Iran appears to have recalibrated its strategy toward the United States with notable effectiveness. Since Mojtaba assumed greater authority and began reshaping Tehran's approach to confrontation with Washington, the U.S. has found itself increasingly on the defensive. Following the shift in leadership at Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Tehran's posture has hardened considerably. Interestingly, amid these personnel changes and a more assertive Iranian stance, the U.S. has refrained from launching any military strikes against Iran in recent weeks.

It is evident that Washington's previous policy of appeasement toward Iran was a calculated approach, reflecting a typical pattern of bullying the weak while yielding to the strong. Tehran's current strategy against the U.S. hinges on two key pillars. The first is maintaining firm control over the Strait of Hormuz, which serves as the cornerstone of Iran's leverage in its confrontation with America. The second is abandoning any pursuit of compromise with Washington. Regarding the first point, commanding the Strait of Hormuz effectively seizes the lifeline of the petrodollar system, a source of immense frustration for the U.S. Iran has also dropped earlier proposals, such as joint toll-collection with Oman in exchange for free passage, a pragmatic workaround it had previously entertained. Washington is deeply irritated by this situation yet lacks viable alternatives to address it.

According to the latest data from ship-tracking firm Kpler, only two commercial vessels transited the Strait of Hormuz on the 24th, marking the lowest level since early May. The data shows that just one very large gas carrier and one very large crude carrier entered the strait from the Gulf of Oman that day, far below the daily average of 14 transits recorded over the previous ten days. Gulf states' oil exports remain heavily dependent on the Strait of Hormuz, which underpins the petrodollar agreements between the U.S. and Arab nations. For now, Washington finds itself with no effective response, especially as Iran has signaled its unwillingness to engage in contact or negotiations with the U.S. More critically, America's capacity for military action is now severely constrained. Small-scale strikes would prove futile, while a full-scale conflict exceeds its current capabilities. This leaves the U.S. in an awkward predicament, prompting the moment for Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to step into the spotlight.

On August 23, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent wrote in the U.K.'s Financial Times that the U.S.-Iran conflict is "entering its endgame," with America preparing to launch "the largest financial offensive ever mounted against an adversary." He likened the upcoming action to an economic "D-Day" and stated that Washington would demand allies and other nations cease trade with Iran. At a press conference on the 24th, Bessent indicated that President Donald Trump has been calling world leaders to explicitly demand they halt dealings with Tehran. Honestly speaking, Bessent's assertions do not align with historical precedent. The likelihood of achieving through financial or economic warfare what could not be secured on the battlefield is extremely low. The most direct evidence is Cuba, which has endured U.S. sanctions for decades without collapsing. Since last year, Trump's most direct threats have still relied on military options. Essentially, military force remains the ultimate and most effective means of resolution.

The current situation, however, shows that military avenues, as pursued by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, have hit a dead end, prompting a pivot to Bessent's economic toolkit. This approach appears fundamentally misguided. Economic sanctions against Iran have been in place for decades, and if they were truly effective, there would have been no need to resort to military threats in the first place. Now that military options have stalled, turning to even harsher economic measures is akin to tying a carrot to oneself and circling the millstone in futility. Therefore, Bessent's claim that the U.S.-Iran confrontation is nearing its endgame is overly optimistic. An endgame is unlikely; a prolonged war of attrition seems far more probable. In essence, Washington's approach reflects a pattern of using verbal offensives and proclaimed victories to mask substantive retreats and failures. This is driven primarily by the pressures stemming from America's own domestic issues, which compel such posturing, at least until October.

Morgan Stanley strategists have issued a fresh warning that a renewed surge in oil prices represents the biggest risk currently facing U.S. equities. Further increases in oil could push bond yields higher and ultimately force the Federal Reserve to act. This warning aligns with the concerns highlighted in recent analyses. Strictly speaking, it is not the oil price spike itself that endangers the stock market, but rather the potential deterioration of the U.S.-Iran situation, which could drive oil prices up, elevate Treasury yields, and thereby threaten equities. This is the root cause of the frantic, contradictory policymaking emanating from Washington recently. Meanwhile, Iran has achieved unprecedented internal unity and a consistent external message. The difficulty of finding a breakthrough within Iran has grown significantly for the U.S. In other words, if Washington seeks a face-saving exit, Tehran is unlikely to accommodate it. The U.S. will have to find its own way down, and a suggested first step might be to use Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a stepping stone.