Talks with Iran collapsed after a 21-hour session, and with diplomacy stalled the U.S. is positioning itself for harsher pressure — from stepped-up strikes to naval moves in the Strait of Hormuz — while one concrete option on the table is a tight blockade to choke Tehran’s economy.
Vice President JD Vance spent 21 hours negotiating with Iranian officials in Islamabad, and those marathon talks ended without a breakthrough on uranium enrichment or nuclear ambitions. That failure matters because it narrows diplomatic options and raises the odds of tougher measures. When negotiations stall, policy shifts from persuasion to pressure.
Officials and analysts are already discussing the next phase of what some call Operation Epic Fury, a campaign that could include intense airstrikes designed to degrade Iran’s nuclear capacity. Military planners note that the striking package under discussion would be far more punishing than past strikes, aiming to deny Tehran critical capabilities. That option remains politically and militarily fraught, but it is being considered.
There is another card the president could play that stops short of wholesale bombing: naval control of the Strait of Hormuz. The U.S. Navy has moved into the waterway and launched mine-sweeping operations, a visible sign that Washington is prepared to secure the route for global commerce. Controlling the strait would directly impact Iran’s economic lifeline, and that leverage matters.
Iranian officials publicly joked about forgetting where they put mines, a claim that only highlights Tehran’s mischief and the danger it poses to global shipping. The regime has almost no conventional navy to contest sustained U.S. presence, which makes a blockade or strict interdiction an achievable tool. If the United States decides to hold the line there, Iran would struggle to push back at sea.
One strategic choice on the table is a blockade that chokes Iran’s oil exports and squeezes its already fragile economy. A blockade would also ratchet diplomatic pressure on major buyers of Iranian oil, including China and India, by complicating their access to crude. That diplomatic squeeze could force Beijing and New Delhi to choose between Tehran’s oil and broader relations with the United States.
If Iran refuses to accept the final deal the United States offered Saturday, Trump could bomb Tehran back to the “Stone Ages” as he vowed. Or he might just reprise his successful blockade strategy to choke an already teetering Iranian economy and ratchet up diplomatic pressure on China and India by cutting them off one of their key sources of oil.
Ironically, the massive USS Gerald Ford carrier that led the Venezuelan blockade is now in the Persian Gulf after a brief hiatus for repairs and crew rest after a deadly fire. And now it joins the USS Abraham Lincoln and other major naval assets.
In short, Trump simply could out-blockade Iran’s hold over the Strait of Hormuz, experts said.
It would be very easy for the US Navy to exert complete control over what does and does not go up and down the Strait now,” the Lexington Institute’s national security expert Rebecca Grant told Just the News. “I’ve heard about 10 ships have moved in the last 24 hours. One of them was a reflagged Russian tanker, and we know that cargos have gone out to China, to India, and we’ve seen some inbound traffic.
“If Iran gets intransigent, then absolutely, the US Navy can set up with great overwater surveillance … and watch everything that goes in and out of that Strait and you’ll have to ask the US Navy if you want to move past Kharg Island or past that narrow part by Oman,” she added.
Military control of shipping lanes is not a symbolic move — it is a leverage tool that can immediately disrupt Tehran’s revenue flow. Century-old principles of naval power remain true: whoever controls chokepoints controls the bargaining chips. A blockade would be messy and risky, but it can be surgical and effective if backed by overwhelming maritime surveillance.
Politically, the administration would have to weigh domestic and international fallout before ordering a blockade or major strikes. Allies would need to be consulted, and the legal posture for a blockade must be clear to withstand global scrutiny. Yet in today’s environment, decisive action can also rally partners who prefer predictability and strength over prolonged uncertainty.
The presence of carriers like USS Gerald Ford and USS Abraham Lincoln in the region changes the calculus, giving commanders options from show-of-force to active interdiction. Those assets provide logistics, air power, and a visible warning to Tehran that escalation will not be cheap. For a regime that craves nuclear parity, the prospect of sustained international pressure may be the only restraint that works.
Whatever path Washington chooses, the collapse of the talks after 21 hours means decisions are imminent. The administration can return to negotiations with tougher terms, escalate militarily, or press a blockade that hurts Iran where it counts. Each option carries risks, but the clock is ticking and the U.S. is positioning itself to respond.
Stay tuned.
