if we thought it was close and they (Iran) then threw the big israel/hamas thing out, i actually think that mimics a trump negotiation style. hit them with something big when they think it is close, bc the other side lets their guard down and will cave just to avoid undoing the progress.
i consider it negotiating in bad faith. but if that’s what Iran is doing they maybe have seen it modeled somewhere
This would be very bad…
Esmail Qaani, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force, said if Israel continued to push on with its offensive in Gaza and Lebanon, Iran and its allies “would take steps to activate other fronts, and equate the traffic situation of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait with the Strait of Hormuz”.
The Bab el-Mandeb Strait is another maritime chokepoint between Yemen and the Horn of Africa, which was effectively closed by the Iran-backed Houthi rebels between late 2023 and 2025.
I had someone try and pull this on me once. I just shut down the negotiations. but, I had other offers and I wasn’t dealing with life and death.
Iran has cancelled the ceasefire talks previously over Israel attacking Lebanon. It might not be a case of adding new terms so much as noting existing terms.
Allegedly the Glorious Geezer had a falling out with Bibi.
(Caution: F-bomb in the headline of the article)
https://www.axios.com/2026/06/01/trump-netanyahu-israel-lebanon-call
These two are allegedly related. I’ll try and find my other source from this morning, but the story was that Trump basically cussed out Netanyahu over the phone over the Lebanon attacks that led to this latest abandonment of truce talks.
I think you’re being generous with your use of the term, “allegedly”. 
I assume that there is a correlation among these events and the announcement of a phased cease-fire in Israel’s antics in Lebanon.
More of this to come.
Countries will start working around the US and deal with Iran directly for passage.
No choice really. They can’t afford to wait any longer.
Of course, part of the challenge is the possibility (likelihood?) that entities that pay Iranian tolls will have OFAC implications with the US.
That’s not a problem if you don’t do business in the US, and don’t do business with financial institutions that do business in the US, but for others…
Depending on the shape of the eventual cease-fire, the implications of this could further erode the US’s former hegemony of the financial world.
It’s not just a possibility. If you pay a toll any company operating in the US cant insure you
Fair enough…‘allegedly directly’ would have been more precise I guess.
…go onnnnn…??? Legal thing or general guideline thing in this case? I’m just a lowly personal lines P&C guy.
this
Specifically because Iran is designated and blocked by OFAC? Well…I can’t think of any way this administration would get around that…
now that i’ve looked it up, if convenient the current admin will just ignore enforcement
Considering the risks, the banks and insurers who do business with the companies paying the Iranian tolls will generally err on the side of compliance if they do business in the US or with US-regulated markets/entities.
At my employer, there’s a whole team within Risk Management that is just focused on OFAC.
Yes, otherwise they’ll get hit by penalties from the US due to secondary sanctions.
…for now…
/s
I’m going to guess that a lot of the companies are going to find this route way cheaper than what’s going on now.
Insurers? I doubt it
