President Donald Trump’s decision to reimpose the American blockade on Iranian shipping marks the end of a brief and increasingly unrealistic attempt to resolve the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz through diplomacy alone.

The memorandum of understanding reached last month was intended to reopen the Strait, restore commercial shipping, and reduce the economic pressure that the conflict had placed on the United States and the broader world. Iran was given an opportunity to guarantee safe passage and avoid another round of military escalation. It chose not to take it.

Instead, Iran resumed firing on commercial vessels, rejected a compromise proposed by Oman, and launched attacks against several American partners across the region. The Iranian regime did not merely fail to fulfill the agreement. It directly challenged the agreement’s central purpose.

The collapse of the arrangement should not have come as a surprise. Iran has repeatedly demonstrated that its leaders are willing to sacrifice their country’s economic stability in pursuit of their ideological struggle against Israel, the United States, and the Western world. Most governments view economic prosperity and the welfare of their citizens as central national interests. The Iranian regime does not operate according to those priorities alone. Its legitimacy has long depended upon confrontation with the West, even when that confrontation harms the Iranian people.

That makes any lasting agreement extraordinarily difficult.

Iran may temporarily accept restrictions when it is militarily weakened or economically isolated. But once its leaders believe aggression can restore their leverage, they return to aggression. The memorandum of understanding may have produced a temporary pause, but it could not eliminate the regime’s broader objectives.

What is surprising is not that Iran violated the agreement. It is how quickly Iran chose to do so.

Iran could have used the temporary calm to rebuild its military capabilities, stabilize its government, and repair some of the economic damage caused by the conflict. It could have waited until it was in a stronger position before directly challenging the United States again.

Instead, it resumed its attacks almost immediately.

Iran appears to believe that control over the Strait of Hormuz gives it decisive leverage. Before the conflict, approximately one-fifth of the world’s oil passed through the waterway. Restricting that traffic raises global energy prices, disrupts supply chains, and places enormous political pressure on Western governments.

There is no question that the closure of the strait is economically damaging. Oil prices have already risen, commercial traffic has declined, and shipping companies are increasingly unwilling to risk passage through the region. For many countries in Europe and Asia, prolonged disruption could become a serious economic crisis.

But Iran may be misunderstanding the balance of pain.

For the United States, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is primarily an economic problem. Americans may feel the consequences in the form of moderately higher energy prices and broader instability in global markets. But the United States is not as dependent upon Persian Gulf oil as many other countries.

The Strait is the principal way most Americans experience this conflict. For Iran, however, the consequences are far more serious.

Iran depends heavily upon maritime trade and energy exports. A sustained blockade of Iranian ports would threaten the regime’s revenue, weaken its military capacity, and place even greater pressure on an already unstable economy. What produces economic discomfort for the United States could produce economic devastation for Iran.

That distinction is central to understanding Trump’s decision.

Once Iran has disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, it will have used one of its greatest sources of leverage. The economic consequences it could threaten have already begun to unfold. The United States, by contrast, still has several ways to escalate pressure against Iran. It can tighten the blockade, continue to strike military infrastructure, target ports, and further restrict the regime’s ability to export oil.

The closure of the strait may therefore represent the worst immediate economic outcome for the United States. But it is nowhere near the worst possible outcome for Iran.

Iran was given an opportunity to reopen the Strait peacefully. It chose to attack commercial vessels. Iran was given an opportunity to reduce regional tensions. It chose to strike American allies. Iran was given an opportunity to preserve a very lenient diplomatic agreement. It chose to violate it.

Trump should not offer the same agreement again under the same conditions.

Any future arrangement must recognize that Iran has already demonstrated its willingness to use violence to improve its negotiating position. Rewarding that behavior would only encourage the regime to repeat it.

Iran may have believed that renewed attacks would force the United States to retreat or return to the negotiating table. Instead, it may have eliminated the strongest remaining reason for Trump to show restraint.