Iran, Oman alone ...
Page 1
Along this path, the United States seeks to shift the main costs of the war onto its Arab allies in the Persian Gulf and cover these costs in various ways from the pockets of the peoples of the region.
This is a situation in which negotiations, political pressure, military deterrence and periodic tensions continue simultaneously. Only a high number of US casualties, domestic pressure in the United States or other unforeseen events may eventually alter this course of attritional warfare.
If tensions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz continue, what consequences would this have for global energy security, oil markets, the economies of regional countries and even Iran’s trade? Could these consequences themselves prevent a major conflict from breaking out?
Any instability in the Strait of Hormuz would have an immediate impact on the global economy. Higher oil prices, increased maritime transport costs, higher insurance premiums for ships and disruptions to the energy supply chain would be among the first consequences.
The oil-exporting countries of the Persian Gulf would also suffer from such a situation, as their exports depend on this waterway. At the same time, Iran would not be immune to the economic consequences of such circumstances, and its foreign trade and energy exports would also be affected.
This mutual interdependence has led the United States to pursue a course of attritional warfare in the region so that the shock to the global economy can be contained. However, the United States is seeking in various ways to reduce the costs it incurs from a war of attrition in the Strait of Hormuz, and in my view, it does not care about the rising costs faced by other countries in the region.
What do you see as the sustainable solution for reducing tensions in the Strait of Hormuz? Is it possible to reach an agreement that would address Iran’s security concerns while also responding to the concerns of energy-consuming countries and global powers?
The sustainable solution is to entrust security in the Strait of Hormuz to the two littoral states, Iran and Oman. There was not the slightest disagreement over this cooperation before the war, and it continued during the war. Iran and Oman had also reached an agreement on the arrangements for the post-war period, but US interference in the matter and pressure on Oman disrupted the agreed mechanism.
The United States was seeking a formula that would eliminate Iran’s sustainable security role in the strait. In fact, if the US ends its interference in the region, peace will be established in the region.
Oman has repeatedly served as a trusted mediator between Iran and the West. How can the country help reduce tensions related to the strait? Is there potential for a joint security mechanism between Iran and Oman to manage the waterway, and could such a mechanism help resolve the issue?
Over the past decades, Oman has shown that it is one of the few regional actors to have maintained a degree of trust among all sides. Its balanced foreign policy, active neutrality and constructive relations with Iran, Arab countries and the West have turned it into an effective mediator.
However, recent US interference and the impact of American pressure on some Omani positions have affected this role. The United States has, in fact, begun interfering in this relationship precisely with the aim of undermining trust between Tehran and Muscat.
Muscat, however, can play an important role not only in facilitating political negotiations but also in establishing joint mechanisms for managing maritime security, coordinating naval forces, preventing unintended incidents and protecting commercial shipping through an independent approach.
Overall, Oman should not allow the United States to exert pressure on the Arab country.