The U.S. president announced today that he is suspending, for a few days, attacks on Iran’s energy facilities, stating that there have been “productive” conversations with Tehran. Iran denies it. Meanwhile, the Strait of Hormuz —through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil flows— remains the most critical point of the conflict.

Context: how we got here

Since early March, the war between the United States and Israel against Iran has led to a situation in which the Strait of Hormuz has become the most sensitive point of the conflict.

Iran maintains that the strait remains open in legal terms, meaning it has not formally declared its closure. And in fact, Hormuz is not unnavigable. It remains fully passable for any actor that does not represent or serve the interests of the United States or Israel. But in reality, vessels linked to those powers and their sphere of alliances are staying away due to the risk of being attacked with missiles or drones. This gap between what is “legal” and what is “real” does not change the outcome: energy trade is severely affected and the world is facing a crisis.

This also introduces a central political dimension: this is not simply a closed maritime route, but a passage whose circulation is shaped by war, alliances, and each actor’s position in the conflict.

The head of the International Energy Agency said the situation is worse than the oil crises of 1973 and 1979 combined. Those crises caused shortages and sharp price increases worldwide. Today, at least 40 energy facilities in nine countries have been severely damaged since the attacks began.

In this context, the Strait of Hormuz became the central problem that Trump could not resolve simply by withdrawing from the conflict. On Saturday night, he chose to increase the pressure.

The sequence over the weekend

On Saturday, March 22, Trump issued an ultimatum on his Truth Social platform: Iran had 48 hours to allow all ships to pass through the strait. If it did not, the United States would attack and destroy its power plants, starting with the largest in the country. The deadline was set for that same night at 8:00 p.m. Washington time.

Iran responded quickly. The Speaker of Parliament, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, warned that if Iranian power plants were attacked, the response could permanently destroy critical energy infrastructure across the entire Middle East. In other words, not only Iran, but several countries could be left without electricity.

Media outlets close to the Iranian government published maps of key power plants in the Gulf, accompanied by the message: “say goodbye to electricity.” In addition, Iran’s Defense Council threatened to lay mines in maritime routes, which would completely halt navigation.

At the same time, Saudi Arabia reported intercepting a ballistic missile —a type of long-range missile— heading toward its capital, Riyadh. In financial markets, futures contracts (bets on the future value of stocks or indices) began to fall, reflecting fear and uncertainty.

On Monday morning, before the deadline expired, Trump issued a new message: he announced that he would postpone the attacks for five days, claiming that there had been “very good and productive” talks with Iran to resolve the conflict.

Following the announcement, markets reacted immediately: stock indexes rose and oil prices fell, indicating that investors interpreted the news as a possible de-escalation of the conflict.

Channels: Turkey, Witkoff and Kushner

It is unclear who actually spoke to whom.

From the U.S. side, Trump stated that the talks were conducted through his envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, who would have contacted Iranian counterparts.

From Iran’s side, the version is different. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said he spoke by phone with his Turkish counterpart, Hakan Fidan. Turkey has previously acted as an intermediary between Iran and the United States, meaning a country that facilitates dialogue without the two sides speaking directly.

However, the Iranian agency Mehr News denied that any dialogue took place between Tehran and Washington, either directly or indirectly.

Meanwhile, Oman —another country that has historically served as a bridge between the two— is also involved. Its foreign minister, Badr Al Busaidi, said he is working intensively to establish an agreement for safe passage through the strait.

In an opinion article in The Economist, he was even more direct: he stated that the United States has lost control of its own foreign policy and that Israel pushed the Trump administration into a war he described as a “grave miscalculation” and a “catastrophe.”

Two narratives, one fact

There are two completely different interpretations of what happened.

Western media present Trump’s decision as a strategic move to lower tensions, showing diplomatic initiative before his own ultimatum expired.

From the U.S. military perspective, Admiral Brad Cooper stated that the campaign against Iran is proceeding as planned and that Iran’s military capabilities are being weakened.

But the version offered by Al Jazeera, aligned with Tehran’s official stance, is the opposite: Trump did not initiate a negotiation but rather backed down because he could not sustain his threat in the face of Iran’s warnings.

Iranian state television summarized it clearly: “The U.S. president backs down after Iran’s firm warning.”

Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs was more blunt: it said Trump’s move is part of efforts to lower energy prices and buy time to implement his military plans.

There is a key point that some Western media tend to minimize: Trump limited the suspension of attacks to energy infrastructure and did not mention at any point the ongoing Israeli bombings on Iranian territory, which continued that same day without interruption.

The Russian variable and the five-day horizon

Russia has also intervened on the diplomatic front.
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov described the situation as extremely tense and warned that any attack on Iranian nuclear facilities could have irreversible consequences, meaning damage that cannot be undone.

According to Moscow, this message has already been conveyed directly to Washington.

What is at stake in these five days is not only control of the Strait of Hormuz. The underlying issue is political and symbolic: neither side can afford to appear as the one that backed down first.

This struggle over perception —over who appears stronger or weaker— may be more decisive than any concrete agreement. And it is this tension that will shape what happens in the coming days.