In one of the scariest moments in modern history, we're doing our best at ScheerPost to pierce the fog of lies that conceal it but we need some help to pay our writers and staff. Please consider a tax-deductible donation.
As ceasefire talks hang by a thread, rising tensions over the Strait of Hormuz reveal a stark reality: escalation could trigger a global economic catastrophe—and the United States may have far less control than it claims.
Joshua Scheer
The illusion of control is collapsing.
The story being told to the public is one of control—measured escalation, strategic pressure, and a superpower shaping outcomes in a volatile region.
The reality is something else entirely.
As the ceasefire deadline approaches, the United States is not dictating terms—it is reacting to them. Iran, through its ability to constrict or reopen the Strait of Hormuz, holds a form of leverage that no amount of rhetoric can override. Oil flows, fertilizer supply chains, shipping routes, and global food systems all run through this narrow corridor. And right now, that corridor is unstable.
What makes this moment especially dangerous is not just the risk of war—but the structure of it.
This is not a chaotic breakdown. It is a system under strain: competing pressures from Israel pushing for continued escalation, economic realities demanding de-escalation, and a U.S. leadership apparatus that appears, at times, unable or unwilling to reconcile the two. The result is a policy environment defined less by strategy than by contradiction.
In this conversation, Professor John Mearsheimer offers a blunt assessment: the United States cannot win an escalatory confrontation with Iran under these conditions. The longer the conflict continues, the more leverage shifts away from Washington and toward Tehran. Meanwhile, the global economy—already weakened—absorbs the shock in real time: energy disruptions, fertilizer shortages, rising food costs, and the creeping threat of systemic breakdown.
The war’s original objectives—eliminating Iran’s nuclear capacity, weakening its regional alliances, asserting dominance—remain unmet. In some cases, they have been reversed.
What remains is a narrowing set of options. Escalation risks triggering an economic crisis that could reverberate worldwide. De-escalation requires concessions that Washington—and its allies—have long resisted.
Between those two paths lies a fragile, temporary possibility: a ceasefire that holds just long enough to delay collapse.
Whether that window remains open is now the central question—not just for the region, but for the global system itself.
FULL TRANSCRIPT (CLEANED FOR PUBLICATION)
Iran, after initially balking, will send negotiators to Islamabad for a new round of talks with the United States less than 48 hours before the ceasefire is set to expire. Iran, however, has criticized the U.S. for violating the ceasefire from the beginning of its implementation, citing the U.S. naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz since April 13 and the seizure of an Iranian container ship.
Both, they say, are breaches of the truce as well as international law. Iran says that if the U.S. continues what it defines as acts of aggression, Iranian forces will respond accordingly.
Tehran’s 10-point proposal submitted before the first round of Islamabad talks is the basis for further negotiations. But the 10 points include a number of conditions the U.S. has repeatedly rejected. It demands the lifting of all primary and secondary sanctions on Iran, continued Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz, U.S. military withdrawal from the Middle East, an end to attacks on Iran and its allies, the release of some $100 billion in frozen Iranian assets, and a UN Security Council resolution making any deal binding.
So where are we? Is the Trump administration ready to make concessions in the face of Iran’s ability to strangle the global economy by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz? What will be the role of Israel, which has threatened to resume attacks on Iran, with perhaps only 5% of the pre-war 20% of the oil and natural gas making its way through the strait? How much more can the global economy, already under severe distress, endure before it triggers a global economic crisis?
Joining me to discuss the crisis in the Middle East is Professor John Mearsheimer. He is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago. Professor Mearsheimer, who graduated from West Point and was a captain in the U.S. Air Force, is the author of numerous books including Conventional Deterrence, Nuclear Deterrence, Ethics, Liddell Hart and the Weight of History, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, and Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics.
The big question for me, John, is: does the Trump administration realize, in your view, that this is a game that Iran controls — that essentially, because of their stranglehold on the Strait of Hormuz, they’re largely going to be able to dictate the terms?
Let me just reinforce what you said, Chris. I think there’s no question that if you go up the escalation ladder — which the Trump administration is threatening to do after the ceasefire ends on Wednesday — that we cannot win. In fact, I would make the argument that it’s in Iran’s advantage for the United States to go up the escalation ladder, because the longer this war goes on and the less oil that comes out of the Persian Gulf, and maybe even the Red Sea, the better for Iran.
So I think going up the escalation ladder makes no sense for us. The $64,000 question is whether or not President Trump and his advisers understand that. My guess is that they do, and therefore I think we will go to great lengths to work out some sort of deal on Wednesday, or before Wednesday, so that we don’t have to go up the escalation ladder.
I just find it hard to believe that the administration would be interested in escalating. But you never know with the Trump administration and with President Trump in particular. So it’s hard to say for sure, but I don’t see them going up the escalation ladder. I think they’ll try to craft a deal, and if they don’t have all of the essentials in place, they’ll just extend the ceasefire.
So that’s my surmise as to where this one is headed.
(SECTION BREAK — NEGOTIATION REALITY)
I want to ask you about the 10 points, because many of these — removal of U.S. military bases from the region, continued control of the Strait of Hormuz — these are pretty bitter pills for the United States to swallow.
I think there’s no question about that. I often say that when you look at what people are talking about in terms of a settlement this week, they focus on the nuclear issue — specifically enrichment. Hardly anyone is talking about reparations, sanctions, who controls the Strait of Hormuz, or U.S. military bases in the region.
The Iranians are deeply interested in getting some sort of security arrangement so that Israel and the United States don’t attack Iran again in six months. These are hugely complicated issues.
Even on the nuclear issue alone, it’s not clear where this leads. The United States would like to eliminate Iran’s enrichment capability completely. The Iranians are unwilling to do that. The U.S. and Israel want enriched uranium removed from the country; Iran says that won’t happen.
Compromises will have to be made — but they won’t be easy, and they won’t be quick.
(SECTION BREAK — PRESSURE FROM ISRAEL)
You have the Netanyahu government threatening to resume attacks. You also have influence from figures like Kushner and Witkoff — are they able to push Trump toward escalation?
Even without them, there is enormous pressure from pro-Israel forces in the United States. That creates real limits on what Trump can concede.
At the same time, Trump faces pressure from the other side — the economic collapse that could follow escalation. If this continues, the global economy could go off a cliff. That is the real incentive to settle quickly.
Israel, however, has no interest in settling this war. It wants Iran decisively defeated.
And if anyone has won this war so far, it’s Iran — not the United States.
(SECTION BREAK — LEBANON + REGIONAL DYNAMICS)
Lebanon has been a key subtext. Israel continued strikes even during the ceasefire.
The idea that Israel is interested in a meaningful ceasefire is not serious. What Israel is interested in is weakening Hezbollah and destabilizing Lebanon.
This also serves to undermine negotiations between Iran and the United States.
(SECTION BREAK — GLOBAL ECONOMIC CRISIS)
Let’s talk about the global economy.
There are multiple dimensions to the catastrophe we’re facing. I often describe it as the Titanic heading toward the iceberg. We haven’t hit it yet — but if we do, the damage will be catastrophic.
There is already:
- A helium shortage (critical for microchips)
- A slowdown in aluminum exports
- A fertilizer crisis (30% of global supply disrupted)
- Rising food insecurity
- Reduced oil flow
- Looming diesel and jet fuel shortages
Asia is already experiencing severe consequences. Europe is next. The United States will follow.
If this war escalates, the consequences will be devastating.
(SECTION BREAK — TRUMP DECISION-MAKING)
There is also the issue of leadership.
Trump does not respect expertise. He believes he knows everything and does not rely on specialists or institutions like the State Department.
There are reports — including from the Wall Street Journal — that during a crisis involving downed U.S. pilots, Trump reacted with hours-long rage, to the point where aides had to isolate him from decision-making.
If true, this raises serious questions about crisis leadership.
(SECTION BREAK — FINAL ANALYSIS)
We came into this war with four major objectives:
- End Iran’s nuclear enrichment
- Stop support for regional allies
- Eliminate missile capabilities
- Achieve regime change
We have failed on all four.
In fact, Iran now has more leverage than before — including effective control over the Strait of Hormuz.
The result is a strategic disaster.
Trump is now boxed in:
- Pressure from Israel pushing escalation
- Pressure from the global economy demanding de-escalation
There is almost no maneuvering room.
(FINAL EXCHANGE)
Do we limp forward with a ceasefire? A frozen conflict?
Yes — that may be the best we can hope for.
If we reach the brink of economic collapse, we may force a deal. But that deal will likely favor Iran.
The key point is this:
Iran is in the driver’s seat.
And unless something fundamentally changes, this conflict is headed toward prolonged instability — and potentially far worse.
Editor’s Note: At a moment when the once vaunted model of responsible journalism is overwhelmingly the play thing of self-serving billionaires and their corporate scribes, alternatives of integrity are desperately needed, and ScheerPost is one of them. Please support our independent journalism by contributing to our online donation platform, Network for Good, or send a check to our new PO Box. We can’t thank you enough, and promise to keep bringing you this kind of vital news.
You can also make a donation to our PayPal or subscribe to our Patreon.