When pressed recently on reports that Iran may charge tolls for passage through the Strait of Hormuz, President Donald Trump said he was considering partnering with Tehran on charging for access to the critical shipping waterway — a remark that CNN’s Fareed Zakaria warned might be an indicator of the United States’ eventual collapse in the conflict.

ABC News’ Jonathan Karl asked Trump last week about his thoughts on the idea of Iran charging tolls for vessels transiting the shipping channel, to which the president said “we’re thinking of doing it as a joint venture,” which he described as a “way of securing it from lots of other people” and a “beautiful thing.”

“These are revealing remarks. Not because they are outrageous — Trump has said many outrageous things — but because they distill a worldview,” Zakaria wrote in an op-ed published recently in The Washington Post. “They suggest a shift in how the United States might see its role: not as the guarantor of a system, but as a participant in a deal.”

For decades, the United States has been the world’s chief enforcer of freedom of navigation for vessels traveling international waters. Trump’s remarks, suggesting the United States could abandon that role and even help enforce restrictions, reflected what Zakaria described as the president’s “broader worldview,” and one that could ultimately destabilize the country beyond repair.

“To treat the Strait of Hormuz as a tollbooth rather than a global commons is to misunderstand both history and strategy. The U.S. benefits most not from charging per ship for access, but from building a world in which commerce flows freely and Washington’s central position is reinforced,” Zakaria wrote.

“To abandon that model for short-term extraction is to trade a durable advantage for a fleeting gain. If the U.S. becomes just another predatory hegemon, it will discover what history has long shown: Such power is feared, resented and ultimately resisted. And in time, it is not sustained – but overturned.”

Retired US Army General Wesley Clark warned Sunday that Iran has desired war with the U.S. for decades — and Trump's stumbling may have given it superiority in the conflict.

As the war enters its seventh week, face-to-face negotiations in Pakistan failed to reach agreement Saturday night. With American forces remaining deployed and Iran on heightened alert, the shooting war has largely paused — yet the diplomatic phase will prove decisive.

"The negotiations will reflect the respective results, capabilities and will of each side" Clark wrote in USA Today.

"This is where the war will be won or lost."

Despite sustaining significant air campaign losses, Iran approaches negotiations from a position of considerable strength — potentially superior to that of the United States, the retired general warned.

This advantage stems from meticulous strategic preparation spanning years.

"Iran has studied U.S. tactics and capabilities for years, and has prepared itself to deal with a war it found inevitable and even desirable," he wrote.

By assessing American vulnerabilities at the strategic level, Iran developed weapons and tactics specifically designed to exploit them.

Iran comprehended American military doctrine fundamentally. Understanding that "the United States uses relatively few, highly expensive weapons and seeks short wars, with limited casualties," Iran positioned itself for prolonged conflict on home territory, capable of inflicting devastating losses against ground forces, he wrote.

Simultaneously, Iran recognized that "the United States had promised protection to the Persian Gulf states, like the United Arab Emirates and Qatar," and prepared strikes against these nations to disrupt American operations and credibility.

Historical lessons proved equally valuable. Iran learned from "the 'tanker war' of the 1980s that control of the Strait of Hormuz was one of the most powerful strategic weapons in the world," subsequently constructing multilayered defenses throughout the waterway.

Acknowledging superior American capabilities, Iran collaborated with China to accelerate ballistic and cruise missile development, enhancing both range and defensive penetration. The nation constructed over two dozen underground missile cities, placing production and storage facilities beyond reach of conventional bombs.

Iranian weapons deployment reflected sophisticated strategy. The nation attacked "with its oldest weapons first, and held back its best missiles until Israel and the Gulf states were forced to carefully ration interceptor missiles," Clark wrote.

Currently possessing potentially half its prewar missile inventory, Iran maintains "ample reserves of missiles and drones to sustain its attacks for many months at the current rate of expenditure," the general warned. Its anti-ship systems, battle-tested by Houthi forces over three years, remain highly effective. Distributed command-and-control structures ensure operational continuity despite central headquarters damage, with provincial authorities retaining independent attack capabilities.

External support strengthens Iran's hand considerably, Clark added. "Russian intelligence and Chinese satellite imagery have given Iran's organizations accurate and relatively timely target locations. Russia and China continue to deliver military materiel and chemicals to Iran."

The United States pursued a conventional strategy. The Pentagon applied familiar stealth and "precision strike" technologies against Iranian targets, tactics Iran had observed since 1991 and as recently as June's conflict. However, "when early strikes on Iranian air defenses, leadership, and accessible military targets failed to achieve an early knockout, the United States began seeking an exit due to critical munitions needs, time limits on deployments, reluctance to take casualties and mounting political challenges in an election year—just as Iran anticipated." American airpower could not generate decisive strategic advantage rapidly enough.

Negotiations now determine achievement of all remaining U.S. objectives. Fundamental questions persist, Clark wrote "Will Iran give up its nuclear materials and agree to no or limited enrichment, enforced by inspections? Will Iran accept limitations on its missile and drone programs? Will Iran dismantle its 'axis of resistance' and cease support for Hezbollah? Will Iran completely open the Strait of Hormuz for all to pass freely?"

American negotiators confront "Iran's starkly opposing set of goals, which include the United States withdrawing its forces from the region, guaranteeing no further attacks on Iran, ending all sanctions, paying war reparations and so on. Iran is preparing permanent control over the strait.

"The outcome is going to depend on the skill of the negotiators and the leverage they can bring."

Though announced as a two-week end of hostilities, "the ceasefire will likely be extended, and this gives ever greater leverage to Iran," Clark wrote.

"Closure of the strait has handed Iran something more powerful even than nuclear blackmail, and the Iranians are using it."

"... Washington must negotiate from a stronger position. To 'go to the source' we must align with our allies, win public support and patience at home, and set a deadline for negotiations. No stalling. While we talk, we must be ready to resume the air campaign, with perhaps some new tactics and, above all, prepare with our allies to open the Strait of Hormuz by force.

"Will there be more fighting before this is over? Almost certainly."