Trump said the negotiations were in the final stages.
He said either there would be a deal or the United States would
do some things that are a little bit nasty.
Iran's Revolutionary Guard threatened that if any further
attack came, the fire would erupt into flames and transcend
every border and domain. A tense phone call between Trump
and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu revealed that a letter
of intent was being drafted to formally end the war and open 30
days of structured negotiation covering both the Strait of
Hormuz and Iran's nuclear program.
The Senate advanced a War Powers Resolution 50 to 47.
The House was set to hold its own vote. 90 vessels have been
redirected by the United States naval blockade.
Two Chinese super tankers carrying approximately 4 million
barrels of oil exited the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran said 26 ships transited the waterway in the preceding 24
hours under Iranian coordination, and Brent crude
sat just below $110 a barrel. Stillwell above any level seen
before this conflict began. It is Thursday May 21st, 2026,
Day 83 of Operation Epic Fury. 83 days in, and the word that
best describes where this stands is precarious.
Trump says the talks are in their final stages.
Iran says it is still ready for war on a scale that transcends
the region. A letter of intent is reportedly
being written, a war powers clock is running, and the Strait
of Hormuz is moving slowly under contested rules that no one has
formally agreed to. This is epic fury, the US Iran
war podcast. Follow on Spotify and Apple
podcast to stay with this story as it develops.
There is a great deal to get through today.
Start with the Trump statement that set the tone for Wednesday
because it contained both of the contradictory impulses that have
defined American posture throughout this conflict.
Diplomatic optimism and military threat delivered in the same
breath. Speaking to reporters at the
White House, Trump said, and the phrasing is worth noting
closely. We are in the final stages of
Iran. He said a deal was possible.
He then said that if no deal was reached, the United States would
do some things that are a little bit nasty.
He added. If I can save war by waiting a
couple of days, if I can save people from being killed by
waiting a couple of days, I think it is a great thing. 3
distinct things were happening in that statement
simultaneously. It signaled that a diplomatic
resolution was genuinely within reach.
The phrase final stages represents a more specific and
more optimistic claim than anything coming from Washington.
In weeks, it renewed the threat of military action.
And it framed Trump's continued patience not as indecision or
weakness but as a deliberate choice to preserve life, an
implicit rejection of the criticism that he had been
managing the conflict without a coherent end game.
Whether that framing resonates with the audience in Tehran is
another question entirely. Iranian officials have
repeatedly argued across 83 days of this conflict that American
optimism about imminent deals has invariably been followed by
threats, renewed strikes and an expanding naval blockade.
Their threshold for accepting American diplomatic signals as
genuine has been worn down by the experience of the conflict
itself. Vice President JD Vance, who led
the American delegation at the only round of direct talks held
so far in Islamabad last month, struck A deliberately careful
note at a White House briefing on Wednesday.
He said in his words, we are in a pretty good spot here.
That phrasing, understated and noncommittal, was almost
certainly calibrated to avoid raising expectations that could
be dashed within hours. That pattern has repeated itself
many times in this negotiation. The most consequential piece of
new information to emerge on Wednesday was the reported
contents of a phone call between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu, described by both Axios and the Wall Street
Journal as tents. According to those accounts,
Trump told Netanyahu that a letter of intent was being
drafted, a document that would formally bring hostilities to an
end and establish a 30 day window for direct negotiation
covering both the Strait of Hormuz and Iran's nuclear
program. The word tense is doing
significant work in those accounts.
Israel has consistently maintained throughout this
conflict that the nuclear question cannot be deferred to a
later phase, that any arrangement which simply reopens
the Straight and creates a new diplomatic timetable without
concrete and upfront nuclear commitments from Tehran risks
repeating the fundamental error of every previous agreement.
The concern expressed privately by Israeli officials over the
course of the past several weeks is that Iran uses negotiating
windows to reconstitute degraded capabilities rather than
surrender them. The period immediately after the
April ceasefire, during which CENTCOM confirmed the IRGC did
use the pause to tighten its grip on the Straight, was cited
as evidence for that concern. Trump, by contrast, appears
willing to accept a phased approach in the shooting first,
then address the underlying structural questions through a
bounded diplomatic process. That position reflects a reading
of Iranian internal politics shared by some American
analysts, that the current Iranian leadership cannot make
concessions on the nuclear question while under active
military bombardment, and that a formal end to hostilities is a
precondition for creating the political space in which a more
durable agreement becomes achievable.
That gap between Washington's apparent willingness to phase
the nuclear question and Jerusalem's insistence that
cannot be decoupled from any settlement has not been closed.
The letter of intent, if it materializes, will need to
satisfy both parties. That means it will need to
contain enough on the nuclear question to give Israel
confidence while being structured in a way that Iran
can accept without appearing to capitulate under the rest.
Finding language that accomplishes both simultaneously
is an extraordinarily difficult diplomatic task.
The history of Iran negotiations over the past two decades
suggests it is not impossible, but it has never been attempted
under conditions remotely like these.
Move from Washington to Tehran because Iran's signals on
Wednesday were equally divided between escalatory threat and
apparent operational accommodation, a duality that is
characterized every day of the post ceasefire phase.
On the threatening side, IRGC leader Ahmad Vahidi published a
statement on social media that was extraordinary in its scope
and deliberate in its escalatory framing.
He wrote that if any further aggression was committed against
the soil of Iran, the fire whose promise was previously given and
which had remained confined within the framework of a
limited regional war, with this time erupt into flames and
transcend every border and domain.
That formulation is a significant and deliberate
escalation in language. Previous Iranian military
threats during this conflict targeted specific countries,
specific facilities, and the regional theater of operations.
This language implied something categorically wider.
The phrase transcend every border and domain carries
connotations of attacks beyond the Middle East entirely, a
signal to Washington that restarting the military campaign
would not necessarily produce only the regional consequences
already experienced across 83 days of war.
Whether this is operational intent or to deterrent rhetoric,
it cannot be dismissed without engagement.
Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammed Baker Calabaf, who has
served as Tehran's chief negotiator in the Pakistan
mediated peace process, also released an audio message on
Wednesday. He said that obvious and hidden
moves by the enemy show the Americans are preparing new
attacks. The framing was consistent with
a posture Iran has maintained throughout the ceasefire and
negotiating period, publicly asserting American bad faith and
aggressive intent while simultaneously continuing to
engage through the diplomatic channels Pakistan has
maintained. On the apparent accommodation
side, Iran's Revolutionary Guard Navy announced on Wednesday that
26 vessels, including oil tankers, container ships and
other commercial vessels, had transited the Strait of Hormuz
in the preceding 24 hours. The IRGC Navy stated that this
transit was ongoing, with permits obtained and
coordination with its forces carried out.
This is the crux of one of the most contested and fundamental
disputes in the entire negotiation.
When Iran says the Strait is open, it means open.
Under Iranian coordination. Ships wishing to transit must
obtain Iranian permission and operate under IRGC protocols.
When the United States says the Strait must be open, it means
open as a matter of international law, freely
navigable by all vessels as of right, without Iranian approval
or fees or conditions. Rubio made this distinction
explicit in a Fox News interview earlier this week.
He said in his own words, what Iran means by opening the
straits is yes, the straits are opened as long as you coordinate
with Iran and get the permission, or they will blow
you up and you pay them, he said.
That is not opening the straits. Those are international
waterways. That definitional dispute has
not been resolved. 26 ships transiting under Iranian
coordination is, in the eyes of Washington, not the same as the
Strait of Hormuz being freely and unconditionally open.
The figure nonetheless represents the largest single
day transit count since the war began.
A separate and notable development on Wednesday came
from Chinese shipping. Two Chinese super tankers
carrying approximately 4 million barrels of oil exited the Strait
of Hormuz, according to Reuters. The third Chinese vessel was
reported to be making its way out.
Last week, while Trump was in Beijing for his summit with
President Xi, Iran announced it had reached a separate
arrangement to ease transit rules specifically for Chinese
flagships. The arrangement underscores how
the Straits contested status has produced a patchwork of
bilateral accommodations that fall far short of the universal
freedom of navigation the United States and International
Maritime law demand. South Korea's foreign minister
confirmed on Wednesday that a South Korean tanker was also
crossing the Strait under Iranian coordination protocols.
Shipping monitor Lloyd's List reported that at least 54 ships
had transited the waterway in the preceding week,
approximately double the figure from the week before.
For context, the pre war daily transit figure was approximately
140 vessels. Current levels, even at their
highest point since the conflict began, remain a fraction of
normal commercial volume. The global supply disruption has
moderated incrementally, but it has not ended. the United States
naval blockade continued its operations.
On Wednesday. CENTCOM confirmed that 90
vessels had now been redirected since the blockade was imposed
in mid-april and that four vessels had been disabled. the
United States Marine Corps AH1Z Viper attack helicopter was
patrolling near a commercial vessel transiting regional
waters as part of the enforcement operation.
The blockade imposed following the collapse of the Islamabad
talks remains one of the most significant escalations of the
post ceasefire phase. Iran has described it as an act
of war. Tehran seized 2 cargo ships in
retaliation shortly after its imposition. the United States
has framed it as a pressure mechanism designed to deny Iran
the oil export revenues that sustain its military capacity
and the Irgc's broader operations.
The lifting of the blockade is among the conditions Iran has
specified as a precondition for any comprehensive settlement
alongside sanctions relief and withdrawal of American forces
from forward position bases. Consider the domestic political
dimension. Because the war powers question
reached a procedural threshold on Tuesday and Wednesday that
carries genuine political significance even if its
immediate legal consequences are limited.
The Senate voted 50 to 47 on Tuesday to advance a war powers
resolution that would require the president to see
congressional authorization to continue military operations
against Iran or begin withdrawing forces.
The measure advanced after a Republican senator broke with
the administration to support it. 3 senators were absent.
It was a procedural advance rather than a final passage, but
the 50 to 47 margin was read widely in Washington as a
meaningful indicator that Republican unity on the Iran war
is beginning to fracture. On Wednesday, the House was
expected to hold a parallel vote on its own version of a War
Powers Resolution directing Trump to withdraw United States
forces deployed against Iran. The two chambers working on
parallel tracks reflects the sustained and bipartisan nature
of the discomfort with a conflict legal basis.
The core issue is the 60 day clock.
Under the 1973 War Powers Act, a president generally has 60 days
from the commencement of hostilities to obtain
congressional authorization formally in the military action
or seek a limited extension while beginning to withdrawal of
forces. Operation Epic Fury commenced on
February the 28th. The 60 day deadline passed on
April the 28th. That clock has been running
beyond its limit for more than three weeks under an
administration that argues it was stopped by the April
ceasefire. The White House's position that
the ceasefire terminated hostilities and stop the clock
is contested by legal scholars and by the legislators driving
the war powers votes. Critics point to the ongoing
naval blockade, the continued positioning of American strike
aircraft and carrier groups. An explicit presidential threat
of renewed bombing is evidence that hostilities have not ended
in any legally coherent sense. The gap between the
administration's framing of the conflict is concluded and the
operational reality of an active blockade and ready strike
posture is the ground on which that legal contest is being
fought. Even if both chambers pass their
respective resolutions, a presidential veto would require
a 2/3 majority in each chamber to override a threshold that
remains out of reach. The votes carry political weight
is a signal of growing institutional unease.
But they will not produce an immediate operational constraint
on the president's military authority.
Energy markets on Wednesday responded cautiously to the
combined weight of Trump's optimistic language and the
Chinese super tanker movements. Brent crude eased approximately
1 1/2% to sit just below $110 per barrel.
Analysts at Wood McKenzie estimated that if a
comprehensive peace deal were reached and the straight fully
reopened by June, Brent could ease to approximately $80 per
barrel by the end of the year. The distance between current
prices and that scenario represents the accumulated
economic cost to the conflict continuation.
American pump prices reached $4.18 per gallon by Tuesday, a
new war high. Trump, speaking at the United
States Coast Guard Academy commencement on Wednesday,
minimize the economic burden on American consumers.
He told a graduating class he appreciated everybody putting up
with it for a little while and said it would not be much
longer. He also highlighted the Coast
Guard's role in the war, in particular the seizure of a
sanctioned Iranian oil tanker off the coast of Malaysia, which
he described as the third such vessel captured since the real
fighting began. There is also a Lebanon
dimension to Wednesday's picture that deserves attention.
The ceasefire along the Israeli Lebanese border, agreed in the
weeks after the April pause, has been fragmenting.
Israeli strikes in southern Lebanon killed more than a dozen
people in what was described as the deadliest day since the
Lebanon ceasefire went into effect.
Hezbollah has not formally abandoned a ceasefire, but the
pattern of Israeli strikes and Hezbollah repositioning suggests
the arrangement is under growing pressure.
From Tehran's perspective, Lebanon is one of the fronts
that retains his leverage. Any deal that formally ends the
war with the United States but leaves Hezbollah degraded and
Iran unable to reconstitute its Lebanon position would be a
significant strategic loss. That calculus is part of what
makes the negotiations so complex.
Iran is not just negotiating about its own territory and
nuclear program, is negotiating about the shape of its regional
influence network that was partially dismantled during 83
days of American and Israeli strikes.
The oil storage picture also remains a significant pressure
point on the Iranian side. Intelligence assessments in
recent days suggested Iran's domestic oil storage capacity
was approaching its limits, with estimates that Iran had between
12 and 22 days of viable storage remaining for ongoing
production. If exports continue to be
blocked, that is a material constraint.
A country that cannot store or export its oil faces an internal
economic crisis with political consequences.
The naval blockade, from the American perspective, is
designed precisely to accelerate that pressure.
The question is whether it reaches a breaking point that
forces Iranian concessions or whether Iran finds enough work
around routes, through Chinese buyers, through informal
arrangements, through continued limited straight access to
sustain itself until negotiations reach a conclusion.
Step back and weigh the totality of Wednesday's developments
because the dual pattern of simultaneous diplomacy and
threat was again on full display, and understanding why
both things can be true at once is essential for making sense of
where this conflict currently stands on the side.
Pointing toward resolution, Trump described negotiations as
being in their final stages. Vince said the United States was
in a good spot. A letter of intent formally
ending the war and establishing a 30 day negotiating framework
was reportedly being drafted. 26 vessels transited the Strait.
Chinese super tankers moved oil. The Senate voted in a way that
added political urgency for concluding the conflict before
the war power situation becomes untenable.
Iran's chief negotiator remain engaged through Pakistani
channels on the side, pointing toward renewed conflict.
The IRGC warned that a new American attack would trigger a
war transcending every border and domain.
Calabaf publicly accused the United States of preparing new
strikes. The naval blockade continued,
with 90 vessels now redirected. The definitional gap over what a
freely open straight means remained unresolved.
Trump simultaneously threatened nasty action, and a call between
Trump and Netanyahu was described as tense, suggesting
the United States and Israel are not operating from a unified
position on the terms of any acceptable deal.
These two sets of signals have coexisted day after day, four
weeks. They are not as contradictory as
they might appear. The pressure and the diplomacy
are running in deliberate parallel because each party
needs the other to believe it is capable and willing to escalate,
or the other side loses incentive to accept the deal on
offer. The question that has been
present throughout this conflict is whether the mutual pressure
eventually produces convergence or tips into a miscalculation
that neither side can walk back. The 30 day framework, reportedly
under discussion formally in hostilities, then negotiate the
straight and the nuclear program within a bounded window would
represent a structural compromise.
Iran has long demanded that the war end before nuclear talks
begin. The United States has long
insisted the nuclear question cannot be cleanly separated from
any deal. If a letter of intent exists as
described, and if it is acceptable to both Tehran and
Jerusalem, that framework could split the immediate cessation of
conflict from the longer term questions that neither side can
resolve while fighting remains possible.
Whether that document materializes and whether both
parties can endorse it will begin to become clear on Day 84.
If this podcast is helping you make sense of what's happening,
take 2 seconds to leave a five star rating on Spotify or Apple
Podcasts. It makes a huge difference to
how many people find the show. And if you want the deeper
breakdown of what's really going on and where this is heading,
you can unlock the premium episodes directly in Spotify or
Apple Podcasts. That is day 83.
The talks are described as being in their final stages.
The threats describe a fire transcending every border.
A letter is reportedly being drafted.
Both of those things were said on the same day by different
parties, and both appear to be true at once.
That tension is where this conflict stands.
Back tomorrow with the latest.