Iran, Oman alone should take charge of Strait of Hormuz security
By Sadeq Dehqan
Staff writer
The Strait of Hormuz has in recent days become the main arena and focal point of military tensions and confrontation between Iran and the United States. New waves of tension and the prospect of a broader military confrontation have gripped the Persian Gulf region in recent weeks.
Against this volatile backdrop, examining possible scenarios and assessing the economic and security consequences of each has taken on particular importance. While some have voiced concern about the outbreak of a major, even extra-regional war, others remain hopeful that negotiations will continue and a political solution can be found.
In this context, the role of regional countries such as Oman, a historic mediator, and the possibility of establishing an indigenous security mechanism in the Persian Gulf to manage the Strait of Hormuz have emerged as among the few sustainable ways to break the deadlock.
Iran Daily spoke with international affairs expert Afifeh Abedi to examine the less visible dimensions of the dispute from different angles. The following is the full transcript of the interview.
IRAN DAILY: Some analysts believe the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz for Iran goes even beyond the nuclear issue. To what extent is this assessment accurate in your view? What benefits, deterrent leverage and geopolitical advantages does Iran’s control and influence over the Strait provide that Tehran is unwilling to easily give up?
ABEDI: It is not correct to draw an equation between Iran’s nuclear rights and Iran’s territorial sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz. In today’s technological world and the age of scientific advancement, Iran has the right to possess peaceful nuclear technology. The politicization of Iran’s nuclear issue by the United States and Israel for ulterior geopolitical purposes is directed not only against Iran but against all countries in the region.
The claims surrounding a potential US nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia, reportedly conditional on the recognition of Israel, can be cited in this regard. There is no doubt that even if Saudi Arabia pays the price of recognizing Israel, the United States will not provide the kingdom with the technology.
The Strait of Hormuz, however, is a matter of Iran’s territorial sovereignty. Iran is fighting to preserve its territory. The fact is that the geopolitical circumstances surrounding the Strait of Hormuz have changed following the aggressive war waged by the United States and Israel against Iran, and Iran has the right to protect this part of its territory with the utmost vigilance.
In fact, the geopolitical position of the Strait of Hormuz has changed following the US and Israeli warmongering against Iran, and Tehran is the only side seeking to pave the way for a peaceful resolution of the crisis.
In recent weeks and months, the increased military presence of the United States and some of its allies in the region, alongside intensified political and diplomatic pressure, has fueled speculation about the possibility of a broader confrontation. To what extent do you see these moves as a sign of preparations for military conflict, and to what extent can they be viewed as part of psychological warfare and a maximum-pressure policy aimed at forcing Iran to accept negotiations and make concessions?
These moves appear to be pursuing a combination of both objectives. The deployment of military equipment and forces indicates operational preparations, and the possibility of a major confrontation cannot, naturally, be ruled out.
However, the experience of recent wars and the overall geopolitical, humanitarian and military circumstances show that the United States faces significant limitations when it comes to war, while a major conflict cannot guarantee the achievement of its strategic objectives. Therefore, the increased deployment of equipment and war preparations are, at a second level, intended to increase psychological pressure on Iran.
Based on the experience of recent years, which scenario do you consider more likely under the current circumstances: a move toward a political and diplomatic agreement or an escalation of tensions and military confrontation? What factors could tip the balance in favor of either scenario?
The most likely scenario is the continuation of a controlled conflict alongside negotiations. The United States is fundamentally not seeking an agreement with Iran; rather, it is seeking to impose its will on Iran. However, it faces a major deadlock in pursuing its strategic objectives through military means.
The United States is pursuing several tactical objectives through scattered warfare and intermittent negotiations. First, it seeks to prevent further pressure on oil prices and the global economy. The United States starts a war, and whenever oil prices approach a major shock to the global economy, it raises the issue of negotiations. Then, after oil prices fall significantly, it starts a new war again.
Page 2