The latest US strikes on Iran's coastal defenses, missile sites, and Greater Tunb Island mark a further escalation aimed at weakening Iran and regaining leverage. President Trump's threat to attack the fortified Pickaxe Mountain complex near Natanz, together with possible action against Kharg Island, shows that Washington continues to rely on military pressure to force concessions. Tehran has described the confrontation as an existential struggle, while closing the Strait of Hormuz and striking US facilities in Bahrain, Kuwait, and Jordan. Brent crude has risen to a one-month high. These developments accelerate the trajectory analyzed earlier by the GPSF: the US appears to be using controlled military and economic pressure to force a settlement before domestic political constraints increase. However, as both sides harden their positions, the risk of miscalculation is also rising.

Pressure as a Negotiating Strategy

This phase continues the US strategy of combining sustained pressure with an openness to negotiations. Sanctions, including new measures against weapons-procurement networks, are intended to increase leverage rather than serve as an end in themselves. The use of "shaping operations," alongside strikes and claims that Iran "wants to settle," suggests an effort to weaken Iran's ability to resist while keeping diplomacy open. Congressional support gives the administration room to continue, although rising energy costs and public fatigue may make a prolonged campaign harder to sustain.

The key question is whether the military pressure can remain limited enough to support negotiations rather than close the door to them.

Iran's Strategy of Endurance

Iran's response combines stronger defences, asymmetric action, and political signalling. By closing the Strait of Hormuz and threatening maritime traffic, Tehran is raising the economic cost of the conflict. Possible actions by regional partners, including near Bab el-Mandeb, could widen the pressure without requiring a major direct confrontation.

Underground facilities such as Pickaxe Mountain are intended to protect critical capabilities from attack. At the same time, Iran's defiant rhetoric, combined with signs that dialogue remains possible, suggests it is trying to maintain domestic unity, test US willingness to escalate, and preserve room for a settlement. Its strategy appears focused on endurance and gradual retaliation rather than full-scale conventional war, using military pressure to gain political leverage.

Global Costs of a Hormuz Crisis

The confrontation around the Strait of Hormuz has serious consequences for the wider international community. Any prolonged disruption would reduce global oil supplies, raise shipping and insurance costs, and increase prices for consumers. Developing countries that depend heavily on imported energy would be especially affected.

Major Asian energy importers would also face greater supply uncertainty and price volatility. Pressure on other maritime chokepoints would make the global trading system even more vulnerable. Over time, continued instability could weaken confidence in existing security arrangements and encourage investment in alternative trade and energy routes.

Restoring safe and predictable navigation is therefore a global priority, not merely an issue between Iran and the US.

Pakistan's Stakes

Pakistan's position is guided by its diplomatic tradition and vital national interests. It has long supported dialogue and regional peace efforts and has experience in helping reduce tensions. In line with recent statements by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and ISPR, Pakistan has called for restraint, respect for sovereignty and a return to diplomacy to prevent a wider regional conflict.

At the same time, Pakistan is also directly vulnerable to rising oil prices. A prolonged increase would raise the import bill, put pressure on foreign exchange reserves and increase inflation for households and industry. Safe and uninterrupted passage through the Strait of Hormuz is therefore essential for Pakistan's economic stability.

Pakistan's relations with the United States, China, Iran and the Gulf states create both exposure and potential utility. These relationships allow Islamabad to support de-escalation without aligning fully with any one side and work for collective peace. Pakistan can continue to promote dialogue and verifiable arrangements that address legitimate security concerns, restore stable energy supplies and prevent the confrontation from becoming a prolonged regional crisis with spillover effects on neighboring states.

Next Phase

The path forward hinges on whether the current phase of leverage operations can be transitioned into structured dialogue before costs become prohibitive for all sides. A workable agreement would focus on limited objectives: safe navigation, credible restraints on sensitive programs, and reduced threats to regional stability.

Iran's calibrated resistance shows that coercion alone has clear limits and carries growing escalation risks. Other actors must therefore preserve diplomatic space, encourage restraint, and support backchannel or multilateral talks that address the security concerns of all sides. The Hormuz confrontation tests whether major powers and regional states can manage competition without allowing it to dictate the region's future. The alternative – a prolonged contest of attrition around critical maritime routes – would carry wider costs for global growth, energy security, and regional connectivity.

The window for converting pressure into a negotiated equilibrium remains open, but it is narrowing. Preserving that space for diplomacy is therefore in the interest of stability well beyond the immediate theatre.