April 23, 2026
President Donald Trump has demanded a rapid end to the conflict with Iran, escalating airstrikes, threatening to destroy infrastructure, pursuing diplomatic contact and imposing a naval blockade. Yet Tehran shows little sign of rushing toward a settlement.
Western diplomats and officials with access to intelligence assessments say that, despite targeted assassinations of Iranian figures and strikes on military sites, the regime in Tehran has in some ways emerged more politically cohesive and harder-line. Large anti-government protests that had shaken the country before the war have largely subsided, and moderates and reformists have been sidelined, officials say, because heavy U.S. attacks and aggressive U.S. rhetoric undercut arguments that engagement with Washington would bring benefits.
At home, the political price for the White House is rising as midterm elections approach, a critical meeting with China’s leader nears, and fuel prices climb. New polls show majorities disapprove of Trump’s stewardship of the war. A Western official familiar with intelligence told NBC News that Iran “doesn’t seem to be in a rush to negotiate.” The president, for his part, denied facing time pressure, posting on Truth Social that he is among the least pressured people in such a position and asserting he has “all the time in the World,” while warning that Tehran is on the clock.
Trump repeatedly predicted the conflict would be short — calling it a “little excursion” early on and at times saying the campaign was on schedule — and has insisted he does not want to rush a resolution, citing the long durations of past American wars and saying he wants to negotiate a strong deal.
But as the fighting continues, voter unease has grown. An NBC News Decision Desk poll of registered voters found roughly two-thirds disapprove of how the president has handled the war, and other polling shows Democrats gaining ground on issues such as inflation and the economy. Analysts are divided over whether time favors Iran in the confrontation centered on the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint that handles roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas shipments. Some supporters of the U.S. blockade argue it will force Tehran to concede; critics warn that prolonged pressure may not produce the desired result.
Georgetown University scholar Daniel Byman argues Washington and Tehran see the stakes differently: Iran views the conflict as existential while many Americans are likely to tire and move on, making prolonged resistance a viable Iranian strategy. He cautioned that bluster by U.S. leaders risks convincing Tehran that Washington’s red lines may not be real.
Trump has publicly extended deadlines for a deal multiple times, each extension accompanied by stern threats. White House advisers have debated whether to announce yet another public deadline only to miss it. Weeks ago the president threatened to “obliterate” power plants if Iran did not fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz, then paused strikes amid reported diplomatic movements, later pushing back the timeline repeatedly. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said only the president would set the next deadline.
Diplomatic efforts have stumbled. Vice President J.D. Vance prepared to travel to Pakistan for a second round of talks after an initial session failed, but that trip was postponed. Special envoy Steve Witkoff and adviser Jared Kushner were called to the White House to discuss next steps before being told representatives would not be sent to Islamabad immediately.
Trump is betting that a U.S.-led naval blockade of Iranian ports will compel Tehran to reopen the strait. U.S. officials and blockade proponents argue that cutting off Iran’s oil exports will ultimately trigger runaway inflation and financial collapse, forcing Iranian leaders back to the table. Since the blockade began, U.S. forces have boarded at least two vessels linked to Iran and have turned away about 33 ships approaching the strait.
The blockade could alter Tehran’s calculations over time because Tehran depends on oil revenue. But Western officials say Iran has looked for ways to offset those losses, including charging fees for ship transit, selling oil from offshore storage near Asian buyers, using pipeline exports, and tapping reserves. Tehran also retains leverage: it controls access through the Strait of Hormuz and has intermittently attacked ships, disrupting the flow of oil, fertilizer and other goods and causing global economic ripple effects.
Analysts note Iran still possesses missiles, drones and naval mines sufficient to exert control over the strait, and the regime has learned that even sporadic strikes or threats drive up insurance and freight costs, amplifying the blockade’s impact without continuous large-scale operations.
Iranian parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said Tehran would not bow to Washington’s terms, arguing any ceasefire must be genuine and that reopening the strait is impossible while what he called a maritime blockade and economic hostage-taking continue. He asserted that U.S. and Israeli military action had failed to achieve their goals and would not succeed through intimidation.
Before recent military actions, Tehran had shown more willingness to compromise, including concessions related to its nuclear program. Now, with de facto control over the Strait of Hormuz and ways to generate revenue or ride out sanctions, some Western diplomats say Iran has little incentive to capitulate. The regime appears ready to wait, betting that American political fatigue and economic pain will eventually make sustaining the campaign and blockade politically costly for Washington.
As the standoff stretches on, the White House continues to hope that pressure at sea will force a negotiated outcome. Tehran, concluding the conflict threatens its survival, looks prepared to test how long the United States will maintain both military pressure and its blockade.