Nournews: Recent developments in the Persian Gulf should not be viewed as isolated incidents; they are part of a strategic realignment being shaped both regionally and internationally. The arrival of U.S. fuel carriers, accompanied by fighter jets, not only demonstrates logistical capability for sustained air operations but also conveys a political message to two audiences: first, to regional allies, signaling Washington’s intent to remain a security guarantor; and second, to Tehran, reminding that the military option remains on the table. On the other side, Major General Mousavi’s statements and field inspections of the naval capabilities of the Army and the IRGC in this strategic area manifest Iran’s response: a clear message from the Persian Gulf that “we too possess the capacity to respond and impose high costs on any adventurism.”
Iranian Foreign Minister’s interview with CNN—where he stated, “I came to New York with fair, balanced, and constructive proposals… but these proposals were rejected by the U.S. and three European countries,” and “we have always been ready for dialogue and diplomatic solutions”—demonstrates that Tehran has pursued diplomacy but faced a Western blockade. This experience carries two key messages: first, Iran can claim diplomatic resilience; second, the failure of the diplomatic channel tends to push the other side toward displays of power and military pressure. Washington apparently concluded that under current conditions, “military/security threats” yield faster results than diplomatic efforts.
From a legal-political perspective, activating the snapback mechanism and reinstating resolutions under Chapter Seven of the UN Charter provides a framework to legitimize increased pressure on Iran and allows the West to justify threats or even limited operations. Notably, previous attacks—including Israeli strikes on Iran—have shown that the U.S. and the Israeli regime sometimes act beyond legal constraints; thus, the presence or absence of a “legal pretext” is not always a barrier, though its psychological and political weight matters for garnering regional support. In this context, Netanyahu’s apology to Qatar and commitment to avoid repetition should be seen as a complementary measure to restore Washington’s credibility and preempt Iranian influence.
The strategic key point is that Western actors—especially Trump—seek tangible foreign successes to compensate for shortcomings in other areas; Trump appears to believe he can use Iran as a low-cost option domestically and internationally to portray himself as a “quasi-hero.” However, this calculation underestimates Iran’s real power and diverse response capabilities, which would impose significant costs on any aggressor. Iran’s increasing response capacity, strengthened national cohesion, recent experiences in facing threats, and ability to impose costly consequences on Washington’s actions are likely to fundamentally change the future battlefield—both geographically and in terms of engagement rules—where American interests, particularly in the region, will remain highly vulnerable.
The message conveyed by Iran’s Chief of Staff from the Persian Gulf—“Extraordinary readiness for potential future conflict”—should be regarded as a serious warning. The current balance in the Persian Gulf is entering a phase where any military action or miscalculation could lead to a broader and costlier conflict. Strategic prudence requires international and regional actors to take pathways for de-escalation and cost-effective diplomatic channels seriously, before this strategic competition escalates into a disastrous and uncontrollable confrontation from which no one would benefit.
NOURNEWS