Direct translation
Iran is playing dirty tricks?! Trump has a way to deal with it
—Facing Iran's most intractable problem: The adversary is not afraid to pay the price
Editor : Fang Xun / Source: Binwen Tianxia / https://www.aboluowang.com/2026/0813/2420274.html
Recent reports from some so-called mainstream media outlets have portrayed Iran's escalating negotiating demands and increased concessions from the U.S. as a growing predicament for Trump.
This narrative easily creates the impression that while Iran is not in a hurry, Trump is. It seems to suggest that if Iran continues to drag things out, the US will eventually concede due to oil prices, the cost of war, and domestic political pressure.
But the real question is: which side is time on? If we consider the economic, energy, and regional dynamics beyond the battlefield, the answer may be entirely different from what some media outlets are describing.
Trump's real challenge may not be how to end the war quickly, but rather a more complex issue: if the other side prefers to continue suffering enormous losses rather than relinquish its nuclear capabilities and the strategic system upon which its regime depends, how can the US force it to recalculate the costs?
Trump may not necessarily be more anxious than Iran
To understand the current situation, we must first look at a very real indicator: oil.
If the conflict with Iran renders the Strait of Hormuz ineffective, international oil prices surge uncontrollably, and global supply chains suffer severe disruptions, then the pressure on Washington will certainly increase rapidly, and Trump will have to find a way to end the conflict as soon as possible. However, the most noteworthy phenomenon at present is that the international energy market is seeking a new balance. Even with the continued security risks posed by the Strait of Hormuz, some oil shipments can still be maintained using the shipping lanes closer to Oman; meanwhile, Saudi Arabia possesses east-west oil pipelines that can transport crude oil directly to the port of Yanbu on the Red Sea coast, thus bypassing the Strait of Hormuz.
Iraq is also seeking more land-based export routes and pushing to restore its oil shipping capacity towards the Mediterranean.
These alternative routes cannot completely replace the Strait of Hormuz, but they at least illustrate one thing: Iran is not as easily able to control the world through energy transportation as one might imagine.
If the international market gradually adapts to the new transportation landscape, and oil prices do not experience a sustained, uncontrolled surge, then the time pressure will shift, and the United States may not need to rush to end this contest.
On the contrary, it is Iran itself that may not be able to withstand the long-term strain.
Trump used an interesting analogy when discussing the current situation: like playing chess, there's always a way out.
This statement aligns well with his negotiating style: if time is weakening the opponent, the least necessary thing to do is worry about them.
What Trump wants to offer Iran is actually a way out
Understanding this is key to understanding why Trump has never simply defined his goal as destroying Iran.
What the Trump administration truly wants to change is Iran's behavior. If Tehran is willing to make significant concessions on nuclear issues, ballistic missiles, the Strait of Hormuz, and regional proxy issues, Trump clearly prefers to see an Iran that re-enters the international economic system, resumes oil exports, attracts foreign investment, and even gradually becomes wealthy, rather than a vast ruin with nearly 100 million people, mired in poverty and war.
Therefore, the U.S. has never only played with bombs. Frozen Iranian assets, economic sanctions, oil exports, the international financial system, and future large-scale investments from Gulf states and private capital can all become bargaining chips.
The logic is easy to understand: you give up the most dangerous things, and we'll let you do business again; you stop threatening your neighbors, and capital will re-enter; you abandon the path to nuclear weapons, and Iran will have a chance to emerge from long-term sanctions and the shadow of war.
For a government that rationally considers its national interests, this should at least be a choice worth careful consideration.
The problem lies precisely here.
National interests are not necessarily the interests of the regime
When analyzing other countries, Westerners often subconsciously assume that every government ultimately wants its people to be better off. Economic growth is always better than recession, international investment is always better than sanctions, peace is always better than war, and urban prosperity is always better than infrastructure destruction.
From the perspective of ordinary people, this is certainly true. But from the perspective of a highly ideological regime, the answer is not necessarily so, because the nation and the regime are not entirely the same thing.
For ordinary Iranians, a more stable currency, better jobs, freer trade, and no longer being threatened by war are obviously all good things.
However, the ruling group may be considering entirely different issues. Its primary concern is: Can I continue to hold power? If opening up means losing control, if reconciliation with the West means weakening its ideological legitimacy, if giving up nuclear capabilities means losing its last strategic deterrent, then even if the entire country loses hundreds of billions of dollars in profits, the ruling group may still consider it a worthwhile price to pay.
This is where Trump's real predicament lies. He's not necessarily facing an opponent unaware of the magnitude of economic interests; rather, the opponent believes that certain things are more important than the economy.
When "making you rich" no longer holds sufficient allure
Trump's most adept diplomatic language is actually about making deals. His typical thinking has always been: I can make you pay an unbearable price, or I can give you enormous benefits—the choice is yours.
This is why Trump's diplomacy often simultaneously presents two seemingly contradictory elements—maximum pressure on one hand, and constantly leaving the door open for negotiation on the other.
Because both are essentially part of the same strategy. Pressure tells the other side "what will happen if we don't talk," while interests tell the other side "what we will gain if we talk."
However, the trouble lies in the fact that if a regime is willing to allow its economy to stagnate indefinitely, is willing to subject ordinary citizens to sanctions, and even is willing to endure military strikes, as long as its core power structure can continue to exist, then simply increasing the economic benefits of peace may not be enough to change its decision.
The question then shifts: it's no longer, "How much more money do we need to give Iran?" but rather, "What price would truly alter Tehran's strategic calculations?"
These two questions seem similar, but they are fundamentally different. The former is about bargaining; the latter is about deterrence.
The biggest problem with mainstream media narratives: Criticizing Trump is certainly not a problem; the media has a duty to monitor. However, monitoring and preconceived conclusions are not the same thing.
If reports only emphasize Iran's demands and the pressure Trump faces, but rarely discuss the economic costs Iran is paying, the energy market's resilience to conflict, and the shifting regional power balance, then readers are not getting a complete picture.
This easily creates a strange illusion: that as long as Tehran continues to reject the agreement, it holds the upper hand.
But a higher bid at the negotiating table doesn't necessarily mean more cards in hand. Someone running out of chips can still bang on the table, and might even bang it louder.
Therefore, what truly matters is not who shouts the loudest, but who is more capable of enduring time.
If global energy markets continue to function, the US economy doesn't suffer an unbearable shock from the war, while Iran's oil revenues, foreign trade, finances, and military supplies remain under pressure, then the strategic clock may actually be ticking in a different direction.
The issue that truly cannot be delayed is the nuclear issue
If Iran were merely an economically struggling, ideologically rigid regional power, the US could simply wait.
What truly changes the entire calculation is nuclear weapons. Once a regime that has long been hostile to the US and its regional allies acquires a credible nuclear deterrent, the risks of all military options will fundamentally change.
Actions that can be tolerated today may mean entirely different consequences a few years later. Therefore, what history should truly remember is not simply equating today's Iran with Germany in 1933.
That analogy is too crude.
What should truly be remembered is a more general principle: once some threats acquire irreversible capabilities, the cost of dealing with them suddenly increases.
Nuclear weapons are such a capability. Therefore, what Trump truly needs to assess is not how many missiles Iran can launch today, but rather: if the US continues to wait a few more years, will Iran become easier or more difficult to control?
Which side is time on?
This may be the most noteworthy question to observe in the coming months.
Some media outlets hope to portray the story as follows: Iran escalates its demands, Trump is eager to end the war, and therefore the US is ultimately forced to make concessions.
But another possibility exists. The global energy market is adapting, alternative shipping routes are increasing, and the U.S. has not immediately fallen into an unbearable economic crisis due to Iran's continued resistance.
Meanwhile, Iran must continue to face blocked oil exports, trade difficulties, financial pressure, military drain, and diplomatic isolation.
If this trend continues, then what may become increasingly expensive is not Trump's patience, but Iran's refusal.
Trump's most successful negotiators in the past all share a common characteristic: they ultimately knew what they could not afford to lose.
Iran now faces the same choice. On one hand, it can abandon its nuclear weapons program, accept reliable inspections, reduce regional confrontation, and re-enter the global economic system. On the other hand, it can continue to erode its resources.
The choice may be left to Tehran, but what the U.S. truly needs to do is widen the gap in costs between the two options.
Therefore, what Trump needs most right now is perhaps not haste, but patience. Because in a game of chess that has entered the middle stages, the most important thing is never who bangs their fist on the table the loudest, but whose pieces are dwindling.
Trump suddenly seems less anxious! Iran may have miscalculated
—Trump: Either deliver a heavy blow or collapse the Iranian economy
Editor: Zhongkang / Source: Epoch Times / https://www.aboluowang.com/2026/0812/2419989.html / Image : On 10 August 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters after signing an executive order in the Oval Office of the White House. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images/AFP)
Iran thinks it can drag down Trump? Experts warn: Tehran is the One that can't Afford to waste time
Victor Davis Hansen:
[This war has become so highly politicized in an election year that several fundamental realities have been almost completely ignored by the media.
The seemingly endless cycle of "bombing, pause, negotiation, and more bombing" masks the true effects of the embargo, sanctions, blockade, and financial isolation on Iran. These measures combined are costing the theocratic regime over $400 million a day—a loss it simply cannot afford. Iran thinks it can drag things out until the US midterm elections through endless bargaining; in reality, it is only prolonging its predicament.]
@FloppingAces:
[Iran believes: "As long as the Strait remains semi-blockaded, and we drag out those endless, ridiculous negotiations until the midterm elections, the Americans will soften and withdraw." The mullahs comfort each other, firmly believing that time is on their side.
But the reality is: this regime is losing over $400 million every day.] The riyal, once worth 70 to 1 against the dollar, has now plummeted to 1.9 million to 1 and continues its downward spiral. Only a third of the working-age population actually have jobs; even those who do, their meager official wages are insufficient to buy food. Fuel is rationed like wartime supplies, power outages are frequent in the sweltering heat of 120 degrees Fahrenheit (approximately 49 degrees Celsius), and water resources are dwindling. When salaries began to stop, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Basij militias had already tasted the bitterness of being penniless.
Trump intentionally kept a low profile… watching the entire regime slowly suffocate from hyperinflation, international isolation, and the lack of wages for its henchmen. Meanwhile, the media panicked because there were no daily bombings. The mullahs had hoped time would save their pitiful lives, but it turned out that time was precisely what they couldn't afford to waste.
Barak Lavid:
Just a week ago, Trump almost ordered the resumption of major military operations. In an interview with Axios, however, he made no new military threats and showed no anger at Iran's delay in announcing an agreement with Oman to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
Trump's exact words were: "We're doing it in a low-key manner." "We're only in a semi-negotiating state. We're just looking at Iran's huge inflation and the fact that they have no money."
He emphasized that Iran's economy was in "very bad shape" and that it no longer had the money to pay its military. The US naval blockade further exacerbated the regime's economic crisis. Meanwhile, oil prices fell back to just above $75 a barrel, and the war pain felt by American consumers significantly lessened.
"Things will be resolved. They always will be resolved. It's like a game of chess," Trump described the back-and-forth game with Iran.
Duane Patterson frankly stated:
"Hawks like myself who advocate for a tough stance against Iran are frustrated by the lack of meaningful momentum action.
A week has passed, and there is still no agreement." The regime in Tehran, led by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, has not surrendered, and aside from verbal bluster—claiming that by this time next year, Iran's tollbooth in the Strait of Hormuz will be gilded—nothing substantial has been achieved.
But in the Oval Office, when asked by reporters about the possibility of a deal with Iran, Trump said, "I don't think they'll last much longer."
Based on what I've recently seen in open-source information, this assessment closely aligns with publicly available evidence, and the president clearly possesses intelligence far exceeding what is publicly available.
For the Iranian regime, the most lethal target of reckoning has never been the United States or Israel, but its own people.
Iranians understand their country's true economic potential and know they should be better off. The revolutionary ideology of the Islamic Republic is dead.
The regime can temporarily evade external accountability, but the harshest punishment it faces now is being forced to confront domestic realities—an economy that, without the cover of a state of war, would immediately expose hyperinflation, mass unemployment, corrupt trade, war losses, and a paralyzed political system.
Iran has never been so diplomatically isolated, its share of global trade plummeting from 2.2% to less than 0.02%. They virtually cease manufacturing or exporting anything that requires personnel outside the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or the Basij—people who have gone months without pay. Even companies from friendly nations refuse to do business with them due to the risks of sanctions and war.
Currently, only about 35% of working-age Iranians are actually employed, and the minimum wage covers only about a quarter of the actual cost of living. While the official unemployment rate is slightly below 10%, seemingly not catastrophic, the reality is entirely different when you consider that only 40% of the able-bodied are still actively seeking work, while the rest have long since given up looking for jobs that don't even exist.
The rial's plunge against the dollar is equally catastrophic, and there are currently no signs of it bottoming out.
@FloppingAces:
[The media keeps asking: "Did Trump bomb Iran today?" No bombing today? That means "Trump backed down." Negotiations are underway? That means "Iran survived."
But the question is wrong.] The questions to ask are: Is Iran stronger today than it was three months ago? Is its economy healthier? Is the Strait of Hormuz more valuable? Is its military stronger?
Victor Hansen's view, while not as "exciting" as CNN, is more important: even without dropping bombs, Iran is failing—sanctions are still in effect, blockades are still exerting pressure, and financial isolation is still causing revenue losses. And the option of military strike remains on the table.
Later Monday (August 10), in a public interview, US President Trump accused Iran of being a "cunning negotiating partner." He also discussed his current strategy towards Iran, stating that he intends to either continue to wear Iran down (bop along), allowing its economy to collapse, or to give Iran a "very, very heavy blow."
“I’m negotiating, you could say,” Trump said in a phone interview with Real America’s Voice. “They’re very cunning negotiating partners.”
“Because they’ll agree to something first, then turn around and tell the media they never agreed to it. They’re very dishonest people,” Trump said in a video clip shared by the White House.
Since the conflict erupted in late February, US-Iran negotiations have been on and off. Pakistani Defense Minister Khawaja Asif, the mediator, told Bloomberg in Islamabad on Tuesday that the US and Iran were close to reaching “some kind of arrangement.”
Qatar stated that negotiations on controlling the Strait of Hormuz had entered a deeper stage. However, media reports indicate that ships transiting the area have been subjected to new attacks.
In an interview, Trump described one of his possible strategies: “Do what I’m doing right now: just wait and see how bad their situation gets.”
“Economically, they’re a mess. They can’t borrow. We control their money—that is, all the money they used to have, a huge amount. They used to have a lot of money, and now we have complete control of that money. I’m their banker,” he said. The president was referring to frozen Iranian assets.
As the Trump administration continues to economically pressure the Iranian regime, the U.S. is increasing its enforcement efforts, and the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports continues. The Wall Street Journal reported that a U.S. official said that U.S. forces fired on a Panamanian-flagged ship earlier on Tuesday that attempted to break through the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports.
According to the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), Iranian government spokesman Fatemeh Mohajerani stated in July that Iran was facing energy shortages; since the outbreak of conflict with the U.S. and Israel, it has lost approximately 230 million cubic meters of daily natural gas production capacity.
In an interview, Trump also stated that another option was to "give them a very, very heavy blow."
Regarding media reports about insufficient U.S. military ammunition reserves, the president stated that the U.S. is "producing ammunition like crazy."
"Our ammunition is fine... Although we are producing like crazy, the reason the stockpiles are low is because he (Biden) provided Ukraine with $300 billion worth of ammunition," Trump said.
