Two wounded leaders and a hostage

Iran's Supreme Leader now faces a US president who is seeking an achievement to rescue his legacy. That need may open the door to an agreement or escalation

Two wounded leaders and a hostage

In November 1979, Iranian students stormed the American embassy in Tehran and held its diplomats hostage for more than a year. The crisis became a heavy political burden for then-US President Jimmy Carter and helped Ronald Reagan defeat him in the 1980 election.

Forty-seven years later, in a congressional election season, another American president faces a hostage crisis of a different kind. This time the hostages are oil tankers, merchant vessels and a strait through which energy supplies flow to the United States and the wider world.

Then, Ayatollah Khomeini faced Jimmy Carter; now, Mojtaba Khamenei faces Donald Trump. The Supreme Leader has changed, and so has the president. The geography, the region and the world have all shifted. Yet "hostage diplomacy" remains one of the Islamic Republic's instruments of leverage. During the 1980s, armed groups linked to Iran abducted dozens of Westerners in Lebanon and used them as bargaining chips. Tehran later detained Western nationals inside Iran to strike deals with their governments.

The Strait of Hormuz crisis is the latest chapter in this history. For more than eight months, Tehran has held the strait hostage, while Iran itself remains captive to a naval blockade. Mojtaba Khamenei has taken a page from the playbook of the Islamic Republic's founding leader. He deliberately delayed reopening the strait, hoping that mounting economic pressure on Trump would cost his party the elections. That is precisely what happened: both the president and his vice president, JD Vance, acknowledged that the war with Iran had contributed to the Republicans' resounding defeat.

Defeat may push Trump towards a settlement that preserves his image of strength, or towards an attempt to recover that image through military force

Key difference

Does Trump's Republican Party defeat at home diminish his ability to act abroad? Here, his experience diverges from Carter's. Carter was fighting to save his presidency; Trump, after his party's defeat, is fighting to salvage his place in history. One was awaiting the voters' verdict; the other has received it and is searching for a way to respond.

Trump has lost Congress, but he still commands the armed forces. The Democrats can restrict funding for the war, summon officials for questioning, hold them to account and obstruct his legislative agenda. Some of his officials may find themselves preoccupied with defending their decisions before congressional investigative committees; others may even abandon him. Foreign policy, however, remains the arena in which an American president enjoys the greatest freedom of manoeuvre. With the political avenues in Washington closing around him, Trump may be tempted to look for an opening elsewhere.

Such behaviour has ample precedent in American history. Presidents who wage wars abroad often suffer defeats at home. Politicians rebuffed at the ballot box frequently seek victories on foreign battlefields, and presidents nearing the end of their terms look for international achievements to offset domestic setbacks. Trump enters this phase burdened by a war that has failed to deliver the victory he promised, and captive to his own image as the man who can achieve what eluded his predecessors. For an ageing president, the electoral blow makes the need for an achievement more urgent and leaves him less able to withstand another failure.

There is also an Israeli dimension. Israel figured in the Lebanese hostage crisis, too: the abductions of Western nationals unfolded against the backdrop of Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon, the expansion of Iranian influence and the emergence of Hezbollah. Today, the Israeli factor has returned through the war against Iran, its nuclear programme and Axe Mountain, amid Netanyahu's failure to secure an electoral victory and the prospect of either a caretaker government or a national unity government.

Tehran is weighing whether Trump's weakened position buys it more time or makes him more inclined to gamble

Iran's calculation

Trump needs an achievement to compensate for his defeat. Tehran, meanwhile, is weighing whether its adversary's weakened position buys it more time or makes him more inclined to gamble. That is the danger in Iran's calculation. Tehran may regard the Republican defeat and Netanyahu's setback as reasons to stand firm on its conditions and wait for further concessions. Trump, however, may see continued delay as prolonging the humiliation that contributed to his defeat, while Netanyahu may regard his own loss as the opening act in a succession of humiliations.

When does holding a hostage become a burden? Weakening an adversary inclined to gamble offers no assurance that he will yield. It may even drive him to widen the confrontation if he believes that retreat would merely confirm his weakness. Iran cannot assume that the losses it inflicts on others will spare it the costs of blockade and war. Time is exacting a price from both the president and the Supreme Leader.

None of this makes escalation inevitable. The war that weighed so heavily on American voters also constrains Washington's ability to sustain it, politically and militarily. Defeat may push Trump towards a settlement that preserves his image of strength, or towards an attempt to recover that image through military force.

From the American embassy in Tehran to the streets of Beirut and the prisons of Iran, and now to the Strait of Hormuz, the names of the hostages have changed, but the wager on time endures. Freeing maritime traffic and destroying Axe Mountain is far more complicated than releasing diplomats at an aircraft door. The Supreme Leader now faces a president who is no longer waiting for an election to save his presidency, but seeking an achievement to rescue his legacy. That need may open the door to an agreement, or turn the hostage into a ball of fire in its captor's hands. Time comes at a cost to both wounded men: Trump, bruised by the elections, and Mojtaba, wounded by the strikes.

font change