President Donald Trump’s Iran conundrum is proving to be a more difficult knot to untie than he anticipated before launching the joint Israel-U.S. Operation Epic Fury.

As the weeks have gone by with no permanent peace deal, the Strait of Hormuz has remained largely closed, with Iran still posing a genuine threat to commercial shipping in the region.

Time and again over these last few weeks, Trump has indicated that a deal with the Islamic Republic looks to be imminent, only for Iran’s leadership to reject it and offer their unrealistic counterproposals — proposals that include Iran keeping its nuclear materials and weapons development programs.

Trump has steadfastly held to the position that any deal that does not end with Iran giving up its nuclear aims and its enriched uranium is no deal. “These incredible men and women gave their lives to ensure that the world’s number one state sponsor of terror will never have a nuclear weapon,” he reiterated on Memorial Day of the 13 Americans killed in action against Iran. “And they won’t. They will never have a nuclear weapon.”

Yet, here we are again. Over the weekend, Trump suggested that negotiations with Iran are “proceeding nicely.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared to back up Trump’s assessment, stating, “There [were] some talks going on in Qatar … so we’ll see if we can make progress. … I think it’s a lot of talking back and forth going on about specific language in the initial document.” He added that Trump is “going to make a good deal or no deal, so on that everyone should be assured, but that may take a little while — I mean, a few more days.”

At the same time, after offering his positive view, Trump also warned, “It will only be a Great Deal for all or, no Deal at all. Back to the Battlefront and shooting, but bigger and stronger than ever before.”

As has been noted previously, part of the challenge of these negotiations is the question of who exactly is in charge in Iran. As soon as the positive message regarding a breakthrough in negotiations was announced, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei (or someone in his name) released a written statement reiterating that “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” would continue to be the regime’s operational agenda. He claimed that countries in the Middle East would no longer act as “shields” for U.S. bases, insisting, “The region will not return to past conditions, and Washington will no longer have a safe place to station military bases in the region.”

This statement appeared to be an effort to confront Trump’s call the day prior for more Muslim-majority nations in the region to join the Abraham Accords and normalize relations with Israel and the U.S.

Back Stateside, some Republican lawmakers are concerned that Trump has become so eager and impatient to get a deal done and to reopen the Strait of Hormuz that he’s willing to consider compromise on his nuclear ultimatum.

For example, Texas Senator Ted Cruz posted on X that if the deal results in the regime “receiving billions of dollars, being able to enrich uranium & develop nuclear weapons, and having effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, then that outcome would be a disastrous mistake.” He added, “I pray the early reports are wrong.”

Mississippi Republican Senator Roger Wicker posted, “The rumored 60-day ceasefire — with the belief that Iran will ever engage in good faith — would be a disaster. Everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury would be for naught!”

South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham also weighed in, writing, “If a deal is struck to end the Iranian conflict because it is believed that the Strait of Hormuz cannot be protected from Iranian terrorism and Iran still possesses the capability to destroy major Gulf oil infrastructure, then Iran will be perceived as being a dominate force requiring a diplomatic solution. … It is important we get this right.”

Yet Graham praised Trump’s call for more Muslim-majority nations to join the Abraham Accords as “simply brilliant.” Indeed, Trump’s appeal would not only lend greater regional recognition and legitimacy to Israel but also further isolate Tehran.

While Trump has repeatedly warned Iran’s Islamic radicals that he will hit them even harder should they fail to make a deal, he has also repeatedly pushed off taking action. This has produced a kind of rope-a-dope situation wherein the world waits to see if Iran will actually concede or if Trump sends in the bombs.

Obviously, Trump and the rest of the world would prefer the former, but it is also looking like Tehran is daring Trump to pull the trigger, banking on him doing anything to avoid sending in troops over midterm election concerns.

It will be interesting to see whether Trump’s Abraham Accords appeal proves to be a pivotal pressure tactic, further isolating Iran and its position in the region and bringing the regime to actually agree to a peace deal.