If there is one stage in today's world that delivers the most entertaining political theatre, it has to be the White House press briefing room. Lately, the show has taken a peculiar turn. There is more than one lead actor on stage, and each of them is working from a completely different script. This drama, titled "Oil Price Predictions," offers a vivid illustration of what it means to have one government operating in two separate realities.
The President and the Minister's "Battle of Arithmetic"
April 20th. The average price of gasoline in the United States was holding firm above four dollars a gallon, and drivers across the country were feeling the pain. Just the day before, Energy Secretary Chris Wright had delivered some sobering news: due to shipping restrictions in the Strait of Hormuz, gasoline prices might not fall below three dollars a gallon until next year.
Before the words had barely settled, President Donald Trump made his entrance with his trademark confidence. In an interview with The Hill, he delivered his authoritative verdict on his own minister's professional assessment: "I think he's wrong on that. Totally wrong." A reporter followed up: So when do you think oil prices will come down? The President offered an answer with a distinctly philosophical and strategic flair: "As soon as this ends" — referring to the war with Iran, ignited by the United States and Israel.
The irony runs deep on two counts. First, the minister's assessment — grounded in shipping disruptions and real market supply data — wilted instantly before the President's instinct-driven dismissal. The implication was clear: economic laws and market data don't matter. What matters is when the President decides prices should drop.
Second, consider the causal loop. Oil prices are high because of the war and the blockade. The United States started the war and the blockade. So the solution is to end the war.
This is rather like someone who personally sets their house on fire, then reassures the family choking on smoke: "Don't panic — once the fire's out, the smoke will clear." As for when the fire goes out? That depends entirely on how negotiations go. Perfectly circular logic, airtight and unassailable.
The President and the General's "Memory Maze"
Just as the public was trying to navigate between "the minister's next year" and "the president's post-war," a third script quietly surfaced. Reuters reported that Pakistani Army Chief of Staff Asim Munir told Trump that the American blockade of Iranian ports was the primary obstacle to negotiations. Munir suggested easing the blockade to facilitate peace talks — a pragmatic diplomatic proposal.
Yet when reporters asked Trump to confirm the exchange, the President's memory seemed to have undergone a remarkable transformation. He flatly insisted: "Munir didn’t recommend anything on the blockade." He then pivoted smoothly to praising the very blockade that the "non-existent" suggestion had targeted: "The blockade is very powerful, very strong. They lose $500 million a day with the blockade up." A single proposal — reported by a third-party outlet and flatly denied by the President — appeared to exist in a state of quantum superposition: simultaneously made and not made. The one certainty was that the blockade continued, and the President was proud of it.
The administration's negotiating "sincerity" deserves scrutiny. On one hand, it claims to want a successful negotiation and an end to the war to bring oil prices down. On the other, it is strangling Iran's economy through the blockade and boasting about it as an achievement. This is rather like sitting across a negotiating table with a gun to your counterpart's head, then saying with complete sincerity: "Let's reach a mutually beneficial agreement in a spirit of goodwill." Even Iranian parliament speaker Ghalibaf could not stomach the contradiction. He bluntly stated that the Americans want to turn "the negotiating table into a surrender table."
Poll Numbers and Oil Prices Deliver a "Double Slap"
The competing voices inside the White House ultimately need reality to act as referee. Reality has not been kind. Three verdicts have come in simultaneously — from polls, from markets, and from politics.
The polling verdict is clear. Data from the Pew Research Center shows that approximately 61% of Americans disapprove of Trump's handling of the conflict. Those who believe the military operation is going poorly outnumber those who think it is going well by nearly two to one. The public has registered its dissatisfaction with this chaotic management.
The market verdict has been equally brutal. Since the war broke out on February 28th and the Strait of Hormuz was disrupted, US gasoline prices breached four dollars a gallon for the first time since the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Following the American seizure of an Iranian vessel on April 19th, prices surged sharply. The market, in cold hard numbers, has confirmed the immediate economic devastation wrought by the blockade and the war.
The political verdict may be the most consequential of all. As fuel prices climb and economic frustration deepens, Trump's approval rating has fallen to its lowest point in his second term, directly threatening Republican prospects in the midterm elections. This may well explain why the President is so eager to predict the war will end before the November midterms. Votes, in the end, are the most honest poll of all.
A Ship with Too Many Captains
The contradictions have stacked up into a clear pattern. The Energy Secretary offers a cautious, reality-based outlook — prices may not fall until next year. The President issues an optimistic political declaration — prices will fall once the war ends. The administration claims to have received and considered an ally's proposal; then flatly denies the proposal ever existed. It loudly calls for peaceful negotiations while flaunting the blockade as a trophy of strength.
The reality is this: a major world power is now a great vessel with multiple captains, each issuing orders by a different compass. The cabinet reports speed and risk according to one instrument; the President announces imminent landfall according to another entirely. The actual storm — the consequences of war, the economic cost — and the reefs ahead — diplomatic isolation, the collapse of credibility — appear on no compass at all.
The ones paying the price for this "art of command" are ordinary American families forced to pay sky-high prices at the pump. They are citizens left bewildered about the direction of their own country. They are people around the world caught in the geopolitical undertow of an erratic and unpredictable policy. This White House "Rashomon" reads like a vivid diagnosis: this nation's course can only drift along in confusion and uncertainty — unable to move forward, let alone sail in the right direction.
Beacon Institute
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
If there is one genre that best captures the dramatic tension of today's international political stage, it is the "US-Iran chess match." On April 17, a solemn diplomatic drama titled "Who Will Reopen the Strait of Hormuz" was reaching its climax. Then Donald Trump took to the social media, and the whole thing collapsed into farce.
Europe's Grand Gesture — and Its Limits
The scene: Paris. Led by France and the United Kingdom, more than 40 regional leaders sat upright in a video conference, solemnly debating how to reopen the Strait of Hormuz — the lifeline of the global economy. Senior officials from Germany, Italy, and other nations attended in person. The atmosphere was grave, the agenda packed. It looked like a "D-Day landing" to rescue the world economy was being planned. 
Then, midway through the meeting, whispers spread across the room. Off-camera aides rushed about anxiously, tapping their leaders on the shoulder and slipping handwritten notes onto the table. The cause? While these officials were racking their brains over solutions, Trump had — without warning — dropped a diplomatic bombshell on social media from across the Atlantic. He claimed to have reached a "breakthrough deal" with Iran, and that the Strait would fully reopen. In hindsight, it was yet another theatrical performance.
The irony cuts two ways. First, Europe "loses by taking it seriously." The UK, France, Germany, and Italy assembled a grand coalition of 40-plus regional leaders, hoping to resolve the crisis through multilateral diplomacy and collective wisdom. Trump's unilateral tweet rendered that earnest effort both solemn and hollow. Picture a team of engineers meticulously calculating how to repair a bridge — only for the someone to suddenly leap out and shout, "I've already fixed it!" The engineers are left staring blankly at one another.
Second, behind the diplomatic language of "cautious optimism" lies profound distrust. French President Emmanuel Macron said "recent developments are encouraging, but must be viewed with caution." UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer emphasised that any agreement must be "viable and durable." These carefully chosen words mask deep scepticism toward the Trump administration's credibility. After all, this is a president with a well-established track record of declaring "victory" even when negotiations have yielded no results. Europe's "caution" is, in reality, a vote of no-confidence in American leadership's reliability.
Trump's Tweet Diplomacy — and Its Depleted Credibility
Trump's social media timeline has become the command centre driving international affairs. The sequence unfolded fast. First, a single tweet unilaterally announced a "breakthrough deal" and the imminent reopening of the Strait. Then came the conditions: the naval blockade on Iran would remain in force until the "deal" was 100% executed — in other words, "I announce it's open, but my warships are still blocking the door." Then came the staggering claim: the United States would "take possession of Iran's enriched uranium without any financial exchange" — openly declaring, in effect, "I will take your core assets for free."
Iran hit back immediately. Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf denounced Trump's seven posts within a single hour as "all lies," stressing that the Strait cannot remain open if the US blockade continues. The following day — April 18 — Iran's military announced that, due to the US "repeatedly breaking its promises," strict control over the Strait of Hormuz had been reinstated.
Consider what this episode reveals about modern diplomacy. An "agreement" that exists only in tweets: a complex negotiation touching on regional security, nuclear non-proliferation, and global energy supply — its key developments determined not by a joint communiqué or diplomatic note, but by the frequency and content of one leader's social media updates. This carries the absurdity of modern diplomacy to its absolute extreme.
Credibility has become a rare luxury. From announcing a deal, to immediately introducing self-contradictory conditions, to being directly accused of lying by the other party — the entire cycle completed itself within hours. As one widely shared quip put it: "The entire White House's credit score combined isn't enough to unlock a shared bicycle." Any promise or proclamation from Washington now arrives in the international community's eyes with a giant question mark attached.
"Maximum pressure" has become maximum self-delusion. US officials argue that Trump's high-profile posturing is a "negotiating strategy." But when a strategy repeatedly drains a nation's credibility until no one believes what it says, that strategy becomes a performance with no audience. Far from pressuring the adversary, it bewilders allies and leaves the United States trapped in a "boy who cried wolf" dilemma.
The Essence of This Black Comedy
Behind this spectacle lies a deeper picture with three distinct dimensions.
Europe's helplessness. Despite their deep misgivings about American unpredictability, the UK, France, and Germany can do little beyond expressing "caution." They have no capacity to bypass the United States and negotiate a binding agreement with Iran on their own. They cannot stop Trump from using Twitter to upend multilateral diplomatic processes. The vaunted consensus of 40-plus regional leaders proves utterly fragile in the face of unilateral American action.
America's self-centredness. Trump's tweets perfectly embody "America First" taken to its ultimate expression. International norms, allied coordination, and diplomatic conventions all yield to domestic political needs or personal negotiating style. The world must adapt to his rhythm and absorb the chaos he generates.
Iran's asymmetric counter-play. Faced with an adversary who disregards all established rules, Iran adopted the most direct response: you say what you want, we do what we do. You announce it's open, we reiterate our conditions. You maintain the blockade, we restore control. In the end, after all the paper noise, control over the Strait has not in any practical sense changed hands.
A Drama With No Winners
This "Strait of Hormuz Rashomon" has no true victors. Europe displayed the impotence of its supposed solidarity. America squandered whatever credibility it had left. Iran struggled to manoeuvre under the weight of great-power pressure. And yet, the show must go on.
Europe will continue holding "solemn" meetings. The American president will continue issuing "bombshell" tweets. Iran will continue issuing "resolute" denunciations. This is a genuine portrait of contemporary international politics: on one side, earnest efforts that achieve nothing; on the other, arbitrary actions that drain all credibility. When the capriciousness of hegemonic power becomes the norm, multilateral coordination is reduced to mere wallpaper.
The reality is: this episode is less a comedy than a mirror — one that reflects the many absurdities of a world order in the process of breaking down. The show continues. But the audience stopped laughing long ago.
