On April 25 and 26, 2026, the United States and Iran each played their hard cards concerning the Strait of Hormuz and the Islamabad meeting, which was initially hoped to be a "breakthrough." Tehran took the first step: Ali Nikzad, the Deputy Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, publicly announced that the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mujtaba Khamenei had ordered that the Strait of Hormuz must not return to its pre-war state. This globally significant oil transportation route was explicitly excluded from returning to the pre-conflict order, and thus the consensus between the U.S. and Iran regarding the "return to the starting point" in the Strait collapsed instantly.

Almost simultaneously, Washington closed the meeting window that had previously been boldly hinted at. Trump retracted the earlier proposal he had made during a television interview, canceling the trip of Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and his son-in-law Jared Kushner to Pakistan's Islamabad to meet with Iranian officials. He stated on social media and in public speeches that the trip was "a waste of too much time," emphasizing that "the U.S. holds all the cards" and "nobody knows who is responsible in Iran." He further asserted that if Iran really wanted to talk, "they could just call," rather than waiting for the U.S. to take the initiative to meet.

Between these mutual closing actions, the "pre-war status" of the Strait of Hormuz was quickly solidified into a symbol: one end connects with the opening and closing of energy shipping routes, while the other became a key indicator for outsiders to judge the temperature of U.S.-Iran relations. Tehran's refusal to return to the pre-war state was met with the U.S. cancellation of the Islamabad trip, effectively declaring that this indicator could not return to zero in the short term.

The freezing of emotions was also directly reflected in the prediction market. The contract on Polymarket for "a formal diplomatic meeting between the U.S. and Iran before April 29" was clearly defined in its rules: if U.S. and Iranian representatives held a formal diplomatic meeting in an official capacity before 11:59 PM Eastern Time on April 29, 2026, it would be judged as "yes." Within 24 hours after the dual shifts in stance regarding Hormuz and the Islamabad trip, the market probability for this contract plummeted from a high level to about 16%, a single-day drop of 39 percentage points. Briefings indicated that this level meant that, at least from the perspective of the prediction market, the hope for a formal diplomatic meeting between the U.S. and Iran in the short term had been deemed extremely slim.

Hormuz Stands Firm: Iran Draws a Red Line

The timing chosen by Nikzad was not ambiguous. During the 24-hour window of April 25-26, he, in his capacity as Deputy Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, expressed an extremely concise yet weighty statement: the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mujtaba Khamenei had clearly ordered that the Strait of Hormuz must not return to its pre-war state. The only information the outside world received was this paraphrase—the specific wording of the directive and whether it involved military deployment or passage details were noted as "not disclosed." Hence, what circulated in the media and diplomatic circles was rather the political implication behind this deliberate omission: the highest authority personally naming Hormuz meant that this waterway was elevated from a technical issue to a strategic symbol directly governed by the Supreme Leader.

The status of the Strait of Hormuz caused this red line to be magnified on a global scale. It is widely regarded as one of the most important oil transportation routes in the world, and its traffic conditions have long been treated as a barometer for geopolitical risk in the energy market—once the phrase "war status" is applied to this shipping route, the interpretation naturally won't be limited to map level. By choosing to draw the line stating "no return to pre-war status," Iran essentially tied itself directly to the global energy chain: any contention over the management model of Hormuz is no longer merely a dispute over jurisdiction between coastal countries but has become intertwined with market expectations, price fluctuations, and regional security perceptions. For Tehran, this position itself is the most crucial bargaining chip—it does not need to disclose specific measures; merely declaring to maintain "war conditions" is sufficient to ensure all relevant parties factor Iran's will into their risk calculations as the foremost consideration.

Internally, such a stance also serves political needs. Having the Deputy Speaker of the Parliament announce the Supreme Leader's directive about Hormuz not only demonstrates authority but also creates a narrative of "consensus from top to bottom" within the national discourse: the pre-war state is deliberately blurred yet defined as an irreversible old order. The underlying logic is clear—so long as the definition of "war status" for Hormuz remains unchanged, any voice advocating compromise or restoration of the old arrangements can be labeled as contrary to the Supreme Leader's directive. Under this narrative, the Strait is not just a geographical choke point, but also a symbolic land used to reinforce the legitimacy of governance and consolidate domestic consensus.

Externally, this red line signifies a collective projection to the U.S. and neighboring countries. After canceling the Islamabad trip, the U.S. repeatedly emphasized that "if Iran wants to talk, they can just call"; Tehran's response was essentially using the "war status" of Hormuz to answer this phone metaphor: talks can happen, but the precondition is not to return to the pre-war status that the other side views as the default starting point. Iran's refusal to revert to the pre-conflict state on a key passage sends a signal to all regional actors—regardless of whether there will be formal meetings in the future, Hormuz is no longer a line that can be easily included in "restoring normalcy" but is inscribed as a red line at the negotiation's starting point.

Trump Halts the Islamabad Trip: Talks Change to Phone Calls

As Tehran responded to the phone metaphor with Hormuz's "war status," Washington rewrote the "phone" into a new script. Not long before, Trump had floated an apparently bold idea during a television interview: a delegation composed of Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and his son-in-law Jared Kushner would travel to Islamabad, Pakistan, to potentially meet with Iranian officials. This was seen as a rare direct contact window—not an anonymous hot line, but a concrete arrangement with names and tickets.

However, entering April 25-26, this window was quickly shut. While the trip was still at the conceptual and preparatory stage, Trump decided to cancel the U.S. representatives' plans to go to Islamabad. On his social media, this turn was packaged neatly: going to Islamabad was "a waste of too much time," the U.S. "holds all the cards," and there was no need to fly halfway around the world for an uncertain meeting.

The public rhetoric was quickly unified into a highly repetitive set of phrases—"nobody knows who is responsible in Iran," "the U.S. holds all the cards," "if you want to talk, just call." In external communications, the U.S. deliberately emphasized the "chaos" within Iran, using "nobody knows who is in charge" to undermine the opponent's authority and decision-making capacity while raising its own position to a level where there was no need to make an in-person visit: you clarify your position first and call, and then the U.S. will consider whether to respond.

The shift from "willing to send someone to meet" to "if you want to talk, just call" reflects a change in posture that goes beyond just a transportation method. The initial proposal to send Witkoff and Kushner to Islamabad was already an action of putting chips on the table: willing to invest time and political costs for a potential meeting. But during April 25-26, halting the trip and adding phrases like "the journey wastes time" and "the U.S. holds all the cards" signaled a retraction of this cost, sending a message to Iran and even third parties: the U.S. is not in a rush, does not chase, and will not exchange symbolic face-to-face actions for an uncertain outcome.

This new "phone talks" stance, combined with the repeated emphasis on "nobody knows who is responsible in Iran," essentially rewrites the negotiation premise from "both sides sitting down to the table" to "the other side must first acknowledge and adapt to the pace set by the U.S." On the same timeline where Hormuz was defined by Iran as not returning to pre-war status, the Islamabad meeting shifted from concept to cancellation, and these opposing actions formed the same deadlock: one side locks a bottom line with the red line of the Strait, while the other side uses the coldness of the phone to raise the threshold for entering the negotiation room.

Araghchi's Multilateral Diplomatic Efforts: Oman, Pakistan to Moscow Again

On the same timeline where the U.S. put the "if you want to talk, just call" posture on the table, Iran chose to have its Foreign Minister continue on the journey. Briefings showed that Abbas Araghchi, after completing his visit to Oman, had two locations immediately written in his itinerary: Pakistan and Russia. The route is crystal clear—moving from the Gulf to South Asia and then from South Asia towards a major power in the north—yet perfectly laid out on the back of the U.S.-Iran direct contact window being closed.

This is a typical "multilateral field" route: one end is Oman's regional stage along the Persian Gulf; the other end is Pakistan, the city that was originally planned to host the U.S.-Iran meeting; finally, the gaze turns to Moscow, signifying that Iran is also unwilling to leave this round of engagement empty on a great power dimension. Araghchi's shuttle diplomacy draws a zigzag line on the map, yet politically attempts to fill the gap left by the U.S. withdrawal from Islamabad.

If Washington raised the bar for the U.S.-Iran face-to-face contact by canceling the special envoy's trip to Islamabad and using the rhetoric that "the U.S. holds all the cards," Tehran's response was not to wait idly for the phone to ring, but instead to keep its Foreign Minister shuttling between region and major powers. While Iran announces through the Deputy Speaker of Parliament the red line that Hormuz "must not return to pre-war status," it also allows Araghchi to maneuver between Oman, Pakistan, and Russia to retain negotiation space in the multilateral direction without relying on any singular "special envoy-style" bilateral window.

It is important to emphasize that all of this currently remains at the level of itineraries. Briefings clearly state that the specific dates for Araghchi's visit to Pakistan and possible meeting arrangements have not been disclosed to the public, nor has there been any public mention of "results" or "breakthroughs." Islamabad is marked as a landmark on this trip, but whether it will be substantively used as an alternative communication channel—whether for the U.S. or other parties—is still unanswered in available information.

Simultaneously, the prediction market has priced this zigzag route in its own way: the probability of "a formal diplomatic meeting between the U.S. and Iran before April 29" on Polymarket dropped sharply to around 16% within 24 hours, with briefings interpreted as the market's rapid cooling of expectations for a formal U.S.-Iran meeting in the short term. In other words, on the publicly visible level, the time window for direct dialogue between the U.S. and Iran is becoming narrower, while Araghchi's "Oman-Pakistan-Russia" trip seems more like a side road circumventing the window—there is indeed a pathway being paved, but to whom it leads and in what form it connects to the U.S. currently has no verifiable clues.

As of the drafting of this briefing, only two things can be confirmed: first, the U.S. has halted the Islamabad meeting, which was previously viewed as a potential breakthrough; second, the Iranian Foreign Minister is still advancing his multilateral itinerary as planned. The real absence between these two things is that canceled meeting—and any line of publicly verifiable information that can directly link Araghchi's itinerary with the new U.S.-Iran formal meeting arrangements.

16% Chance of Dialogue: Polymarket Bets on a Failed Scenario

Outside of the canceled Islamabad meeting, the only thing that can still be quantified is a countdown on a contract. Polymarket set clear referee rules for this "will they meet" gamble: if U.S. and Iranian representatives hold a formal diplomatic meeting in an official capacity before 11:59 PM Eastern Time on April 29, 2026, this contract is judged as "yes"; crossing this time point without a formal meeting means "no" wins all the chips. All participants are essentially trading a diplomatic window period of just a few days.

During the 24 hours of April 25-26, the price for the contract "a formal diplomatic meeting between the U.S. and Iran before April 29" seemed to be suddenly pressed down on an elevator button. Sources cited in the briefing show that the implied probability of this contract fell by 39 percentage points in one day, ultimately resting at around 16%—sliding from "perhaps there is still a chance" to "almost nobody believes anymore." For traders accustomed to speaking in numbers, 16% is not just a cold, hard ratio but a consensus: the likelihood of a formal meeting occurring in the short term has been collectively deemed "extremely slim."

This crash did not occur out of thin air. For participants on Polymarket, the statement from Ali Nikzad, the Deputy Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, that "the Strait of Hormuz must not return to its pre-war state," along with the U.S. halting the Islamabad trip while publicly calling it "a waste of time," were immediate news variables that were written into prices. Iran's refusal to revert to the pre-conflict state on the key passage, alongside the U.S. emphasizing in public opinion that "if Iran wants to talk, they can just call," combined with the special envoy's trip previously seen as a breakthrough being put on pause, all together formed a chain that adjusted the expectations of the prediction market—every declaration, every cancellation notice, directly struck at that yes/no contract valid until April 29.

However, treating Polymarket as a "diplomatic barometer" comes with its own blind spots. On one hand, this market excels in speed: as soon as the hardening position on Hormuz and the U.S. cancellation of the Islamabad trip became known, the probabilities rapidly plunged downward, fixing the sentiment of "the window is closing" at a price of 16%. On the other hand, it can never see the undisclosed phone calls or the meeting plans that haven't made it onto the schedule, nor can it capture whether there are still unrevealed side doors or intermediaries between Araghchi's route of "Oman-Pakistan-Russia."

Therefore, when Polymarket's figures settle at 16%, they tell a very limited story: in the known public information, Hormuz will not revert to a pre-war state, the U.S. has canceled the route to Islamabad, and up until the time of this briefing, no new formal meeting plans have been put forward. The short-term prospects for a formal meeting window are indeed narrowing, but Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi is still traversing the "Oman-Pakistan-Russia" route, and the multilateral diplomatic chessboard is still in motion. For the situation, the truly fatal aspect is not the deadlock itself, but the external misconception that every script has already been written in stone—at a moment when Hormuz is deliberately maintained in "pre-war status," any sudden easing or unexpected meeting between the U.S. and Iran could instantly rewrite this extended line into a different direction.

Join our community, let's discuss, and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。