Parallel Hormuz ...
Page 1
Put simply, those promoting such arrangements are driving the region toward greater instability, complexity and confrontation. Rather than easing tensions, they are effectively escalating them.
Geopolitically, these measures are intended to weaken Iran's strategic standing as one of the key and influential players in regional affairs. Under such circumstances, the Islamic Republic of Iran considers itself fully entitled to defend its legitimate rights with utmost vigilance and without the slightest negligence, while ensuring that no foreign power or parallel arrangement is allowed to disregard Iran's historic and legal role in managing this vital waterway.
What factors have prompted some regional countries and extra-regional powers to pursue new arrangements in the Strait of Hormuz? To what extent are these initiatives driven by security concerns, and how much are they aimed at achieving political objectives?
Available evidence suggests that US pressure on Oman over the management of the Strait of Hormuz has not only fueled the recent incidents but has also deepened the atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust across the Persian Gulf region. These pressures are not merely an attempt to violate Iran's sovereignty and circumvent the provisions of the Islamabad Memorandum; they also reflect Washington's double-standard, interventionist and illegitimate approach to regional affairs.
These policies are being pursued at a time when Oman, as one of the two coastal states bordering the Strait, finds itself in a difficult and multilayered position – balancing its international commitments, its strategic relationship with the United States, and its neighboring ties with Iran – effectively leaving Muscat caught between competing pressures.
With a clear understanding of the conspiratorial nature of the US-Israeli approach in the region, the miscalculations of certain other actors, and the reality that Oman, despite being a trusted partner, cannot fully withstand comprehensive US pressure, the Islamic Republic of Iran has adopted a smart, proactive and preemptive strategy. The first step in this strategy was the establishment of a joint working group with Oman under Article 5 of the memorandum of understanding, aimed at resolving misunderstandings and fostering a shared understanding of the legal framework governing the Strait.
In the subsequent stages, while remaining committed to its legal principles and international obligations, the Islamic Republic of Iran will roll out new political and security measures to safeguard its national interests, prevent any unilateral or parallel action that could undermine its sovereignty and national security, and consolidate the order it seeks to uphold in this vital waterway.
To what extent could the dispute over the management of security in the Strait of Hormuz cast a shadow over the course of Iran-US negotiations?
The dispute over the management of the Strait of Hormuz goes beyond merely casting a shadow over negotiations; it could become one of the principal factors leading to the collapse of the Islamabad Memorandum between Tehran and Washington.
As recent incidents have clearly demonstrated, the disagreement has created a highly chaotic and dangerous environment in the Strait of Hormuz. Two competing shipping routes have now emerged, leaving shipping companies caught between fears of US sanctions on the one hand and the prospect of facing Iran's security measures in its territorial waters on the other.
Nevertheless, it is essential to emphasize that Washington's disingenuous policy of pressuring Oman to establish an alternative corridor, coupled with its recent military attacks against Iranian interests, is not merely a reaction to current developments. Rather, it forms part of a concealed, long-term strategy designed to lay the groundwork for more hostile actions against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Tehran, however, with full awareness of the hidden dimensions and underlying objectives of US conduct, has effectively neutralized this strategy. Not only have these pressures backfired, but Iran, by adopting measured and intelligent responses, has further strengthened its strategic position in this vital waterway and demonstrated that it will stand firmly and wisely against any interventionist action.
How should the recent threats by the US president, suggesting that the United States may be forced to finish the job militarily, be assessed? Are they part of psychological warfare and deterrence, or should the possibility of an escalation and even a return to a broader war be taken seriously?
The recent threats by the US president should be viewed as a multilayered and complex phenomenon. While they reveal Washington's concealed, long-term and deceptive intentions within the framework of the Islamabad Memorandum with Iran, in the short term they are more appropriately understood as part of psychological warfare, deterrence and an attempt by Washington to test Tehran's resolve.
What lies behind these threatening statements, however, is nothing other than America's strategic failure in the war and a desperate attempt to break out of the deadlock that has emerged in its confrontation with Iran.
Still, the possibility of a broader military confrontation remains a serious and plausible scenario. Under such circumstances, the Islamic Republic of Iran, fully aware of the unpredictable nature of US behavior and drawing on the experience of the two recent wars, has prepared itself for any escalation of tensions or military confrontation.