Face-to-face peace talks between the United States (US) and Iran have been delayed after Tehran withdrew at short notice from a planned negotiating round in Pakistan. The talks had been expected to bring senior officials together, but Iranian authorities declined to send a delegation, citing objections to the ongoing US blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

The cancellation prompted Washington to keep US Vice President JD Vance and his negotiating team in America rather than travelling, while officials began reviewing a range of options, including the possible resumption of military strikes.

Initial reports, however, suggested that American policymakers were likely to extend the existing ceasefire while maintaining maximum economic pressure tied to the Strait, a position later confirmed by US President Donald Trump.

The blockade strategy has materially shifted the operating environment in America’s favour. Iran had previously continued exporting oil even as Western shipping access in the region faced disruption. The tightening of restrictions around the Strait has now constrained those export channels, limiting Tehran’s ability to sustain that approach.

The consequences are extending beyond the immediate theatre. Pressure has increased on China, which remains heavily reliant on imported energy and is now rapidly drawing down its finite oil reserves. This has added strain to an already sensitive global energy balance, reinforcing the wider geopolitical significance of the standoff.

Yesterday The Common Sense reported on Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s first formal intervention into the crisis in which he called for the Strait to be opened.

Insights from America are that there is a view that the administration can just sit tight on its Hormuz blockade and let the ensuing pressure do its work.

To that end there are emerging indications of a divergence between Iran’s civilian leadership and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Such a split introduces uncertainty over where decision making authority ultimately resides, complicating the prospects for coherent negotiations.

However, that apparent divergence may itself be tactical.

Differentiated messaging between civilian and military actors, in effect setting up a good-cop vs bad-cop dynamic, could form part of a co-ordinated strategy to complicate US diplomatic efforts, increasing the difficulty of securing a unified Iranian negotiating counterpart.

In the US, domestic political conditions on the Republican side of the aisle remain supportive of a firm approach. Polling among Republican voters continues to show backing for the conflict, providing the administration with room to sustain its current posture – and adding an important fact that global news reporting is overlooking in its reporting on broader American perceptions of the war.

At the same time, global growth forecasts across both emerging and advanced economies have remained stable, consistent with earlier indications that the conflict has, for now, had limited macroeconomic spillover.

India’s economy, as The Common Sense reported, has even seen its 2026 growth forecast raised.

Oil was trading at under US$100 a barrel earlier this morning a good 10%-plus below its war peak of a month ago and well within its 10-year-plus inflation adjusted moving average.

Stock markets continue to boom with those in America hitting all-time highs this past week.

The upshot is that for the time being the balance of pressure arising from the war is more on the Iranians (and China) than on the broader Western world, the global economy, and America itself. That means Washington has time to wait out the Iranians, without needing to escalate the conflict, until Tehran is pressed to return to talks - or either Republican sentiment or economic and oil indicators shift sharply.