Saeed Nami – International economics expert

On the verge of the six-month mark of the war against Iran, the Trump administration continues to suffer from a fundamental strategic error in assessing the nature of this military aggression. The White House assumed that by suspending the nuclear issue and releasing a portion of Iran’s financial assets, it could compel Tehran to accept the status quo, but this calculation overlooked the ideological convictions and decades-long planning of the Islamic Republic.

From Iran’s perspective, control over the Strait of Hormuz constitutes the ultimate “guarantee” of national security, and any retreat would be an existential and non-negotiable issue. This American miscalculation led to the collapse of the ceasefire and drove Washington toward incoherent measures such as a complete naval blockade and a plan to demand a 20 percent share of the value of each oil tanker’s cargo.

Such an approach not only lacked legal legitimacy but also portrayed America as a wavering power in the eyes of its regional allies. Iran, aware that the United States cannot sustain unlimited escort operations, focused on a strategy of attrition and increasing the economic costs for the opposing side, trapping Washington in a deadlock where American threats are unable to alter the equation.

Purely military analyses fail to fully comprehend the dilemma of the Strait of Hormuz, as they overlook the powerful economic instruments at Iran’s disposal. The global economy is chronically dependent on the free flow of one-fifth of its oil and gas through this strait, and Iran, understanding this structural vulnerability, has designed a strategy based on “active legitimate defense.”

This strategy focuses on creating sustainable deterrence and increasing the security costs imposed by the opposing side; even without a complete halt to traffic, by raising perceived risk, upward pressure on oil prices emerges as a natural consequence of Iran’s reciprocal actions. The 10 percent increase in Brent crude oil prices in recent days is clear evidence that any insecurity in this waterway directly affects the vital interests of its users.

The role of the three islands of Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs in this equation is pivotal and undeniable. These islands, which have always been under Iran’s historical possession, are not merely military bases, but “stationary aircraft carriers” and platforms for monitoring communication routes, the security of which is part of Iran’s national sovereignty.

These islands enable Iran, at minimal cost, to create sustainable and effective deterrence against any potential threat, which has a profound impact on the world’s energy supply chain. It is evident that any Iranian action in this regard is considered a fully legitimate and proportionate response to violations of this country’s sovereignty and national security. This is the “political economy deterrence” in which hard power is employed in the service of national interests and sustainable security.

Trump’s toll or 20 percent share demand and its swift retreat was the costliest diplomatic blunder of the White House in this conflict. International law does not permit any country to proclaim itself the “guardian” of others’ rights and to demand payment for unsolicited protection.

This contradictory action, which was modified in less than 24 hours following the U.S. President’s shift in position from demanding cash to proposing commercial deals with Persian Gulf countries, further undermined America’s legal and political credibility.

This fluctuation in stance conveyed a clear message that White House positions are based not on stable legal principles but on personal whims and immediate political pressures. In this regard, any infringement upon Iran’s sovereign rights over the three islands and its territorial waters constitutes a clear violation of international law.

The strategic cost of this behavior is far greater. The Gulf Cooperation Council countries, which themselves are affected by maritime insecurity, now view Washington’s ability to provide sustainable security with skepticism. Moreover, the emphasis on “the sovereign rights of littoral states” in the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding effectively allows Iran, by citing its indisputable rights, to insist on its legal positions.

These factors have expanded Iran’s legal maneuvering space and have placed serious obstacles in the way of any attempt to restore an order based on American unilateralism. In this climate of distrust, neither traditional diplomacy nor military threats are effective; rather, only actors who exploit this legal vacuum to the advantage of their political economy strategy will prevail, and Iran holds a clear advantage over its rival in this arena.

With the collapse of the ceasefire and the resumption of attacks, the short-term outlook for the situation in the Strait of Hormuz points toward reduced traffic and increased market volatility. China’s oil purchases and the depletion of strategic reserves indicate that market realities will constrain the room for maneuver of political actors.

A greater concern for the West is the potential expansion of the conflict to the Bab el-Mandeb; the Gulf countries, in a hasty effort to build new pipelines and expensive alternative routes, are expressing their despair over any military or legal solution claimed by the United States, and have concluded that regional stability is only possible through respect for the rights of all countries, especially Iran as the dominant power over this waterway.

The only reasonable path is a return to a negotiation framework based on mutual interests and respect for Iran’s territorial integrity. The involvement of the international community, whose fate is tied to this waterway, can be effective in encouraging the relevant parties to accept this path. However, as long as the White House persists in its ad hoc and interventionist policies and refuses to accept field realities and Iran’s indisputable rights, the horizon for resolving the crisis remains obscured by the mists of its miscalculations and excessive demands.