THE ANACONDA'S COILS CONTINUE TO TIGHTEN.

This morning, Red State's Ward Clark reported "Trump Announces Bold New Kharg Island Move to Crush Iran Regime."

Iran some errands, and someone in Iran ran to the hot line.  Teri Cristoph, also with Red State, filed a different story.  "Did Iran Just Blink? Trump Abruptly Cancels Thursday Night Strikes (but Keeps Iran's Ships Boxed In)."  That's approximately where we were two months ago, and as one might expect of Red State regulars, the hotheads are again losing patience.  No confirmation from Teheran, although all sorts of claims by Our President that all the other countries of Asia Minor are participating in this round of diplomacy.

This morning, Kurt Schlichter counselled continued patience.

Now, if the IRGC fired rockets in our general direction, I would unleash unholy hell on them. That’s not how Donald Trump operates. We’ve seen before that he is willing to absorb fires that have no substantial effect in order to avoid increasing the military effort, which would be at the expense of the diplomatic, informational, and economic initiatives. In other words, he is choosing to let them shoot rockets at us, which we shoot down, and not retaliate as long as no one gets killed because he doesn’t see it in our interest to go kinetic again right now. That option is still there, and we have another ace up our sleeve—our loyal friend (the ravings of idiots like Thomas Massie aside), Israel is ready to pummel them when they get uppity. Trump can sit back and look diplomatic, playing the good cop to Netanyahu’s bad cop. At the same time, Trump can make some noises—diplomatic and informational—about Israel not crushing Hezbollah in Lebanon, and then Israel can continue with its righteous work of crushing Hezbollah in Lebanon while Trump gets to shrug.

He concludes, "Chill out. Watch what happens. I’m betting on the United States."

In Real Clear Defense, R. N. Prasher, in less colourful terms, also recognises the strategic patience at work.

Is Trump deliberately delaying a deal to bring Iran to an economically and logistically weak state where it has no option but to drop insistence on some of the so-called “red lines”? Three of these lines are very obvious; not surrendering the already enriched uranium with the enrichment facilities, control over the Strait of Hormuz and sanctions relief. At present, only the last two appear to be somewhat negotiable. The first one is considered by the theocracy as contrary to affirmation of its sovereignty and consequently tantamount to the loss of legitimacy of the regime.

That makes all the hype about a weekend signing of an agreement somewhere in Europe worthy of a boxing promoter.  The tell might be in the current blockade remaining in force.

Prolonged negotiations are giving the U.S. an opportunity of having a peep into Iran’s increasing vulnerabilities and it appears certain that they see an extended bargaining phase as useful by itself. The U.S. can allow economic pressure to degrade Iran’s war-sustaining capabilities and morale resilience to increase the efficacy of force that may have to be ultimately used. Thus, from a strategic-logic point of view, this combination of extended talks, economic strangulation and the available-at-call kinetic option seems to be Trump’s recipe to square the circle between coercion and escalation control. If there is one way out of the dilemma faced by Trump of preventing debilitating damage to its allies’ infrastructure in the region, protracted parleys and continued blockade may be providing that.

Moreover, each time somebody in Teheran offers Our President the outline of a deal and somebody else, perhaps in hiding, denies that conversations are even taking place, the unity of purpose of what remains of that country's government erodes.