Trump’s “Fog of War” Strategy Puts Tehran Under Pressure as Hormuz Talks Intensify

A defense analyst says Washington’s economic pressure and unpredictable messaging are forcing Iran to reconsider its position on the Strait of Hormuz.

As negotiations over the Strait of Hormuz continue, analysts are examining whether President Donald Trump’s combination of sanctions, military pressure, and deliberately uncertain messaging is creating enough pressure to bring Tehran back to the negotiating table.

The standoff over one of the world’s most important shipping routes has entered a critical phase. Commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has reportedly fallen sharply amid regional tensions, raising concerns about energy markets, international shipping and the wider economic consequences of a prolonged confrontation.

Against that backdrop, defense analyst Wolfgang Pusztai argues that Trump’s approach is not as contradictory as it may appear from the outside. The president’s alternating warnings of military action and openness to a negotiated settlement, Pusztai says, can be understood as a deliberate attempt to keep multiple audiences—and particularly Iranian decision-makers—uncertain about what Washington might do next.

The Strategy Behind the Uncertainty

Pusztai describes Trump’s public messaging as a form of strategic uncertainty, or what he calls creating a “fog of war.”

The basic idea is straightforward: Washington wants Tehran to understand that military options remain available while simultaneously leaving room for diplomacy.

That creates a difficult calculation for Iranian leaders. Escalation could bring greater economic and military consequences, while negotiations could offer a path toward easing pressure.

The strategy also allows the administration to avoid publicly committing itself to a single outcome before negotiations have produced concrete results.

For Trump, that flexibility has been a recurring feature of his foreign-policy approach. Supporters describe it as deterrence through strength, while critics argue that unpredictable rhetoric can increase the risk of miscalculation.

The outcome of the current negotiations will ultimately determine which interpretation proves more convincing.

Hormuz Remains the Central Pressure Point

At the heart of the dispute is the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow maritime passage connecting the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman.

The waterway is essential to global energy markets, making any sustained disruption potentially significant far beyond the Middle East.

The supplied analysis says shipping traffic has dropped from roughly 140 vessels per day before the crisis to only a handful during the most severe restrictions. If sustained, such a decline could place additional pressure on energy prices and global supply chains.

Iran has also faced questions over whether it could attempt to impose restrictions or fees on international vessels using the waterway.

Pusztai argues that legitimate charges for services such as navigation or environmental protection would be fundamentally different from compulsory payments designed to exert political leverage over international shipping.

That distinction could become important if negotiators reach an agreement governing the reopening of the waterway.

The Economic Weapon

Military power is only one part of Washington’s strategy.

Economic sanctions remain another major source of pressure on Tehran. The analysis cited here estimates that restrictions on Iranian oil exports and related economic pressure could be costing the country hundreds of millions of dollars in potential revenue each day.

Those figures should be treated cautiously until independently verified, but the broader strategic point is clear: Iran’s ability to withstand prolonged economic pressure is an important consideration in any negotiation.

A lengthy confrontation could damage Iran’s revenues while also creating economic problems for countries dependent on stable energy supplies.

That gives both sides an incentive to search for an exit.

Opening Hormuz May Not Be Enough

Even if an agreement restores normal shipping through the Strait, major questions would remain.

The immediate objective would be straightforward: restore safe and predictable maritime traffic.

But the larger dispute involves Iran’s nuclear program, regional security and the activities of Iranian-backed armed groups.

For Washington, therefore, reopening Hormuz would represent only one piece of a much larger diplomatic puzzle.

A temporary maritime arrangement could reduce immediate economic pressure, but a durable settlement would require agreements that both sides could verify and enforce.

That is where negotiations become considerably more difficult.

The High-Stakes Endgame

For now, Tehran and Washington remain locked in a contest involving military deterrence, economic pressure and diplomacy.

Trump’s strategy relies heavily on maintaining uncertainty about the next American move while keeping negotiations possible. Iran, meanwhile, must balance its public resistance against the economic and security costs of allowing the confrontation to continue.

That leaves the region approaching a pivotal moment.

If talks succeed, the Strait of Hormuz could move back toward normal operation and provide relief to global energy markets. If negotiations collapse, the military and economic pressure could intensify.

The real test of Trump’s strategy, however, will not be whether it generates dramatic headlines. It will be whether the pressure ultimately produces a verifiable agreement that reduces the risk of a wider conflict.

For now, the answer remains uncertain—and that uncertainty may be exactly what Washington wants Tehran to feel.