As Iran’s resistance against the U.S. and Israeli terrorist war enters its sixteenth day, we are witnessing an escalation of the conflict across all fronts. Despite their baseless claims, the enemy continues to seek to expand the war into urban areas and target civilian services such as stores, fuel depots, factories producing consumer goods, police stations, and residential complexes. In response, Iran has transformed virtually all areas of occupied territories into insecure and high-risk zones through precise and impactful strikes. Nevertheless, the decisive and pivotal point of the war appears to be precisely where Iran’s comparative advantage lies: Strait of Hormuz.
Over the past two weeks, by taking control of transit through this vital waterway, Iran has demonstrated its command over global energy flows and its ability to effectively leverage this geographic advantage within the framework of asymmetric warfare. Iran is striving, through this operational initiative, not only to inflict military blows on the enemy in military zones but also to increase the global costs of the U.S. and Israeli warmongering to a point where governments and public opinion witness the emergence of a major economic crisis rooted in the attack on Iran.
In its new war strategy, Iran views the Strait of Hormuz not merely as a geographic passage but as a strategic choke point in the global energy chain. By making optimal use of this effective card, it seeks to extend the scope of the enemy’s destabilization efforts to the global economy and, in doing so, respond to some of the U.S. and Israeli hardware advantages on the battlefield. This strategy has already had a noticeable impact on global energy prices, marine insurance rates, and the suspension and shutdown of fuel supply to major companies. It is undeniable that, under normal circumstances, Iran has no desire to disrupt the global energy cycle. However, the current situation demands an asymmetric war against adversaries driven by malice who have launched an existential battle against Iran. Naturally, in an existential struggle, actors utilize all their cards and advantages to confront the enemy.
In this regard, the Strait of Hormuz can be considered the key to victory in this war. However, the use of this exceptionally important and decisive tool must be accompanied by exceptional wisdom. The decision of whether to close the Strait of Hormuz absolutely and completely, or in a limited and conditional manner with exceptions, is one of the most critical and ambiguous decisions in Iran’s strategy. Each of these options naturally has its proponents who defend their preferred choice with specific arguments. However, it is certain that employing the card of closing the Strait of Hormuz will become a powerful deterrent factor that is universal, inviolable, unconditional, and without exception. If exceptions to the ban on transit through the Strait become too frequent, they risk evolving into a standard practice, thereby eroding its deterrent effect. Naturally, any weakening of this deterrent power would compromise the effectiveness of this strategy.
It is likely that a collection of friendly or neutral countries will, in diplomatic negotiations with Iran, request the lifting of the ban on their naval fleets transiting the Strait. These countries may even resort to bargaining tactics, inducements, and even threats of retaliation in their consultations. The art of diplomacy lies in avoiding the violation of the fundamental strategy of closing the Strait of Hormuz while holding the war-starting party accountable for the costs of such a decisive decision. Trump is attempting to hold these countries responsible by mobilizing stakeholders interested in free transit through this waterway. It appears that Iran must also, through active and combined diplomacy, inform governments, institutions, and the global public that the responsibility and cost of a complete closure of the Strait lies not with Tehran but directly with Washington. As soon as the enemy realizes that Iran’s resolve in this strategic decision is open to compromise, it will gradually create more avenues to undermine it, seeking to burn the important and pivotal card of Iran.
Currently, the Strait of Hormuz represents the pulse and heartbeat of a critically ill and unstable patient. Naturally, all efforts must be focused on maintaining the pulse and stabilizing the patient’s condition. If, instead of mobilizing capabilities to preserve the patient’s vital signs, energy is diverted to treating a minor injury, it is evident that crucial and irreversible opportunities will be lost – a strategic and irrecoverable error. Treating a foot wound for a patient without a pulse is futile. Allowing the passage of oil tankers from certain countries, under the guise of expediency, is akin to treating a foot wound in a critically ill patient. This decision, even regarding friendly and allied countries like China, should be subject to specific conditions and guidelines if concessions are to be made.
In an unprecedented conflict where two nuclear powers have mobilized all their political, economic, military, and security capabilities to eliminate our existence, we must fully understand and leverage the value of the “Mount Uhud” strategy – which is now manifesting in the “Strait of Hormuz” – in this war. This war must end with a heroic conclusion and at the expense of the enemy’s demise and a lesson learned, and there is no room for trial and error in achieving this goal.
NOURNEWS