Emerging World (Dis)Order
Washington and Tehran are edging toward an agreement neither side fully trusts, and neither side can afford to abandon. Reports that a draft framework had been largely negotiated briefly sent oil prices tumbling this week on expectations that the Strait of Hormuz could stabilize and sanctions relief might follow. But on the same day, US strikes on Iranian missile infrastructure and maritime assets—in retaliation for an Iranian strike on a US drone—pushed markets in the opposite direction and underscored that the situation is still volatile and an offramp from the standoff remains elusive.
The emerging structure of a possible deal reflects that reality. Iranian state-linked outlets emphasize a framework of sequential de-escalation instead of a complete resolution. Rhetoric from Tehran suggests Iranian energy export restrictions would ease temporarily, and maritime pressure near Hormuz would be reduced while broader negotiations continue. The nuclear issue—specifically Iran’s highly enriched uranium stockpile and future enrichment capacity—would effectively be postponed into a separate process.
Mediators are reportedly working to craft wording vague enough for Tehran to accept without appearing to concede its strategic leverage, while still giving Washington enough political cover to claim the framework addresses the nuclear file. Iranian hardliners initially resisted any inclusion of nuclear language altogether, but the White House pushed to ensure the issue remained embedded in the agreement, even if deferred. For Tehran, tolerating that ambiguity now could unlock immediate economic relief—including $25 billion in frozen assets held in Qatari banks—without necessarily forcing substantive concessions later.
The Strait of Hormuz remains equally unresolved beneath the surface of negotiations. Iranian leadership is intent on projecting control over the waterway as a matter of national sovereignty, suggesting Tehran intends to keep its ability to pressure commercial shipping even if a framework of a deal is finalized. A recent strike on a Greek-linked tanker signals not only retaliation for noncompliance with Iranian maritime directives, but also that Tehran wants to institutionalize a permanent enforcement role in the Strait.
If a framework is announced in the coming days, markets will likely interpret it as a meaningful step toward regional stabilization. In practice, it would function more as a temporary freeze over a structural issue that remains unresolved. The core issues—uranium enrichment, enforcement mechanisms in Hormuz, and the extent of Iran’s regional influence—are not close to resolution. In the interim, both sides have incentives to finalize an agreement quickly and avoid another round of fighting, but for fundamentally different reasons.
Weekly Wildcard
Russia’s recent large-scale barrage against Kyiv was aimed as much at Ukraine’s backers as it was at its capital. The attack included hundreds of drones, dozens of missiles, and another deployment of a nuclear-capable Oreshnik hypersonic missile. The strikes carried limited strategic value on the battlefield—for the Kremlin, the real purpose was to send a diplomatic signal.
Moscow followed the strikes with unusually direct diplomatic signaling, warning foreign embassies to evacuate Kyiv ahead of what it described as future “systematic strikes” on urban areas in Ukraine. Western officials largely dismissed the threat as intimidation theater, but the sequence reflects a broader Russian strategy that increasingly prioritizes psychological pressure over operational gains.
Russia is a nation projecting strength abroad, but hemorrhaging capacity at home. Putin’s new decree offering debt relief to military recruits and their families is another clear indicator that financial incentives are no longer enough to sustain the manpower needed for its attritional war. Moscow has steadily expanded compensation packages for contract soldiers over the last two years, and while Russia can still generate manpower, it’s becoming more expensive politically, economically, and socially to do so.
Ukraine, too, has suffered chronic manpower shortages throughout the war, often putting its frontline in crisis. But advances in autonomous warfare—particularly drones, remote-operated systems, and unmanned armored platforms—have partially offset those constraints. In some sectors, Ukraine is now capable of maintaining defensive positions with dramatically reduced troop concentrations and, in limited cases, almost no permanent frontline presence at all. In this arena, Moscow is struggling to keep up with Ukraine’s pace.
The use of the Oreshnik missile system reflects that frustration—if the battlefield is no longer delivering meaningful gains, the Kremlin needs to show it can still raise the costs of the conflict. By invoking the psychological threat of further escalation, Moscow is attempting to shape Western risk calculations and create pressure for concessions that the current state of the war might not otherwise produce.
