For a regime that never misses an opportunity to project strength, Iran is having a hard time keeping its story straight.
Oil is flowing through the Strait of Hormuz at record levels this week—even as Tehran continues trying to convince the world that it has somehow shut the strategic waterway down.
On Saturday, Iranian officials announced they had once again closed the Strait of Hormuz in response to Israeli military actions in Lebanon. There was just one problem: it wasn’t true.
U.S. Central Command quickly responded, making it clear that Iran does not control the Strait of Hormuz and that maritime traffic remains uninterrupted.
The military reassured the public that traffic continues to flow and that U.S. forces are actively monitoring the situation to ensure it stays that way.
In fact, President Trump says nearly 19 million barrels of oil passed through the strait in a single day this week.
That should tell you everything you need to know about the credibility of Iran’s messaging.
They’ll tell the world the strait is closed while record amounts of oil sail through it. They’ll publicly oppose key components of a peace agreement while privately negotiating the details behind closed doors.
President Trump put another Iranian narrative to rest when reporters questioned whether inspectors would actually gain access to the country’s nuclear facilities.
Iran’s leadership is doing what it has always done—trying to convince its own people that it still holds the upper hand.
But reality continues to point in a different direction.
When Vice President J.D. Vance returned from Switzerland following the latest round of negotiations, inspections were among the first items he highlighted as having been agreed upon.
According to the administration, the Switzerland talks have laid the groundwork for the next phase of negotiations, where the focus shifts from broad principles to actual implementation.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio says the memorandum of understanding reached during the talks is only the beginning. Over the next two months, negotiators will work through the details needed to turn the framework into a lasting agreement.
Naturally, the deal has attracted skeptics.
Some of President Trump’s fiercest critics oppose it. Some of his allies have expressed concerns as well. That’s fair enough. Americans are entitled to debate major foreign policy decisions.
But critics would have you believe that public support for the agreement is nonexistent. The numbers suggest otherwise.
According to a recent poll, 67 percent of Americans support the U.S.-Iran peace deal.
Americans are exhausted by endless conflict. They want stability. And unlike the foreign policy establishment that spent decades pursuing failed regime-change strategies—or the politicians whose weak agreements empowered bad actors—many voters see this deal as an attempt to achieve peace through strength.
The administration also argues that the Iranian assets being unfrozen under the agreement will provide direct economic benefits to the United States.
That’s a significant part of the administration’s America First argument.
There’s another point that often gets overlooked.
If Iran chooses a more diplomatic path after this conflict, that outcome benefits everyone. A more stable Middle East would strengthen regional security, reduce tensions, and create greater economic opportunities across the globe.
Whether that happens remains an open question.
Even Secretary Rubio, one of Iran’s longtime critics, has acknowledged that the incentives built into the agreement could encourage a different course.
That would be the ultimate bonus.
The Gulf nations certainly hope it happens. Several countries in the region have already committed to reconstruction efforts should Iran demonstrate a willingness to become a more constructive player.
Importantly, those reconstruction commitments would be funded by Gulf nations—not American taxpayers—despite repeated claims to the contrary from critics and media commentators.
The 67 percent approval figure is significant because it directly challenges the narrative that this agreement is politically toxic. Yet even supporters acknowledge there is a long road ahead.
After all, we’re still dealing with the Iranian regime.
Senator Tim Sheehy knows that reality firsthand.
A former Navy SEAL who served multiple deployments throughout the Middle East, Sheehy has seen Iran’s influence operations up close. While supportive of the administration’s efforts, he remains appropriately cautious.
And if anyone has earned the right to be skeptical, it’s Tim Sheehy.
At the same time, he argues that today’s negotiating environment is vastly different from the one that existed a decade ago. The region has changed. America’s posture has changed. And the leverage available to President Trump today is unlike anything previous administrations possessed.
Trump himself argues that no president has ever negotiated with Iran under conditions like these.
That, he believes, is what makes this moment different.
For his critics—and even for some of his friends—he has a simple message.
And that may ultimately be the deciding factor.
Iran knows that Donald Trump means what he says.
While Tehran continues to bluster for domestic audiences, the facts tell a different story. Oil is flowing through the Strait of Hormuz. Nuclear inspections are moving forward. Terror proxies are part of the conversation. And the administration insists that economic benefits tied to the agreement will put American interests first.
Supporters call it peace through strength. Critics remain unconvinced.
But one thing is certain: Iran is negotiating from a weaker position than it was just a few months ago, and both sides know it.
The next phase of talks will determine whether that reality translates into a lasting agreement—or simply another chapter in one of the world’s longest-running geopolitical standoffs.