Nournews: The revival of the U.S. plan to impose a naval blockade on Iran is not merely a political or military decision. Rather, it reflects the continuation of an approach built on violating commitments, exerting pressure, and relying on unilateral measures to impose political will. While the Islamic Republic of Iran has repeatedly warned of the United States' unreliability and long record of breaking its promises, Washington has once again demonstrated this pattern. Despite repeatedly claiming to honor its understandings, the U.S. president has effectively abandoned the Islamabad Memorandum by announcing the restoration of the naval blockade. At the same time, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) has confirmed that implementation of the policy has begun, once again exposing the gap between American rhetoric and action.
This move comes despite Iran's consistent insistence—from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to the Islamabad Memorandum—that it has remained committed to its obligations, while defining its actions within the framework of its legitimate right to self-defense and in response to the other side's violations. From this perspective, Washington's latest policy is not a demonstration of strength but rather evidence of the declining credibility of a country that fails to honor even its own signature. Such conduct undermines the credibility of U.S. diplomacy in the eyes of global public opinion and once again raises a fundamental question for the international community: How can any agreement be trusted if one party can simply disregard it whenever it chooses?
America's Strategic Contradiction and Iran's Enduring Deterrence
One of the most striking aspects of the current situation is the contradiction in Washington's own narrative. For months, U.S. officials have claimed that Iran's military capabilities had been severely degraded, that the Strait of Hormuz was under control, and that the Islamic Republic's deterrence capacity had been neutralized. Yet the same administration is now arguing that it must reimpose a naval blockade on Iran.
These two claims are fundamentally incompatible.
If Washington's assertions regarding the destruction of Iran's military capabilities were accurate, there would be little justification for restoring a naval blockade or intensifying economic pressure. In reality, the decision to revive this policy amounts to an implicit acknowledgment that Iran's deterrent capabilities remain intact and that the United States has failed to achieve its declared strategic objectives.
Moreover, the move can be interpreted as an attempt to divert attention from broader U.S. strategic setbacks in the region. Military operations targeting various parts of Iran not only failed to produce Washington's intended outcomes but were also met with retaliatory responses from Iran's armed forces. In this context, the return to economic and naval pressure represents a continuation of the "maximum pressure" strategy that proved unsuccessful on the military front.
Western Double Standards: Freedom of Navigation or the Legitimization of Coercion?
Another significant dimension of these developments is the contradictory behavior of Western governments, several Arab states, and a number of international organizations. Over recent months, these same actors repeatedly accused Iran of threatening freedom of navigation and stressed the importance of safeguarding maritime trade in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. Yet they have remained largely silent in response to the United States' formal declaration of a naval blockade against Iran.
This silence raises serious questions about the selective application of international law.
If freedom of navigation is indeed a universal principle, how can the naval blockade of an entire country be ignored? If restricting maritime routes constitutes a violation of international law, why does the same conduct provoke little meaningful reaction when carried out by the United States?
Such selective responses not only undermine the credibility of international institutions but also reinforce the perception that international legal principles have increasingly become subordinate to political considerations and the interests of major powers. The result is an erosion of global confidence in international mechanisms and a growing belief that legal standards are shaped more by power politics than by justice.
The reality is that any naval blockade against Iran is not simply a bilateral dispute between Tehran and Washington. Its consequences would inevitably affect the global economy, energy security, and international commerce.
The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the world's most critical energy corridors, and any escalation in this waterway would have immediate repercussions for global oil markets, shipping costs, and international supply chains. Furthermore, continued instability in the Red Sea and the possibility of the crisis spreading to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait could significantly amplify these risks.
Under such circumstances, the belief that regional security can be achieved through pressure, blockade, and coercion is less a realistic strategy than a repetition of policies that have repeatedly failed. Experience has demonstrated that lasting security cannot be achieved through unilateralism but through mutual respect, adherence to commitments, and recognition of geopolitical realities.
Accordingly, the full implementation of the Islamabad Memorandum, respect for agreed commitments, avoidance of confrontational policies, and a reassessment of pressure-based strategies could create conditions for de-escalation. Conversely, the continuation of unilateral policies and disregard for established agreements will not only deepen the crisis but also impose economic and security costs extending far beyond Iran and the United States, affecting a wide range of regional and international actors.
Nournews