JUST FINISH THINGS.

Sometimes, the right sort of air power can be persuasive.

That might not convince one Roland Oliphant, who in London's Telegraph offers "proof Iran won the war."

It's not proof in the mathematical sense; rather it's his interpretation of the diplomacy that might be going on.

It means that Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu's war to topple or defang the Islamic Republic is ending in a demonstrable expansion of Iranian regional influence. They lost. Iran won.

The Hormuz deal tells us why. Leaked reports suggest the agreement grants Iran control of marine traffic entering the Persian Gulf, and also gives it some oversight of the outbound route which will be under the purview of Oman. The two countries will also charge a fee (yet to be set) to cover environmental, security and staffing costs.

As Kazem Gharibabadi, Iranian deputy foreign minister, told state media, it cements Iran's "effective sovereignty" over the Strait.

It's in the nature of the men of Asia Minor to posture and claim things that aren't so, and it might be that reports of an empty armory are reason to counsel caution.

Trump's threat last weekend to launch a fortnight-long Second World War-scale destructive blitz was his last throw of the dice. He dropped that plan, we now know, because of an intervention by America's Gulf allies, including Saudi Arabia. It has now been reported that came after Iran warned its neighbours that they would be targeted in the event of a US attack.

So Iran not only has control of the Strait in a way it did not before the war; its military leverage – the ability to use the threat of force to influence the behaviour of its neighbours – is stronger than before.

Much is still uncertain. The US and Oman have not yet publicly commented on the deal, which is of course contingent on American acquiescence. Meanwhile, Iran says it will only actually put the deal into effect if America lifts its blockade of Iranian ports.

Why should the United States lift that blockade? Deep into Mr Oliphant's column, he puts the most positive spin on events that have not yet taken place.

The Islamic Republic, on the other hand, has suffered losses in the thousands, and economic and military destruction that could take decades to repair. Iran's victory may yet prove Pyrrhic.

It is, however, a victory. There is no getting around the fact Iran won this war. America lost.

In The (Not Detroit) Free Press, Aaron MacLean grants some of Mr Oliphant's points, but he suggests "American acquiescence" cannot be delayed forever.

Donald Trump has failed to enforce the aggressive ultimatums he put to Iran at least five times since March. And for all of Trump’s fervent opposition to the weaknesses of Obama’s deal in 2015 with Iran, from which Trump withdrew in 2018 during his first term, the president is now investing his hopes in a diplomatic process that can only hand substantial control of the Strait of Hormuz to Iran.

These are not the actions of a president who feels he is operating from a position of strength, however tough his rhetoric. These are the actions of a president who is attempting to surrender with dignity to the Iranians, the better to move on to other issues. But while the Iranians might accept a surrender in the Strait of Hormuz, they will not grant Trump his dignity. Iran’s leaders have either concluded that the regime can survive another round of major American strikes, just as it survived the worst in March and April, or they think that Trump’s threatened escalation against Iran will never come.

Iran’s leaders might ultimately be wrong that Trump won’t escalate, but such a belief would not be irrational.

Neither of those essays consider the possibility that each day the blockade and the economic sanctions remain in place brings Iran a day closer to not being able to make payroll for its enforcers.

The odds of Iran allowing the United States to slink away from the war gracefully by quietly accepting the favorable terms of a revived MOU and refraining from further aggressive acts are all but zero.

Even in the extremely unlikely event that negotiators in Tehran have agreed to terms favorable to America on paper, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps would almost certainly not abide by them. Here is just one example of the potential for post-agreement trouble: The MOU made no mention of whether the U.S. Navy is allowed to pass through the Strait of Hormuz. What are the odds that the IRGC would now allow U.S. naval vessels to come and go as they please?

Cleanly divesting of the problem simply isn’t an option for Trump—and a genuine Iranian surrender isn’t on offer, either. That leaves only two options: the continued, patient prosecution of economic warfare against Iran into the fall, or the president’s oft-threatened escalation, and sticking with it this time.

Both courses of action would be aimed at weakening the Iranian regime to the point where they are compelled to submit to American demands on the Strait of Hormuz and on their nuclear program, at a minimum. And both approaches have advantages and risks. But either one would be preferable to the current mix of empty threats and diplomatic magical thinking.

Perhaps, notes Victor "Blade of Perseus" Hanson, the threat may be stronger than the execution, particularly as the oil continues to flow and the mullahs' assets are confiscated. "Iran is losing whether it is being bombed, sanctioned, or embargoed—or all three. Its ultimate fate now rests with the Trump administration, which apparently has not yet decided what, exactly, that fate will be."  On the other hand, Kurt Schlichter wants the thing to be pressed.  "The only way our enemies ever stop us is if we stop ourselves. So, let’s not stop."