The "60-day war clock" written into the War Powers Act in 1973 will hit zero again on May 1, 2026. The authorization for the current military action against Iran technically expires at this moment, and either the President must go to Congress or withdraw and admit defeat. However, Trump chose a third path: on the same day the clock strikes, he sent a letter to Congress, declaring that the military action against Iran actually "ended" when a temporary ceasefire was reached on April 7, no longer constituting "hostilities" in the legal sense, thereby asserting that a new war authorization was fundamentally unnecessary. By declaring a ceasefire, he transformed the countdown approaching its deadline into "completed history," an action that is bound to trigger new legal battles in Washington, rather than a simple technical notification.

Legally "ending the war," yet needing to appear tougher in language. In his speech on May 1, Trump labeled Iran as the current primary target while also loudly declaring that the U.S. "could almost immediately" take over Cuba, promptly signing an executive order to expand sanctions on Cuba. Reports indicate that the USS Abraham Lincoln has been pushed to near the Cuban coast. In this multi-faceted narrative of a ceasefire with Iran and increased pressure on Cuba, the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) simultaneously revealed another card: issuing a warning regarding "tolls in the Strait of Hormuz," specifically naming that any payment to Iran related to tolls, be it in fiat or digital assets, may violate U.S. sanctions. Meanwhile, in the latest poll, 61% of Americans believe that military action against Iran is a "wrong decision," and high oil prices and economic anxieties are rebounding against domestic politics. Against this backdrop, the game concerning Iran and Cuba is no longer just about the frontline firepower and the paths of aircraft carriers but also involves a concurrent legal battle, public opinion war, and sanctions war: they collaboratively shape market sentiment and are rewriting a geopolitical narrative concerning digital assets.

60 Days Authorization Up: Trump Resets War Clock with Ceasefire

The limitation in the War Powers Act of 1973 states, "The President may not employ military force abroad for more than 60 days, unless Congress grants authorization or hostilities have ceased"—this is the first time it has been calculated as a countdown closely observed by both a hedge fund and Washington. The 60-day window for actions against Iran is clearly marked on the calendar for May 1: if there is no request for new war authorization from Congress, according to the legal text, the hostilities should end around this day. For the market, this initially seemed like a rare clear temporal anchor: either an escalation is seen around May 1 or a substantial de-escalation.

However, what truly changed the dynamics was the temporary ceasefire on April 7. On that day, the U.S. and Iran pressed the pause button, which was later extended. Trump seized on the phrase "unless hostilities have ended" in the War Powers Act. On May 1, while focusing on the date on the law returning to zero, he sent a letter to Congress: the military action against Iran ended with the ceasefire on April 7, and the U.S. is no longer in a state of "hostilities" in the legal sense. Translated into political language, this means the White House asserts: the 60-day war clock actually stopped on April 7, hence there is neither exceeding the time limit nor any need to seek reauthorization from Congress. The ceasefire has been treated as a button that can reset or even terminate the war clock.

This maneuver is bound to elicit echoes in Congress. The Democratic camp will almost certainly question: who determines the hostilities? Does that mean as long as there's a ceasefire, the President can reset the clock whenever and bypass new authorization votes? The 60-day limitation was originally a leash on executive power, but has now been turned into a loophole to exploit "ceasefire." The legal gray area has directly become a prelude to the power struggle between executive authority and Congressional power. On trading screens, this moment's change is even more intuitive—the originally perceived "deadline" of May 1 suddenly lost its final significance: short-term escalation risks seem to have diminished, but the conflict has stretched into a low-intensity standoff without a clear timetable. Wars are discounted from a "deadline event" to a "long-term factor." For energy stakeholders, regional asset participants, and digital asset holders, the model now lacks a clear endpoint and contains a more difficult-to-price variable: the fighting may pause, but the war clock may not actually stop.

From Iran to Cuba: Tough Declarations and Military Displays

On the same day the war clock was technically "paused," Trump did not choose to dial down but rather switched stages to intensify his stance. On May 1, before and after signing the executive order to expand sanctions on Cuba, he bundled Iran and Cuba into the same speech: proclaiming that military action against Iran has ended with the ceasefire, thus no longer falling under the meaning of "hostilities" in the War Powers Act, while loudly naming Havana, declaring that the U.S. "could almost immediately" take over Cuba, but "would first deal with Iran." What should have been a moment to explain troop withdrawal and pacify the market was transformed into a high-profile hardline declaration—two fronts were intentionally tied together; Iran is the "primary task" at hand, while Cuba was presented as a secondary battleground that could be activated at any moment.

Cuba has long been under pressure due to ongoing opposition to the U.S. and is subjected to multiple rounds of sanctions. This administrative order further escalates the already existing conditions. Added to the tough rhetoric are military visuals: reports state that the USS Abraham Lincoln has been deployed near the Cuban coast as a military presence to pressure Cuba, although this claim currently comes from a single source, and its specific operational trajectory and preceding tasks remain to be verified. However, in terms of public opinion and market perspective, the imagery is crystal clear—against the backdrop of a still fragile U.S.-Iran ceasefire, the U.S. is both legally maneuvering the "end date" of Iranian military operations while displaying steel and sanctions towards the Caribbean. For neighboring countries, this serves as a renewed reminder of the uncontrollability of regional situations; for allies, this signifies a reality that the U.S. may adopt a multi-front pressure strategy; for the market, participants who originally hoped to reprice risks after May 1 found themselves facing another form of uncertainty: military force could shift from the Straits of Hormuz to the Cuban coast, and the sanctions list could continue to grow, with risks no longer concentrated in one battlefield but drifting across multiple coordinates on the map.

Polemic Polling and High Oil Prices: Voters Casting Votes with Their Feet

When the USS Abraham Lincoln was reported to be near the Cuban coast, Trump faced a completely different set of numbers domestically. The latest poll by The Washington Post/ABC/Ipsos shows that 61% of Americans believe military action against Iran is a "wrong decision." Among supporters, attitudes have also split: some agree with a tough stance but question whether this action is worth the long-term price; many more are asking the same question—why drag the nation into another distant conflict when victory and endpoint are not visible?

This skepticism is not an abstract moral debate but is written in everyone's books. Approximately 23% of respondents admitted that their financial situation is "becoming increasingly strained"; about 44% have begun to reduce their driving, while about 42% have cut daily expenditures—this is the most direct response to skyrocketing oil prices and rising living costs. Polling organizations have pointed out that high oil prices combined with war-related uncertainties are becoming key variables affecting the midterm election landscape. For voters, the U.S.-Iran conflict is no longer just an international headline in evening news, but a real challenge of whether they can go out with their children during weekends or pay off credit card bills on time; they are completing their "votes" with gas pedals and shopping carts.

Economic anxiety and anti-war sentiment have combined to create a pressure field behind Trump. At the juncture when the 60-day deadline of the War Powers Act expires on May 1, pushing him to go public on Capitol Hill seeking new authorization for a potentially prolonged war against Iran is tantamount to forcing him to admit in front of voters: this will be a costly long-term commitment with no exit strategy. Therefore, he chose another path—claiming that the military operations against Iran have ended following the ceasefire on April 7, circumventing the "long war" label through legal interpretations; outwardly, he continues to maintain a tough image with statements like "the U.S. could almost immediately take over Cuba," ramping up sanctions and concentrating pressure on Iran, Cuba, and associated financial flows. For domestic voters, this appears to be a form of "low-cost toughness": requiring no new authorization for another round of war and no need to pay for sprawling battlefield visuals; yet on the other end of the map, the sanctions list is extending, even actions through digital assets to pay Iran's "Strait of Hormuz tolls" have been specifically labeled by OFAC as potential risks—wars are no longer valued by the number of soldiers but through every barrel of oil, every cross-border transaction seeping back into the lives of American voters.

OFAC Names Digital Assets: Hormuz Becomes a Sanction Minefield

In this latest warning regarding "tolls in the Strait of Hormuz," OFAC stated very clearly: any arrangements to pay Iran related fees—whether in fiat currency, digital assets, or "other forms"—are on the edge of potentially violating U.S. sanctions regulations. The Strait of Hormuz itself is the throat of global energy transport; now, every payment marked as "toll," "escort," or "service" along this waterway is being recoded as a geopolitical act, and for the first time, cryptocurrency assets have been clearly written into the same line, no longer enjoying the imagined space of "technical neutrality."

For the industry, this poses a more realistic question: who will be accountable for the "invisible tolls"? Centralized exchanges, custodians, OTCs, and on-chain agreements designed for bulk trade must answer the same question at the compliance level—how do you ensure you are not providing a pathway for any suspected settlements of Hormuz tolls? This not only imposes stricter scrutiny on addresses, nationalities, and entities but also translates into a whole set of risks that prefer a "better to mistakenly freeze than to overlook" approach: customers in geopolitically sensitive regions face heightened scrutiny thresholds, on-chain funds involving energy and shipping are more frequently flagged and reviewed, and even if the trading parties are not on the sanctions list, as long as the transaction purpose could be interpreted as "paying Iran's toll," it will become a high-risk event within the system.

However, it must be acknowledged that, so far, there have been no specific law enforcement or penalty cases directly corresponding to this "Hormuz toll" warning in public information. This leaves the entire crypto industry in a state of uncertainty: the red line has been drawn, but no one knows where the first step will land. Moving forward, whether it will be a demonstrative penalty directed at a specific exchange or an enforcement incident through individual wallets or singular transactions to "alert the others" will directly reshape the market's pricing of geopolitical risks, and will determine how much compliance teams and on-chain protocol developers must retract their business boundaries. For the industry, all that can be done now is treat the Strait of Hormuz as a substantial sanction minefield, trying to keep themselves far from that invisible waterline before a real breakout occurs.

Geopolitical Conflicts and New Sanctions Landscape: The Next Test for the Crypto Market

Throughout this round of games, it has been impossible to avoid the invisible "60-day hourglass." Before the war clock hit zero on May 1, Trump declared "the hostilities have ended" through the ceasefire on April 7, attempting to pass through the War Powers Act framework on a narrow margin: avoiding the need to apply for war authorization again in Congress while maintaining a tough stance toward Iran. Almost simultaneously, he signed the executive order to expand sanctions on Cuba and made a strong statement that the U.S. "could almost immediately take over Cuba," bundling Iran and Cuba into the same narrative for external communication—internally, it's a response to the rising anti-war sentiment in polls, as well as discontent from voters who are "financially strained" due to oil prices and economic pressures, seeking a gap between the demands for toughness and "do not undermine wallets any further."

OFAC's warning regarding "tolls in the Strait of Hormuz" has directly extended this gap to the on-chain: whether in fiat or digital assets, as long as they are used to pay Iran related fees, they may fall into sanction risks. For the first time, digital assets are named in such a high-level declaration, no longer on the periphery in a blind spot of policy but regarded as explicit chips in geopolitical financial games. Going forward, if ceasefires continue to stabilize and controversies surrounding the War Powers Act gradually cool down, risk appetite may slowly recover, and compliance teams may have opportunities to explore relatively certain business boundaries under clearer OFAC guidelines; however, once U.S.-Iran tensions flare up again, or sanctions on Iran or Cuba further escalate, digital assets may very likely be tightened more precisely in cross-border payments, custody, and liquidity access, with individual enforcement becoming a new source of panic. For market participants, what’s essential to keep an eye on is not just the next K-line, but four "geopolitical lists": the next round of games between Congress and the White House over war authorization, whether OFAC continues to refine or expand digital asset sanction rules, the curves of anti-war sentiment and economic anxiety in U.S. polls, and the movements of oil prices in alignment or divergence with these—these variables will ultimately rewrite the risk discount rate of the crypto narrative over a longer time scale.

Join our community, let's discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。