FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
May 26, 2026
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org
WASHINGTON, DC—Today, Iran threatened to retaliate against renewed U.S. strikes, highlighting the fragile nature of the U.S.-Iran ceasefire as the White House pursues a more durable deal with Tehran. The agreement under consideration reportedly would entail a 60-day ceasefire on all fronts, including Lebanon, and both sides would lift restrictions on shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, while agreeing to future talks on the status of Iran’s nuclear program. Defense Priorities Policy Director Benjamin H. Friedman issued the following statement in response:
“A U.S.-Iran ceasefire that reopens the Strait of Hormuz and defers talks on nuclear issues is probably the best outcome under the circumstances: that the U.S. joined Israel in a war of aggression on Iran that accomplished none of its core goals while destabilizing the region and burdening the global economy with a predictable shutdown of a fifth of global oil supply.
“The Trump administration should close this deal, which is essentially what Iran reportedly offered weeks ago. But the White House seems close to fumbling at the goal line, thanks to the new U.S. strikes on Iran that occurred yesterday, tolerating Israel’s ongoing war in Lebanon, and especially insistence that Iran agree to stringent conditions on enrichment and its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. Trump’s demand that more states join the Abraham Accords as part of a deal is totally unrealistic. Hopefully it’s a symbolic sop to the Israelis before constraining them in Lebanon; most likely it’s just empty talk.
“The critics who say this deal isn’t good enough are confused about U.S. interests and what is possible. Ending this war and eventually getting lower oil prices is the only real U.S. interest at stake. Iran was never very close to having a nuclear weapon. Being attacked made it less likely to offer the accommodating terms on suspending enrichment that they reportedly offered before it, at least in the near term. Opening the strait and getting gas prices down should not be held hostage to the disposition of ‘nuclear dust.’
“The idea of changing the Iranian regime to one more friendly to the United States was always dangerous fantasy. War predictably created a more hostile version of the old regime. No Iranian regime was ever going to agree to disarm itself by giving up on ballistic missiles. So reopening the strait and deferring talks on other matters makes sense.
“Whether or not a ceasefire is reached, the failure of this war should not be easily forgiven or forgotten. It was an unforced error, and it offers sharp lessons—on the limits of airpower, the inevitable Iranian control of the strait due to geography and modern weapons, the increasingly negative value of U.S. bases in the Middle East, and the nationalistic reaction most peoples have to being bombed. It also should demonstrate who is offering terrible advice to the United States on how to conduct its foreign policy.”
Author
