President Trump provoked a flurry of diplomatic interchange with the Iranian regime Saturday evening, when he gave the government 48 hours to open the Strait of Hormuz or face military strikes against its power plants and energy infrastructure. On Monday morning, 36 hours later, Trump postponed these threatened military strikes following “very good and productive conversations” with the Iranian regime. But it remains too soon to determine which side blinked first (or most) in this game of high-stakes brinksmanship.

At 7:44 p.m. on Saturday, President Trump announced on Truth Social, “If Iran doesn’t FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!”

The central headquarters for Iranian armed forces initially responded with threats of retaliation, saying that it would fully close the Strait of Hormuz and begin targeting “all power plants, energy infrastructure, and information technology” in countries hosting American military bases.

Yet cooler heads thought it more prudent to placate Trump with diplomatic overtures. “They called. I didn’t call,” Trump said. “They want to make a deal, and we are very willing to make a deal. … It’s got to be no more wars, no more nuclear weapons; they’re not going to have nuclear weapons anymore.” A source told The Jerusalem Post these negotiations are being led by Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf.

It is unclear whether Ghalibaf and the Iranian armed forces are following the same leader or working at cross-purposes. After Israel’s initial decapitation strikes eliminated top Iranian leaders, the Iranian regime chose as its new president Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of the late supreme leader, who was reportedly injured and has made no public appearances or statements since his ascent to power. Given this apparent void in leadership, Western powers are not entirely sure who is really leading Iran or whether the regime has devolved into infighting.

Indeed, an unnamed source quoted by Iran’s state-run Fars News Agency denied that negotiations were taking place at all. “There is no direct contact with Trump, not even through intermediaries,” the source claimed. “Trump retreated after hearing that our targets would be all power plants in West Asia.”

However, Axios’s Barack Ravid later confirmed that Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan had conveyed messages between White House envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi. “The mediation is ongoing and progressing,” Ravid quoted his anonymous source. “The discussion is about ending the war and resolving all the remaining open issues. We hope to receive answers soon.”

The presence of negotiations was all but confirmed on Monday morning, when President Trump abruptly postponed the enforcement of his ultimatum in an all-caps 7:23 a.m. Truth Social post:

“I am pleased to report that the United States of America, and the country of Iran, have had, over the last two days, very good and productive conversations regarding a complete and total resolution of our hostilities in the Middle East. Based on the tenor and tone of these in depth, detailed, and constructive conversations, which will continue throughout the week, I have instructed the department of war to postpone any and all military strikes against Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure for a five day period, subject to the success of the ongoing meetings and discussions.”

The Trump administration also lifted sanctions for 30 days on 140 million barrels of Iranian oil currently at sea. The stated goal of the action was to address the spike in world oil prices, but the move is likely worth some $14 billion to the Iranian regime.

Whether from the sanctions lifting or the hope of negotiations to end the conflict, oil prices dropped dramatically on Monday, with Brent crude future falling 15% to a session low of $96 per barrel. Trump said he wanted “as much oil in the system as possible” to ease price tensions.

Meanwhile, an international coalition announced its “readiness to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait” of Hormuz. Led by the U.K. and other European partners, the statement has since been joined by some 20 nations, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Korea, the UAE, Panama, and Caribbean nations.

The nations “condemn[ed] in the strongest terms recent attacks by Iran on unarmed commercial vessels in the Gulf, attacks on civilian infrastructure including oil and gas installations, and the de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iranian forces.”

“Freedom of navigation is a fundamental principle of international law, including under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,” they argued, as they “welcom[ed] the commitment of nations who are engaging in preparatory planning.

While “engaging in preparatory planning” has its place, the U.S. and Israel are engaging in actual conflict with a rogue regime that is more-or-less indiscriminately targeting commercial shipping through one of the world’s most important maritime chokepoints. The oil crisis has already arrived, and the conflict may be resolved before these nations move beyond preparation. If these nations mean to do anything, they could send military forces to the region immediately to assist in securing the Strait.

Domestically, President Trump faces criticism from a cadre with even less responsibility to actually make hard decisions: the U.S. press corps. National Review’s Jim Geraghty assesses that most of the press is rooting for Trump to fail, even if it entails an American defeat at the hands of one of our greatest geopolitical adversaries. Already, media voices have reprised the derogatory acronym “TACO” (for “Trump Always Chickens Out”) to describe his postponed ultimatum deadline.

Yet those who would criticize President Trump for employing the unrestrained use of force cannot also criticize him for the restraint of force — at least not with any consistency. Trump’s deep-seated desire to reach a deal with Iran has led him to graciously overlook the regime’s deliberate stall tactics more than once, giving the regime more than ample opportunity to avoid its own destruction. Yet, on more than one occasion, President Trump has also demonstrated his willingness to attack Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities when negotiations ground to a halt.

At this moment, then, the course of America’s current conflict in Iran depends on the decision of the one man with the information, authority, and inclination to make that decision: the President of the United States.