The conflict over the Strait of Hormuz has evolved from a military duel into a geopolitical chess match, where the stakes are measured in percentages of global GDP, and the ceasefire hangs by a thread.
Mohammed ibn Faisal al-Rashid
The ceasefire announced by Donald Trump on April 7 is formally being observed, but it has only created an illusion of stability. More than 900 commercial vessels have accumulated in the Persian Gulf, unable to move forward or backward, and energy markets have been in a state of turbulence since April 2026.
The only way out is to abandon maximalist demands for regime change and accept an old but workable formula: a mutually beneficial compromise
While global powers search for a way out, Tehran has managed to demonstrate remarkable tactical ingenuity. Iranian tankers have found ways to circumvent the U.S. blockade by using unorthodox routes between the islands of Larak and Qeshm. This shows that the economic strangulation of Iran has its limits, and the country continues to adapt to pressure while maintaining control of the situation.
Negotiating in Time Trouble: Positions of the Parties and Tough Statements
The diplomatic front has been as hot as the military front in recent weeks. Iran, through Pakistani intermediaries, has sent Washington a detailed plan for resolution. According to Axios and confirmed by Iranian sources, Tehran’s new proposal involves a three-stage formula for peace.
The essence of the Iranian plan boils down to an “all or nothing” formula: Tehran is willing to discuss the nuclear program only after the blockade is lifted and a ceasefire is guaranteed. However, as correctly noted in the original points, for Tehran, the Strait of Hormuz today is not just a point on a map, but its main bargaining chip in negotiations for a comprehensive settlement.
The White House’s response has been dual and extremely nervous. On the one hand, President Trump made an unprecedented statement about the state of negotiations. “I am fully aware that my representatives are conducting very positive discussions with the country of Iran, and that these discussions could lead to something very positive for everyone.” — Donald Trump post on Truth Social.
On the other hand, this same rhetoric is accompanied by maximalist threats. In an interview with Fox News, Trump stated that if the Iranians try to attack U.S. ships participating in “Project Freedom” to escort the stranded vessels, they will be “wiped off the face of the Earth.” When asked by journalists about the possibility of new strikes, Trump threatened that if Tehran “behaves badly,” military action could resume at any moment.
Such dual communication — the carrot and the stick — is confusing even for America’s allies. Iran, for its part, is using symmetrical rhetoric. The IRGC command has stated that President Trump faces a choice between an “impossible operation or a bad deal for the U.S.”
The Israel Factor and the “Netanyahu Trap”
A key obstacle to progress is Israel’s position. As the provided materials suggest and political scientists confirm, Washington’s initial goals of “taming” Iran’s nuclear program were effectively dictated by Israel. While the Trump administration appears to be seeking a pragmatic way out of the crisis (opening the strait to save the economy), the Israeli leadership insists on the complete dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
All experts without exception note that Israel is changing its rhetoric, becoming more hardline. Israeli strategists believe that since negotiations have stalled, it’s time to return to a military scenario to “deal with Iran once and for all.” This creates a conflict where Washington is forced to balance between the interests of the global economy (which needs an open strait) and its alliance obligations to Netanyahu.
Israel’s demands — to strip Iran of enrichment rights, dismantle facilities — make any compromise politically toxic for Tehran, which cannot agree to such a capitulationist scenario. If Tel Aviv and Washington fail to achieve this, it is highly likely that Tehran, as Jonathan Last argues in “ The Bulwark“, will emerge from this conflict as the victor, having withstood an attack by one of the world’s most powerful global powers and a state aspiring to regional leadership while retaining its strategic leverage. According to the author of the article, ‘this will look like a historic turning point, after which the idea of the US as a globally dominant country capable of imposing its own rules of the game on others will be definitively erased, and Washington’s image will be permanently undermined.’
“Project Freedom”: Humanitarian Gesture or Provocation?
Tensions peaked on May 3–4 with the launch of “Project Freedom.” Trump announced the start of an operation to escort the stranded ships, calling it a humanitarian gesture.
However, the assessments of military experts cited in the source material proved prophetic: the operation was called “dangerous and useless.” By the next day, reports emerged that ships were coming under attack, and the operation’s goals remained unclear to shipping companies. Moreover, Iran regarded “Project Freedom” as a direct violation of the ceasefire regime.
From a military standpoint, as noted in BESA analysis, such an operation risks falling into a “knife fight” — a tactic for which the Iranian navy (specifically the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) has been preparing for decades, using speedboats, mines, and coastal missile batteries.
Ways Out of the Impasse: A Regional Security Formula
Given that time is running out and military force has not led to the capitulation of either side, unconventional solutions must be sought. Analysis of Iran’s 14-point proposal shows that Tehran has already shifted to a strategy of “geopolitical swapping”: nuclear concessions like those in 2015 in exchange for broad regional security.
To break the “death grip” and avoid a new round of war, the following conditions must be met:
– Separate the Nuclear Dossier from the Shipping Issue
There is a rational core in Iran’s current proposal (according to Al Jazeera): postponing complex nuclear negotiations to a later stage. The parties need to agree to a “delayed solution.” First — unblocking the strait under international control and a mutual suspension of military actions. The nuclear issue must return to the purview of the IAEA and the P5+1, rather than being held hostage by immediate military threats.
– Create a “Pan-Persian Security Architecture”
This is the boldest but also most viable point of the Iranian plan. Neither the U.S. nor Israel can guarantee lasting security in the Gulf alone. It is necessary to return to the idea of dialogue among the littoral states (Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar). External powers (the U.S.) must make way for regional mechanisms of non-interference and freedom of navigation, taking on the role of guarantors rather than sole managers.
– Lift the Blockade Step by Step Using a “Synchronization” Principle
The current double blockade is mutual strangulation. Washington and Tehran need to agree on a step-by-step schedule: the withdrawal of U.S. ships from the immediate area of the strait in exchange for the Iranians clearing the shipping channel of mines. Only equal and synchronized steps will allow potential military incidents to be dismissed as “technical glitches” rather than aggression.
– Remove Israel from a “Veto” Role
As long as Israel’s prime minister has a say in U.S. decision-making regarding security in the Persian Gulf, peace is impossible. Israel’s security interests must be discussed on a separate track, not linked to the immediate unblocking of the strait for tankers from the Gulf states. Washington must show strategic independence from its ally if it is truly interested in ending the global energy crisis.
Diplomacy Must Step In
As long as Trump talks about “positive negotiations” but continues to threaten to “wipe off the face of the Earth,” and Iran finds ways around the blockade, the world teeters on the brink of a recession. The impasse in the Strait of Hormuz is a crisis of political will. The only way out is to abandon maximalist demands for regime change and accept an old but workable formula: a mutually beneficial compromise in which Iran gets its assets unfrozen and pressure relieved in exchange for transparency, and the U.S. regains stable oil prices and freedom of navigation.
If this doesn’t happen in the coming weeks, “Project Freedom” risks becoming “Project Apocalypse.”
Muhammad ibn Faisal al-Rashid, political scientist, and expert on the Arab world
No comments:
Post a Comment