Six months into a tense confrontation between the United States, Israel, and Iran, Washington’s most viable strategic path is to hold its ground and accept an ongoing maritime stalemate, according to veteran American diplomat James F. Jeffrey.
Writing for Foreign Affairs on September 3, Jeffrey—a Distinguished Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and former Special Envoy for Syria Engagement—argues that the mutual blockade in the Strait of Hormuz has emerged as the "least bad option" for U.S. national security.
The current impasse followed the collapse of a June memorandum of understanding designed to reopen the vital shipping corridor in exchange for phased sanctions relief and Iranian nuclear rollbacks. With formal diplomacy stalled, both nations remain locked in a test of economic endurance.
Jeffrey contends that alternative courses of action carry unacceptable risks. A full U.S. naval withdrawal would award Tehran a decisive psychological victory, unravel years of progress dismantling Iran’s regional proxy networks, and leave the strait subject to permanent Iranian tolls. Conversely, aggressive escalation—whether through an expanded air campaign targeting Iranian infrastructure or a Desert Storm-scale invasion requiring over 500,000 troops—risks depleting allied air defenses, triggering retaliatory strikes against Gulf Arab energy facilities, and pulling Washington into a disastrous regional war.
Instead, Jeffrey asserts that time strongly favors the United States. Although the strait’s closure has pushed domestic gasoline prices up by roughly 38 percent, robust domestic energy production has insulated the broader U.S. economy from severe damage, while the International Monetary Fund lowered global growth projections by only 0.1 percentage point.
By contrast, Iran’s economy is buckling under the embargo. The near-total cutoff of Iranian crude exports has depleted hard currency reserves and pushed domestic inflation past 80 percent. Jeffrey notes that these acute economic fractures are already prompting Iranian political figures, including President Masoud Pezeshkian, to reconsider returning to negotiated terms.
The primary danger, Jeffrey warns, is that hardliners within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps might choose desperate escalation, such as mining the shipping channels or attacking Gulf energy infrastructure. To succeed, he argues, Washington must combine sustained economic containment with unmistakable military deterrence. By staying the course, Jeffrey concludes, the United States can wear down Tehran’s resistance and secure a lasting strategic settlement.
Below, you can watch a discussion featuring Ambassador James Franklin Jeffrey on Middle East crises. This is particularly relevant as it offers direct insight into his decades of diplomatic experience in shaping U.S. containment strategy and Middle East policy.