The military strategy of the US administration has reached an impasse. The chaotic alternation of military strikes and ceasefires has had no effect whatsoever on Iran’s firmly stated determination to pursue its objectives. The Hormuz trap, at least for the time being, provides the necessary conditions for it to do so, writes Alexander Maryasov.
The escalation of US armed aggression against Iran, accompanied by the serious weakening of regional pro-Iranian groups as a result of parallel Israeli military actions, forced Tehran to abandon its policy of strategic patience and switch to a tactic of direct, asymmetric strikes on US military infrastructure in the Middle East.
In order to discredit Washington’s role as a security umbrella for its regional allies, Iran began striking not only American bases in these countries but also their own economic and infrastructure facilities—something the United States proved unable to prevent.
But the most effective and unexpected step taken by Iran to defend its political and economic interests was the closure of the Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping, which led to a serious crisis on the international oil and gas market and a rise in energy prices. In essence, Iran has set a geopolitical trap that will be difficult to defuse without meeting a number of Tehran’s demands.
For a long time, the Islamic Republic of Iran responded relatively mildly to American and Israeli provocations, and even to limited military actions on their part, fearing military escalation and counting on retaliatory strikes by its proxy groups—Hamas, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, and Iraqi Shia militias.
However, the shift by the United States and Israel to direct, full-scale aggression against Iran, the killing of a number of senior military and political leaders—including the Supreme Leader and spiritual guide Ali Khamenei—and the massive bombing of not only military but also civilian infrastructure, with extensive destruction and human casualties, led to a fundamental hardening of the country’s military-political doctrine.
The United States and Israel proved unprepared for Iran’s asymmetric yet effective response of missile and drone strikes on American military bases in the region. Despite months of bombing across virtually the entire territory of the country, the United States never achieved military victory or the capitulation of the Islamic Republic.
Alongside widening the geography of its strikes to include facilities belonging to America’s regional allies, Tehran moved to close the Strait of Hormuz as a tool for pressuring the United States, aiming to force Washington to accept a number of Iran’s military-political and financial demands. These include an end to hostilities and guarantees of non-aggression in future, the lifting of the blockade on Iranian ports and the withdrawal of US forces from areas surrounding Iran, the removal or easing of sanctions, compensation for the damage inflicted on Iran and the establishment of a corresponding fund, and the unfreezing of frozen financial assets.
These demands were set out in an Iran–US memorandum of understanding, which the United States, as soon became clear, had no intention of honouring. As an alternative to the collapse of financial assistance, Tehran sees the introduction of a fee for passage through the Strait of Hormuz (in return for the provision of navigational and other services).
The Iranian parliament is currently considering a bill on the terms under which Tehran would regulate transit through the Strait of Hormuz. It will set out the arrangements for ensuring the safe passage of vessels, as well as the financial and other measures Iran will take to control the strait.
Iran has not ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, but has observed its provisions. The American–Israeli aggression gave Tehran a pretext to close the Strait of Hormuz, citing the provision in the Convention allowing for such a step in the event of “a threat to the peace, good order, or security of the coastal state.” Iran responded harshly to attempts by vessels to pass through the strait without its sanction, firing on “violators” and mining shipping lanes. This led to a large build-up of vessels at the entrance and exit of the Gulf, a sharp rise in insurance premiums, and shipowners abandoning the Hormuz transit route altogether. The inevitable result was a sharp rise in oil and gas prices and a search for alternative routes for delivering energy resources.
US attempts to unblock shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, including the military escorting of vessels, ended in failure. Washington responded by imposing a blockade on Iranian ports.
The Valdai Discussion Club was established in 2004. It is named after Lake Valdai, which is located close to Veliky Novgorod, where the Club’s first meeting took place.
Please visit the firm link to site
