Iran stops negotiations with U.S., vows to 'completely' block Strait of Hormuz: State media

[u/Agitated_Pudding7259]

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/01/iran-us-negotiations-strait-of-hormuz.html

The article says Iran announced Monday it will cut off all negotiations with the U.S. and move to fully close the Strait of Hormuz, citing Israeli military operations in Lebanon as ceasefire violations. Tehran also threatened to activate the Bab el-Mandeb Strait chokepoint connecting the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden. Oil prices jumped over 7 percent on the news.

The breakdown comes just days after Trump convened a Situation Room meeting to decide on a deal but left without making a decision. Trump posted on May 23 that a peace deal was "largely negotiated" and "Final aspects and details of the Deal are currently being discussed, and will be announced shortly." Both sides launched new attacks in the following days, and Israel escalated in Lebanon with Netanyahu ordering strikes on Hezbollah-controlled Beirut suburbs. Iran's foreign minister said the ceasefire applies to all fronts including Lebanon, and violations on one front constitute violations on all.

The Strait of Hormuz has been effectively choked off since the war began on February 28, with ship traffic far below the prewar level of 100+ vessels per day. About a fifth of global oil supplies passed through the strait before the conflict. Gas prices had come down some in recent weeks on deal optimism, but that appears to be evaporating. There are also concerns Iran could impose a tolling system on ships transiting the strait.

Trump posted on Truth Social that Iran "really wants to make a deal" and told critics to "just sit back and relax, it will all work out well in the end. It always does!"

If Iran really wants to make a deal why are they walking away form negotiations? If the US is winning this war, why are we suing for peace?

The answer is because Iran's strategy is working. Our president and the "secretary of war" who was confirmed by one vote are not reliable sources of information.

They have been preparing for this war for decades and they know how to win it. Choking off a fifth of global oil supply has driven U.S. gas prices up 50%, cratered Trump's approval ratings, and Republicans are openly panicking about the midterms. They know the situation trump has created is FUBAR and they know they're cooked in november. Iran doesn't need to win on the battlefield. They just need to hold out and make the economic pain unsustainable until the administration comes to terms.

[u/rwk81]

Trump has been saying the same thing about Iran since the 80's or 90's, which is they need to be dealt with militarily.

The whole line about Israel was going to attack so we had to pre-emt Iran was said once or twice, but if anything that's more of a timing issue rather than a attack or don't attack issue.

We don't believe that Iran was an imminent threat.

The person has been telling you they want to kill you and your family, so you have to wait until they're in you're house with a gun holding you're whole family at gun point before you do anything? The entire iminent threat line makes no sense to me.

We are tired of being the world's police.

This I get, and we can certainly relinquish that role to other countries that are willing to fill it, like China. I'm not sure that's in our best long term interests, but who knows.

We were lied to about Iraq and we remember that.

So now every conflict is judged by Iraq as long as we remember the justification was wrong?

Trump never actually made the case to us, to congress or to allies. He just did whatever he wanted.

Iran has been making this case for us for decades, we've just been ignoring it.

When they did explain it, we got several reasons that don't match.

So losing is in our best interest rather than seeing it through?

Trump's decision making is not trusted.

So losing is in our best interest?

They clearly underestimated Iran's will.

So? The IRGC doesn't want to lose control, massive damage has still been done to their ability to project power regionally and globally.

When this does end, it's not going to be significantly better than the deal that Trump tore up years ago, so we've faced a bunch of pain just to undo his earlier mistake.

This is how you want it to be so that Trump doesn't get a win, it's politics.

[u/MCRemix → u/rwk81]

The person has been telling you they want to kill you and your family, so you have to wait until they're in you're house with a gun holding you're whole family at gun point before you do anything? The entire iminent threat line makes no sense to me.

They need to actually be a threat. We were told the nuclear program was obliterated a year ago and this administrations own intel chief on Iran told Congress that they weren't rebuilding it.

So what was the threat?

Also, do you think they're going to be less likely to want to kill us now? Less likely to chant "death to America"?

So now every conflict is judged by Iraq as long as we remember the justification was wrong?

No, the point is that we don't trust our government to be telling us the truth.

See e.g., the point above about the nuclear program being "obliterated" and "not rebuilding" and then we're told that they're just weeks away from nukes.

We don't believe them.

Iran has been making this case for us for decades, we've just been ignoring it.

That sidesteps the issue, the president is still supposed to make the case to us, congress and allies.

Failure to do so is why Americans don't support the war. (Which was our original discussion)

So losing is in our best interest rather than seeing it through?

That's a strawman. Also don't know what you mean by "seeing it through".

The goals they said they want to achieve require boots on the ground and occupation.

Are you willing to do that?

So unless you want to put boots on the ground, yeah, we just need to make a deal. Idk if you consider that winning or losing, I consider it ending the war.

This is how you want it to be so that Trump doesn't get a win, it's politics.

Please don't assume things about my thinking.

Yes, I'm anti trump. No, I'm not incapable of assessing things rationally.

You also dodged the point.

We HAD a deal with Iran, when we're done we're going to have another deal with Iran. At this point we have no reason to think that the new deal will be better than the old deal. So we're here just to clean up his mess from his first term.

[u/rwk81 → u/MCRemix]

>They need to actually be a threat. We were told the nuclear program was obliterated a year ago and this administrations own intel chief on Iran told Congress that they weren't rebuilding it.

Literally everything Iran has been saying and doing is moving them towards the ability to hit the west with ballistic missiles and the goal of being able to arm them with nukes. What do you think their space program is? Could they not just buy a weapon from NK and slap it on one of their rockets and say they have nukes?

>Also, do you think they're going to be less likely to want to kill us now? Less likely to chant "death to America"?

The logic is don't attack the people that say they want to kill us and take actions that make that possible because it might make them madder? Thank God that sentiment didn't win out with Hitler.

>No, the point is that we don't trust our government to be telling us the truth. See e.g., the point above about the nuclear program being "obliterated" and "not rebuilding" and then we're told that they're just weeks away from nukes.

I'd prefer to not wait until they have nukes to handle the situation. Iran has been at war with the West for 50 years, we are just now waking up to that fact.

>That sidesteps the issue, the president is still supposed to make the case to us, congress and allies. Failure to do so is why Americans don't support the war. (Which was our original discussion)

There is no case that could be made that would lead to those who don't support him to all of the sudden support him and the conflict. It's all politics, plain and simple.

>That's a strawman. Also don't know what you mean by "seeing it through". The goals they said they want to achieve require boots on the ground and occupation. Are you willing to do that? So unless you want to put boots on the ground, yeah, we just need to make a deal. Idk if you consider that winning or losing, I consider it ending the war.

It's not a strawman, it's a real scenario, those are the options. I'd be willing to use the marines to open up the straight or take Kharg Island, but I don't think there's any need or reason to occupy the entire country.

Hell, destroy Kharg Island and then maybe the straight takes care of itself because Iran will lose the ability to export energy which is the life blood of the country.

>Please don't assume things about my thinking.

It's based on observation, pretty normal human behavior to observe and make assumptions.

>We HAD a deal with Iran, when we're done we're going to have another deal with Iran. At this point we have no reason to think that the new deal will be better than the old deal. So we're here just to clean up his mess from his first term.

Regardless of what you think about Trump, the prior Iran deal was inarguably awful. It didn't stop Iran from building towards nuclear weapons it only slowed it down a little, it flushed them with cash to then use to arm proxies, and the inspection enforcement that was agreed to was a joke. Iran could have easily been doing everything they weren't supposed to be doing and there was nothing that anyone could do about it based on the JCPOA terms.

As far as what the new agreement might look like, we have no clue, we are just seeing a bunch of propaganda.

[u/MCRemix → u/rwk81]

Literally everything Iran has been saying and doing is moving them towards the ability to hit the west with ballistic missiles and the goal of being able to arm them with nukes.

Sure. But they still weren't a threat according to this own administration.

I WANT to be a billionaire and I'm consistently moving towards that, but I'm still a long ways off. There is no real chance I get there.

The logic is don't attack the people that say they want to kill us and take actions that make that possible because it might make them madder? Thank God that sentiment didn't win out with Hitler.

Do you really think Iran 2026 and WW2 Germany are comparable?

The correct answer was diplomacy, not bombs. We could've had the JCPOA or another replacement for that deal, instead we got war.

I'd prefer to not wait until they have nukes to handle the situation. Iran has been at war with the West for 50 years, we are just now waking up to that fact.

I disagree. And also, as I pointed out before, this isn't going to change their minds at all, they're still going to hate us and they're not going to stop existing.

There is no case that could be made that would lead to those who don't support him to all of the sudden support him and the conflict. It's all politics, plain and simple.

"some people will never like him so don't bother doing the correct, presidential thing"

Got it.

It's not a strawman

It was a strawman, you decided to pretend like the only options are "see it through" or "lose". That kind of binary thinking is pretty much always wrong and it's definitely a strawman.

We don't have to "lose" to end this war in a way that keeps nukes out of Iran's hands, just fucking negotiate.

It's based on observation, pretty normal human behavior to observe and make assumptions.

Law 1 exists in this sub. Don't make assumptions about me as a person, make arguments.

Regardless of what you think about Trump, the prior Iran deal was inarguably awful.

Then the answer was re-negotiate it back then, not destroy it outright.

Do you think things got BETTER after he did that?

No, they're demonstrably worse now.