US President Donald Trump’s pivot from direct military action to an economic blockade targeting Iran’s shipping and ports is aimed at forcing Tehran to negotiate an end to the conflict without a renewed US-Israeli offensive, according to analysts and officials.

The strategy seeks to choke off Iran’s oil exports and restrict imports of essential goods, with the goal of inflicting severe economic and humanitarian strain that could compel its leadership to accept US terms.

Supporters of the plan say Iran’s already fragile economy could rapidly deteriorate under such pressure, potentially triggering food shortages, surging inflation and financial instability.

A blockade could also counter Tehran’s own disruption of global trade flows, including its moves to partially close the Strait of Hormuz, a critical artery for global energy supplies.

But the approach reflects a familiar US assumption that adversaries will respond rationally to mounting pressure, an expectation that has often proven flawed in past conflicts involving countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia and Libya.

Iran’s leadership has historically demonstrated a high tolerance for hardship. Human rights groups and outside estimates say authorities have overseen crackdowns that killed thousands, while the regime has maintained control despite the loss of senior figures during the conflict.

Analysts warn Washington may again be underestimating Tehran’s willingness to endure economic pain in what it views as an existential struggle.

The success of the blockade may hinge on timing. A key question is whether pressure on Iran will build quickly enough to change its behaviour before broader global economic damage intensifies due to disruptions in oil and gas flows.

If it fails, the strategy risks becoming a political liability for Trump, potentially deepening domestic criticism and affecting Republican prospects in upcoming midterm elections.

Despite concerns about its rollout, analysts say the blockade is militarily feasible. The US Navy has significant assets in the region and experience enforcing maritime interdictions, including operations in the former Yugoslavia, Haiti and against sanctioned Venezuelan oil shipments.

A recent analysis by the Foundation for Defence of Democracies argues that a blockade enforced by US naval forces positioned outside the Strait of Hormuz, supported by aircraft and troops, could quickly cripple Iran’s economy.

The report says more than 90% of Iran’s roughly $109.7 billion annual trade passes through the strait, leaving it highly vulnerable to disruption.

Limited storage capacity could also force Tehran to halt oil production within weeks if exports are blocked.

Retired Admiral James Stavridis, a former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, told CNN the approach addresses a gap left by earlier military operations. “They’ve been effectively pounded in the face with a two-by-four in a military sense, but we haven’t really choked off their economy,” he said.

The blockade presents Iran with difficult choices. Escalation could risk renewed conflict with the United States and Israel, potentially collapsing a fragile ceasefire.

Tehran could also respond through regional allies, including possible attacks on US partners in the Gulf or efforts by Houthi forces in Yemen to disrupt shipping routes in the Red Sea.

Such moves could significantly worsen global economic disruption and increase political pressure on Washington.

The strategy also carries diplomatic risks. One objective is to pressure major buyers of Iranian oil, including China and India, to push Tehran toward negotiations. However, any US move to intercept foreign vessels could trigger tensions, particularly ahead of a planned meeting between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping.

The White House has expressed optimism that the blockade could bring Iran back to the negotiating table after recent talks in Pakistan failed to produce progress.

Press secretary Karoline Leavitt said officials felt positive about the prospects for a deal but cautioned that no agreement had been finalised.

US officials have framed Iran as increasingly pressured to negotiate, though analysts say that assessment may overlook deeper strategic and ideological factors shaping Tehran’s position.

Talks have exposed significant differences. Washington is seeking to permanently block Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, curb its missile program and end support for regional groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas.

Iran, meanwhile, is demanding compensation for wartime damage and insists on maintaining its missile capabilities and nuclear enrichment rights.

A US official told CNN that Washington proposed suspending uranium enrichment for 20 years, while Iran countered with five, suggesting some room for compromise.

Analysts say any agreement would likely require prolonged and complex negotiations involving technical issues such as nuclear enrichment, as well as political compromises that both sides could present domestically as victories.

For now, the central question is not only whether the blockade will succeed, but what follows if it does.