصالاً هاتفياً مع وزير الخارجية السعودي

الدوحة | 23 مايو 2026

أجرى معالي الشيخ محمد بن عبد الرحمن بن جاسم آل ثاني، رئيس مجلس الوزراء وزير الخارجية، اتصالاً هاتفياً، مع صاحب السمو الأمير فيصل بن فرحان بن عبدالله آل سعود، وزير الخارجية بالمملكة العربية السعودية الشقيقة.

جرى خلال الاتصال، استعراض علاقات التعاون بين البلدين وسبل دعمها وتعزيزها، ومناقشة جهود الوساطة الباكستانية بين الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية والجمهورية الإسلامية الإيرانية.

كما تناول الاتصال، تنسيق الجهود لدعم الوساطة الهادفة لخفض التصعيد، بما يسهم في تعزيز الأمن والاستقرار في المنطقة.

وأعرب معالي رئيس مجلس الوزراء وزير الخارجية، خلال الاتصال، عن ضرورة تجاوب كافة الأطراف مع جهود الوساطة الجارية، بما يفتح المجال أمام معالجة جذور الأزمة عبر الوسائل السلمية والحوار، ويفضي للتوصل إلى اتفاق مستدام، يحول دون تجدد التصعيد.

#الخارجية_القطرية

[Bundeskanzler Friedrich Merz @bundeskanzler]

Die Gewalt durch Siedler im Westjordanland hat ein beispielloses Ausmaß erreicht. Mit dem Vereinigten Königreich, Frankreich und Italien fordere ich Israel auf, die Ausweitung der Siedlungen zu beenden. Für einen umfassenden, gerechten Frieden auf Basis einer Zwei-Staaten-Lösung.

[Dr Andreas Krieg @andreas_krieg]

THERE IS NO MILITARY WAY OUT OF THIS QUAGMIRE

Unless the US is willing to commit trillions of $, 500,000 boots on the ground plus, and years of protracted insurgency

Diplomacy in small steps is the only feasible and acceptable way forward to achieve the desired outcome

[Iftikhar Firdous @IftikharFirdous]

“We are very close to an agreement but even closer to a resumption of war,” a Tehran-based source with direct knowledge of the developments surrounding the negotiations between the United States and Iran says when asked about the array of news-pegs floating around the Internet.

[Daniel VO @daniel_van0]

The United States could resume attacks on Iran at any time. The decision is Trump’s alone. Why is so much power in the hands of a single man? Afterwards, Americans will debate the cost in money, lives, mil equipment & economic impact. Is this necessary? Is America ready for war?

[The New York Times @nytimes]

Breaking News: Iran and Oman are in talks over a payment system for ships crossing the Strait of Hormuz, despite warnings from the Trump administration. https://t.co/IuBux7BHnV

[Becca Wasser @becca_wasser]

Fighting wars from a distance still comes at a cost: the US has lost 24+ MQ-9 Reaper drones in the Iran war -- nearly $1B. But with no active production line, these drones are too expensive and too few to be seen as easily expendable.

Quoted @business: https://t.co/ASEPdibGgE

[Daniel VO @daniel_van0]

@PhillipsPOBrien That would be one of the better potential outcomes. A worse outcome will be oil fires and oil spills throughout the Middle East, a years-long chaotic regional brawl, global economic recession and sovereign debt crises, massive destruction and unrest in Iran itself, etc.

[Daniel VO @daniel_van0]

If you’re unfamiliar with the role the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has played in Sudan and the region, read this article by @NesrineMalik. It aptly addresses both the UAE’s economic and ideological motivations.

The UAE must be seen (and treated diplomatically) as an active belligerent in Sudan’s war. What the article omits is that the UAE has shown willingness to negotiate to end the war, both directly (but unofficially) and through the RSF — overtures that the Sudanese military has always rejected.

Additionally, the UAE’s interference in Sudan is only part of the story, since Egypt and Türkiye are significant military actors on the other side of the conflict.

https://t.co/iQ5wj5guIy