In a detailed analysis, senior journalist Anwar Iqbal highlights that Iran and the United States are locked in a persistent pattern of alternating military posturing and diplomatic engagement over the strategic Strait of Hormuz. He argues that this cycle is driven by three key factors: deep-rooted strategic interests, domestic political pressures on both sides, and a fundamental lack of trust that prevents any lasting framework for peace. The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway through which about 20% of the world's oil passes, remains a flashpoint where any miscalculation could trigger a broader conflict. Iqbal's observations underscore the reality that neither Washington nor Tehran is willing to fully commit to either confrontation or compromise. The US seeks to maintain freedom of navigation and pressure Iran economically, while Iran uses the threat of disruption as leverage in nuclear negotiations and regional influence. Domestic politics further complicate matters: hardliners in both countries benefit from portraying the other as an existential enemy, making any diplomatic breakthrough politically risky. In my opinion, this analysis is spot-on but incomplete. The cycle is also sustained by external actors—particularly Gulf states, Russia, and China—who have their own interests in the region. Moreover, the lack of trust is not just a byproduct but a deliberate tool used by both sides to justify escalations. A real peace would require not just interim deals, but a regional security framework that addresses Iran's security concerns and US commitment to its allies. Until then, the Strait of Hormuz will remain a permanent chessboard of brinkmanship and backchannel talks.