U.S. President Donald Trump announced on May 5 that he will suspend the previously launched “Project Freedom” in order to assess whether a comprehensive agreement between the United States and Iran can ultimately be reached and signed.
The operation was originally launched on May 4 (Middle East time) with the aim of assisting vessels stranded in the Strait of Hormuz to safely exit the area, ensuring the smooth flow of maritime traffic.
Trump said the decision was made following requests from multiple countries, including Pakistan, as well as what he described as a “major military victory” by the United States in its actions against Iran, and substantive progress in negotiations with Iranian representatives. During the suspension, the U.S. will continue to maintain its maritime blockade on Iran.
On the same day, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that “Operation Epic Fury” targeting Iran has concluded, stating that Washington has achieved its stated military objectives. He stressed that the United States does not want further escalation and prefers to resolve issues through diplomacy. He also described “Project Freedom” as fundamentally a defensive operation, with military responses only triggered if attacked.
Rubio further urged Iran to return to the negotiating table, saying the U.S. is currently clarifying which issues Tehran is willing to discuss in order to pave the way for a potential agreement.
Commentary
Trump’s suspension of “Project Freedom” appears, on the surface, to be a move that creates space for diplomacy, reflecting an attempt to balance military pressure with political risk. While Washington continues to highlight its so-called “major military victory” to reinforce a strong negotiating position, the real test lies in whether such pressure can translate into concrete diplomatic outcomes within a limited timeframe.
More importantly, the United States and its allies are simultaneously advancing a draft UN Security Council resolution, increasing pressure on Iran over the Strait of Hormuz. This suggests that Washington is not truly de-escalating, but rather shifting from unilateral military action toward a multilateral institutional framework—seeking greater strategic flexibility while maintaining international legitimacy.