President Donald Trump rejected Iran's conditional proposal for reopening the Strait of Hormuz, telling aides he expects to resume bombing the country after November's midterm elections. This decision ensures the continued upward trajectory of energy profits, already inflated by ongoing conflict. Trump confirmed the rejection to reporters, stating, "They made a proposal but I rejected it."
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi had proposed on Friday a seven-day window to reopen the strategically vital strait and restart nuclear talks with the U.S. Araghchi, speaking on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, specified that these actions hinged on the Trump administration accepting Iran's conditions.
Tehran's demands included a halt to what it termed U.S. "acts of aggression," an end to the naval blockade and economic warfare, and the release of frozen Iranian assets. Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei outlined these conditions earlier this week. Trump, however, remains privately skeptical that Iran would meet his demands, telling staff a renewed bombing campaign is likely, according to U.S. officials quoted by The Wall Street Journal.
Who Profits from Perpetual War
The ongoing conflict has severely restricted energy shipments out of the Middle East, directly contributing to soaring oil prices. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude is up nearly 61% year to date, while Brent crude, the international benchmark, has risen more than 71% over the same period. These increases represent massive transfers of wealth to energy corporations and speculators.
Concerns about accelerating global inflation, a direct consequence of these elevated energy costs, continue to mount. This inflation disproportionately impacts working families and the economically dispossessed, eroding their purchasing power. Trump had previously stated earlier this month that he expects the war to end shortly after the midterms, predicting oil prices would fall afterward, a claim now contradicted by his own actions.
Despite discussions between Tehran and Washington at the U.N. General Assembly, which saw crude prices post a sharp weekly drop, Trump's intent to resume bombing negates any market signal for peace. WTI dropped 2.3% to close at $92.41 per barrel, and Brent declined 2.1% to settle at $104.32, but these temporary dips are overshadowed by the administration's commitment to military escalation.
The State as Enforcer
The war, which began on Feb. 28 with U.S. and Israeli airstrikes on Iran, continues to serve the interests of capital accumulation by securing control over vital resources and markets. The U.S. state, through its military and economic policies, acts as the primary enforcer of this agenda. The naval blockade and economic warfare are instruments of imperial power, designed to coerce and extract concessions.
Meanwhile, the Saudi-led coalition forces, backed by the U.S., continue their operations in Yemen. Colonel Turki Al-Maliki, the coalition's official spokesman, reported the interception and destruction of two drones launched by Iran-backed Houthi militia towards Riyadh, and two ballistic missiles aimed at the Khamis Mushait region. This ongoing conflict in Yemen further destabilizes the region, ensuring continued demand for military hardware and services.
The Houthis, for their part, claimed attacks on "sensitive" sites in Riyadh last Saturday, following observations of flames and smoke near the city's main airport. Earlier this month, Saudi Arabia asserted its air defenses destroyed a Houthi drone headed for Mecca, a claim the Houthi group denied. These acts of resistance highlight the persistent struggle against the established regional order.
False Promises of Diplomacy
The Wall Street Journal reported that Washington and Tehran were still negotiating through mediators, including over U.S. demands to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. These diplomatic overtures, however, appear to be a mere formality. Trump's private skepticism and his stated intent to resume bombing demonstrate the inherent limitations of reform efforts within a system driven by military and economic dominance. Such negotiations serve to manage contradictions without challenging the foundational drive for capital's expansion through force.