US President Donald Trump stated in an interview with CNBC that he does not intend to extend the ceasefire with Iran. The truce is set to expire on Wednesday. He noted that the US military used the ceasefire period to replenish equipment stocks and is prepared to resume attacks against Iran. Iranian political analyst Pouya Hosseini commented on the current mood in Iran and Tehran’s readiness for potential escalation.
Trump’s threats have little impact on Iran
According to him, Trump’s ongoing threats have had little practical effect on Iran’s stance. “During the so-called ‘40-day war,’ as well as before and after it, Iran demonstrated resilience and did not abandon its red lines, nor is it prepared to retreat from its core demands,” the expert said.
Hosseini emphasized that Trump has consistently demanded unilateral concessions, while Iran has rejected such an approach, insisting that any agreement must be based on mutual compromise. In his view, if Washington’s claims about fully destroying Iran’s military capabilities were accurate, Tehran would have already agreed to end the conflict. However, the reality, he argues, suggests otherwise.
Iran’s strategic leverage
The analyst highlights Iran’s key strategic tools. If the United States does not change its policy, Tehran could once again block a critical maritime route — the Strait of Hormuz. Moreover, Iran has another option it has not yet used: the potential closure of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.
Simultaneous disruption of these two major routes could have serious economic consequences not only for the United States but for the global economy as a whole.
He also noted that Iran demands the lifting of restrictions as a precondition for negotiations. Otherwise, the world may enter a prolonged phase of tension and confrontation, where economic pressure will continue to intensify.
Western miscalculations and the need for dialogue
According to Hosseini, the West continues to underestimate Iran’s real capabilities. Decades of sanctions, pressure, and even coercive measures have failed to achieve their goal of forcing Iran to abandon its strategic course.
He stressed that Iran remains open to constructive engagement, provided it is based on equality and mutual respect. As an example, he referred to the “5+1” nuclear agreement, which, in his view, was undermined by the United States.
In conclusion, the analyst argues that a policy of threats and pressure is unlikely to succeed. The only effective path is a balanced and respectful dialogue with Iran that can lead to sustainable outcomes.