Iranian Adviser Says Trump ‘Will Not Reach an Agreement’: Does That Really Mean Hormuz Stays Closed Until 2029?
Majid Shakeri, an adviser to Iran’s parliament speaker, is reported to have said Tehran will ‘accompany’ Trump until his term ends without giving him an agreement. That is combative political messaging—not an official Iranian declaration that Hormuz must remain closed until 2029.
A reported statement from Iranian political adviser Majid Shakeri is being interpreted online as proof that Tehran has decided not to reopen the Strait of Hormuz until Donald Trump leaves office in 2029.
The circulating quote is blunt: “Trump will not reach an agreement, we will accompany him until his term ends.”
Shakeri is described as an adviser to Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.
The statement fits the increasingly hard line taken by influential Iranian conservatives.
It should not be transformed into an official state decision unless Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, government or supreme leader explicitly adopts it.
An adviser to the parliament speaker does not personally control maritime policy, ceasefire terms or national negotiations.
Iran’s political system contains multiple centres of power.
President Masoud Pezeshkian has publicly defended diplomacy. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has negotiated with Oman. The Supreme National Security Council now has a new hardline secretary, Mohsen Rezaei. The Revolutionary Guards control much of Iran’s military response. Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei ultimately has the strongest authority over national-security decisions.
Shakeri’s words therefore tell us something about the mood inside one influential faction.
They do not establish a legally binding four-year strategy.
The inference that Hormuz will remain closed until 2029 is even weaker.
Iran can reject a comprehensive peace agreement with Trump while still accepting a temporary maritime arrangement.
It can agree with Oman on shipping lanes without resolving nuclear policy. It can allow selected vessels through while maintaining political restrictions. It can negotiate sanctions relief issue by issue.
Diplomacy rarely consists of one binary agreement.
Iran also has powerful economic reasons not to close Hormuz indefinitely.
The U.S. blockade and maritime crisis are damaging Iranian oil revenue, imports, the currency and government finances.
Senior Iranian officials have reportedly warned that prolonged economic pressure could become critical.
A policy of waiting out Trump for several more years would impose enormous costs on Iran itself.
That makes Shakeri’s statement useful as bargaining rhetoric.
Telling Trump that Iran can wait reduces the effectiveness of his deadline strategy.
Trump often assumes opponents will compromise because economic or military pressure becomes unbearable.
Iranian hardliners want him to believe the opposite: that time is not on Washington’s side.
The statement may also be aimed domestically.
Iran has suffered large military and civilian losses. A quick agreement with the United States could look like surrender after months of sacrifice.
Hardline figures therefore need to demonstrate resistance even while technical negotiations continue.
Ghalibaf himself has previously said parliament would not approve an agreement unless Iran’s rights were secured.
That is a more institutional formulation than saying no agreement is possible at all.
Washington is also moving its position.
Trump has reportedly considered ending the war without a separate nuclear agreement if Hormuz fully reopens.
Iran may see that shift as proof that waiting produces concessions.
The risk is that both sides convince themselves the other will eventually give in.
The open question is not whether one adviser wants Trump denied a diplomatic victory. It is whether Iran’s actual decision-makers believe they can sustain years of blockade and conflict—or whether maximalist rhetoric will eventually give way to the narrower deals that both economies increasingly need.