Washington says peace talks with Iran were postponed because Tehran's leadership is consumed by internal discord. That explanation is less diagnosis than alibi.

Whatever its domestic fissures, Iran has displayed considerable resilience against the coercion of the United States and Israel. It has also articulated its terms for a ceasefire, with sequenced conditions, defined red lines and a hierarchy of demands.

The US on the other hand seems intent on mistaking deployments for strategy, rhetoric for leverage and deadlines for victory. It is pressuring allies to join it to reopen the Strait of Hormuz while simultaneously tightening its own military control around it.

Earlier boasts that Iran's naval capacity had been erased now collide with the stubborn fact that control of the narrow waterway does not depend chiefly on parade-worthy ships; mines, missiles, drones and speedboats will serve to do the job. The modern world is relearning an old truth: advanced weaponry does not automatically confer absolute control.

The US Navy has reportedly resumed mine-clearing operations in and around the strait. But there is an inescapable reality here: Mines can be laid faster than they are swept. And US assets in the area, while formidable, are not infinite.

A key but often overlooked reason for Iran's insistence on controlling the strait is that large quantities of US military supplies pass through it to reach US bases in the Gulf, which could be used to launch attacks against Iran and its regional proxies.

How did the US get into this position? It seems to have expected a rapid campaign — another swift demonstration that pressure, sanctions and selective force can produce political collapse. There may even have been fantasies of replicating the kind of easy geopolitical miracle promised in other theaters and never delivered. But Iran, for all its internal problems and foreign penetration, is not a sandbox diagram. It is a large country with territorial depth, sizable population, industrial capacity and layered defenses. Such states can bend without breaking.

In other words, the US is now caught in a self-made dilemma. The ceasefire conditions floated by each side are so far apart that they read less like bargaining positions than victory speeches drafted for defeated enemies. To be sure, maximalist opening bids are common diplomatic theater. But even after discounting for bluff, the overlap appears vanishingly small.

Meanwhile, Israel's role deserves frank appraisal. Since the start of the conflict, it has behaved less like a beleaguered dependent than a beneficiary of its indispensable patron's largesse. It has pushed the US to the front of the confrontation with Iran while pursuing expanded gains elsewhere — in Gaza, in Lebanon and in the wider regional balance. Israel has scant incentive for a prompt US-Iran settlement. Time, for Tel Aviv's current cabinet, is territory. The urgency with which it is seeking to enlarge its gains suggests a recognition that Iran will not be so easily subdued as the US administration once planned.

Should this conflict settle into attrition, few will benefit. Some politicians in Israel may harvest short-term political rewards. Others will pay. Markets are already factoring in the price.

More troubling is the precedent now being normalized: strategic choke points as instruments of generalized extortion. The Strait of Hormuz has become a lever for which both sides are vying for control. The world is likely to drift toward a more fragmented and unstable order, in which geography is weaponized and commerce is held hostage by whichever power can squat upon a map's narrowest line.

The four-point proposal on promoting peace and stability in the Middle East put forward by Beijing represents a rational and workable way to end the dilemma. It calls for adherence to the principles of peaceful coexistence, sovereignty and international rule of law, and for joint efforts to coordinate development and security.

China calls for an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire and the cessation of hostilities, supports all efforts conducive to restoring peace, and remains committed to resolving disputes through political and diplomatic means.