In chess, there is a famous quote to the effect that the threat is always stronger than the execution. Here, the threat to close the strait was stronger, especially with Trump and with countries in Europe and the Far East. The decision to close the strait was never going to work as long as we refused to budge.

I wonder what that author would say if asked to apply that "threat is always stronger than the execution" to the decision to start this war. The U.S. had been threatening to attack Iran, and had brought them to the bargaining table in late February. Apparently the negotiations then had been productive, until the Administration decided to execute the threat rather than make it.

But then once we executed the threat, it became clear that we could not actually destroy the regime by air power and they had ways to fight back that would make it hard (nigh impossible) to keep them choked off for a very long time. Because Iran was able to close the strait and use missiles and drones to damage the energy infrastructure in nearby states, global energy prices spiked to levels that can't be sustained without global recession.

And did they really have any choice but to close the strait once we attacked? The threat of closing the strait is the deterrent to try to keep the U.S. from attacking. After we attack, it's too late for it to be a threat. Once we attack, you have to follow through with the consequences so that we can't keep attacking for very long. You can't "threaten" again that if you attack us, we'll close the strait.

I don't know. If the decision to close the strait was never going to work as long as we refused to budge, then a decision to threaten to close the strait was never going to work either. So closing it becomes the better choice. I don't think they get a ceasefire if they haven't closed the strait.