Daylila

World News · Thursday, 13 August 2026

01 · Briefing · what happened

The truce both sides say they want, and neither can lock in

World News 4 min 19 sources

Iran and the US both claim they would rather deal than keep fighting. A month into the war's second phase, the peace deal is going nowhere, because neither side can promise to keep it.

~20%

of the world's oil

passes through the Hormuz strait Iran says is closed

Day 32

of the war's second phase

as talks to end it stall

deepest

2026 oil-supply cut

the IEA's forecast, blaming Gulf disruption

At a glance

  • Iran and the US are not discussing extending their ceasefire, and say there is no progress on reviving the interim peace deal.
  • Both sides insist they prefer a deal to war, yet a month into a bitter second phase they still can't reach one.
  • Iran vows to fight until its demands are met and claims it has replaced more missiles and drones than it fired.
  • Trump says the US will keep its blockade of Iranian ports; Iran declares the Strait of Hormuz closed until the US changes course.
  • The block isn't stubbornness: neither side can promise to keep a deal, so each fears the other will use a pause to gain ground.
  • The cost is spreading - the IEA made its deepest 2026 oil-supply cut, pushing energy prices up far from the fighting.

Forces in play

Distrust of a pause High

each side fears the other will use a truce to rebuild or squeeze harder

Iran's defiance High

Tehran vows to fight until its demands are met, claims restocked arms

US pressure High

Trump keeps the port blockade and claims control of Hormuz

Push for a deal Easing

no ceasefire-extension talks; interim-deal revival stalled

In play Iran — vows to keep fighting, rejects the US Hormuz claim, joining the BRICS bank United States — maintains the port blockade, claims control of Hormuz IEA — cut its 2026 oil forecast, blaming Gulf disruption

How it unfolded

  1. Two-week war an earlier round of fighting paused in a fragile ceasefire
  2. Day 32 the war enters a bitter second phase, sides trade demands
  3. This week no ceasefire-extension talks; the interim deal stalls; Hormuz declared closed
  4. Next whether either side offers a step the other can verify

Where this points

Watch whether either side offers a checkable first step - a monitored freeze or a partial lifting of the blockade - because without one the other can verify, the deal both claim to want stays out of reach.

Full briefing

The deal that keeps slipping

Iran and the United States are not discussing an extension of their ceasefire, a senior Iranian official said Tuesday [2]. Tehran also says there has been no progress on reviving the interim peace deal meant to end the war [1]. Both sides say they would rather have the deal than the fighting. A month into what Al Jazeera calls the war’s second phase, they still cannot reach it [3].

The demands harden as the talks stall. Iran vows to keep fighting until the US meets its terms. Its Revolutionary Guard advisers claim Iran has replaced more missiles and drones than it has fired, and point to falling US munition stocks [3]. President Trump says the US will keep its blockade of Iranian ports and claims “total control” of the Strait of Hormuz [4]. That channel carries roughly a fifth of the world’s oil. Iran rejects the claim and declares the strait closed until the US changes its behaviour [5].

Why can’t two sides who both want out simply agree to stop? Each fears the other will use the pause. If Iran freezes its program, it loses the leverage that keeps the US from squeezing harder later. If the US lifts the blockade, it hands Iran room to rebuild - which the Guard is openly boasting it is already doing [3]. A shake-up of Iran’s own Security Council has exposed divisions over whether to deal at all [6]. Tehran is meanwhile lining up alternatives, saying it will soon join the BRICS bloc’s development bank [7].

The cost is already leaving the region. The International Energy Agency this week made its deepest cut to its 2026 oil supply forecast, blaming the war’s disruption to Gulf flows [8]. Higher energy prices travel from Hormuz to petrol pumps and power bills far from the fighting.

Ukraine reaches Russia’s last safe harbour

Ukraine struck Novorossiysk overnight, putting Russia’s last major Black Sea sanctuary within reach of its drones [9]. The port handles much of Russia’s oil exports. Three people were killed in overlapping attacks on Russian and Ukrainian port cities [11]. Putin answered by warning of tit-for-tat seizures of European vessels, widening the fight to the ships that carry Europe’s trade [10]. Each strike answers the last; neither side can offer a stop the other believes.

Washington eyes Colombia’s guerrillas

The US floated joint strikes on armed groups inside Colombia after the country’s new government signalled a counter-drug alliance [12]. It is a sharp turn for a country whose long “total peace” talks with guerrilla and drug factions keep hitting the same wall [12]. Fighters will not give up arms they cannot trust the state won’t later punish them for surrendering. A powerful earthquake this week also exposed two Colombias: a modern core and a neglected edge where the state barely reaches [13].

Europe bakes, and reaches for its own footing

Half of Europe’s population was exposed to temperatures above 30C this week as an extreme heatwave stretched across the continent [14]. It strained power grids and health services. In Brussels, politics wobbled too: the centrist coalition that has run the European Parliament is projected to fall short of a majority for the first time [15]. And the EU pushed ahead with plans for a digital euro and a home-grown payments network, to cut its reliance on US card giants [16]. A continent that outsourced its security and its payments is quietly trying to insure itself.

Africa’s quieter wars grind on

Suspected drones from Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces struck Khartoum and El Obeid, extending a civil war that has displaced millions [17]. Further east, rebel forces in Ethiopia’s Tigray region condemned army drone strikes - a warning sign for the 2022 peace deal that ended their war [18]. That deal asked the Tigrayans to disarm. A side that gives up its weapons has no way to stop the other from turning on it later. The same distrust that stalls Iran’s talks runs through both.

Eritrea, the Horn’s quiet lever

While the world watches the Gulf, Eritrea has become an outsized player in the Horn of Africa’s power game [19]. It is a small, closed state on the Red Sea. It backs factions in Ethiopia and Sudan, sits astride a shipping lane the world depends on, and answers to almost no one. Its choices could tip two wars at once, yet it draws a fraction of the coverage - worth watching precisely because so few are.

02 · Lesson · why it matters

Why two enemies who both want peace keep fighting anyway

A truce both sides prefer to war can still fail, not because either wants the fight but because neither can promise to keep the peace.

How it works

  1. Both sides prefer a deal to fighting
  2. But a deal is a promise that must hold over time
  3. Neither can promise not to break it later
  4. A side that disarms fears attack; a side that eases up fears the other rebuilding
  5. So the deal both want goes unsigned, and the fighting continues

The twist

A war can grind on not because two sides want it, but because neither can make a promise the other believes - the block is trust across time, not the terms today.

Where you've seen this

Ukraine and Russia

each strike answers the last; no pause holds because neither trusts the other to keep it

Ethiopia's Tigray

a peace deal asked the rebels to disarm, and now the army strikes them, the exact outcome a disarmed side fears

A divorce

two people who both want to settle keep fighting when neither trusts the other to honour the split

A business breakup

partners who'd both gain from a clean exit stall, each fearing the other will grab the shared assets first

The catch

The trap breaks the moment one side can make its promise checkable: a monitored freeze, an outside guarantor, a step that can't be secretly undone.

Full lesson

Both sides want the deal. That’s the strange part.

Iran and the United States say they would rather make a deal than keep fighting. A month into the war’s second phase, they still can’t reach one. That is the puzzle worth stopping on. If both prefer peace to war, why does the war go on?

The easy answer is that one side is lying, or that the terms are too far apart. Sometimes that’s true. But often both sides are sincere, and the terms are close, and the deal still fails. The block is somewhere else.

A ceasefire is a promise, and promises have to hold

The block is time. A deal isn’t a single act on a single day. It’s a promise to keep behaving a certain way tomorrow, and the day after, and the year after that. And a promise is only worth what the other side believes it will be kept.

That is the whole trouble. Today, both sides mean it. The question each one asks is not “do they mean it now?” but “will they still mean it once I’ve lowered my guard?”

Why neither can promise

Look at what each side would have to trust. If Iran freezes its program, it gives up the leverage that keeps the US from squeezing harder. And it has no way to stop the US from striking again once it is weaker. So freezing feels like walking into a trap.

If the US lifts its blockade, it hands Iran room to breathe and rebuild - which Iran’s Revolutionary Guard is openly boasting it is already doing. So lifting the blockade feels like being played.

Each side’s honest promise is worthless, not because the promise is a lie, but because both can see it will be tempting to break later. A promise you can predict the other will regret is not something you can build a peace on.

This is not the fear of being hit first

It’s worth being precise, because this looks like a cousin it isn’t. Some standoffs hold because each side fears a surprise attack - whoever moves first has the edge, so nobody dares move. That’s real, but it’s a different trap.

This one survives even with no surprise attack and no first-strike edge. The deal fails because the future can’t be nailed down. A side that is rising can’t promise not to use its future strength. A side that disarms can’t be sure it won’t be punished for having disarmed. The problem isn’t who shoots first. It’s that no one can bind their own future self.

You have seen it everywhere

Once you have the shape, it turns up far from the Gulf. Ukraine and Russia trade strikes across the Black Sea, each one answering the last, because no pause holds when neither trusts the other to keep it. In Ethiopia, a 2022 peace deal asked Tigray’s rebels to give up their weapons. This week the army drone-struck them, exactly the outcome a disarmed side dreads.

It runs through ordinary life too. Two people divorcing may both want a clean settlement and still fight for months, each certain the other will grab first. Business partners who would both gain from a tidy split stall in the same way. The wanting was never the problem. The trusting-across-time was.

The way out is a promise you can check

Here is the quiet good news. The trap breaks the moment a promise becomes checkable. A monitor who watches both sides. An outside guarantor who punishes whoever cheats. A step that can’t be secretly undone. When breaking the deal is sure to be caught and to cost more than keeping it, the temptation drains away, and the deal both sides wanted can finally hold.

That is what a good peace deal actually is. Not goodwill. A structure that makes keeping the promise easier than breaking it.

The whole of it

You are inside this, further than it looks. A stalled Gulf war pushes oil forecasts down and energy prices up, and that reaches petrol pumps and power bills far from any front line. The cost is shared; it is not someone else’s.

And the pattern reaches into your own life, every time two sides who both want to settle can’t, because neither can trust the other to keep the peace. Seeing that should make us slower to ask “why don’t they just agree.” The terms are rarely the hard part. The trust across time is - and no single seat, in a war or a marriage, can see the whole of what the other side is afraid of.

03 · Lab · your turn

Trust the Truce

Rehearse why a truce both sides want collapses without a way to verify, and holds once cheating can be caught.

04 · Hope · carry this

The hardest peace is one both sides already want, held back only by trust. And trust can be built: a monitor, a guarantor, a step that can't be hidden. We have built those before.

Across the beats