The Strait of Hormuz is not as fully open as President Trump claims, nor is it closed. It is also a misconception that only vessels with explicit permission can pass by the Strait of Hormuz fluently. For, the truth lies somewhat in the grey zone.
The recent exchange of fire between the United States and Islamic Iran is increasing fears of a return to military conflict between the two after a slight respite, albeit without resolution. Both have targeted each other, particularly along Iran's southern shore. Additionally, Iran targeted American military units stationed on the lands of its allies, such as Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, and Jordan.
President Donald Trump threatened to strike Iran with fierce force, warning that he would be ready to start a new war if it continued to target its soldiers and allies in the region. This placed the Strait of Hormuz under renewed intense pressure.
Therefore, the question now arises: How serious is the recent military escalation? And how close are the two nations to a new intense war between them? A significant non-Arab Asian researcher answers this question by stating that President Trump's frustration at the failure of his core expectation that his war on Iran would lead it to surrender is considerable. It appears that Iran has no intention to do so. It has shown that it remains in a stance that can be described as being neither at peace nor at war. This is something Iran cannot withstand.
Thus, it has an interest in military escalation, believing it will increase pressure on Trump and compel him to adopt a more lenient stance. We should wait and see how the Americans respond to the recent Iranian escalation. We are at the beginning of a military escalation that must inevitably lead to a new bout of fighting until both sides find their way back to the negotiation table. I believe we are very close to a wide-scale war again. It is known that there is no military solution to this conflict at an acceptable cost to both parties. What should the new round of fighting achieve, and do both parties intend to successively meet their demands?
In other words, Americans hope that a new round of fighting, though perhaps undesired by them, will lead to softening or easing the Iranian stance and vice versa. This is what Iranians also think about Trump. The gap in positions between the two parties remains wide. It means that American forces in the region are exposed.
It is known that the Iranians have not yet directly targeted the American military or naval forces in the Gulf until a few days ago. Did they refrain from doing so because they could not "reach" the American naval destroyers, or because they do not want to, at least for now? No one knows.
The same non-Arab Asian researcher adds: I don't believe we have seen indications that the Gulf Arab states, which host military bases, want Washington to withdraw its forces from them. All parties understand, although the Iranians may not accept, that the continuation of American military presence in the Gulf will remain there. Perhaps there will be a change in the level of consultation with local governments, especially after the losses caused by Iran's strikes in the Gulf states.
In summary, the conflict exhausts both American and Iranian parties simultaneously. But naturally, the Iranians remain under greater pressure than the Americans. Specifically, from their leader, Trump. But the correct question here is not whether one side would be under more pressure than the other. Rather, it is about both sides' tolerance for the pain both endure.
The Iranians have shown, not just in the past six months during this war, but also over 47 years of their Islamic regime, that they have a high degree of resilience to endure strikes and losses. Iran still has the capability to launch drones, plant mines, and launch ballistic missiles. However, there is no doubt that six months of fighting have reduced its capabilities and armament reserves, but not eliminated them.
What about the Strait of Hormuz, which is a concern for global energy supplies? Around twenty percent of the world's oil used to pass through the Strait of Hormuz before the war. So, is that under serious threat? It's a serious threat, as the same non-Arab Asian researcher himself answers. It's not entirely open as President Trump claims, nor closed.
It is also not true that ships having Iran's permission to cross do so. The truth lies somewhat in between. The amount of oil and gas crossing the strait has been significantly reduced. This condition will persist as long as neither Tehran nor Washington finds a serious path back to the negotiation table.
Notably, there is also a threat of a worsening situation due to the conflict, but by proxy at Bab el-Mandeb and the western shore of the Gulf. Perhaps the future lies in finding alternative routes to "Hormuz”, as none of the parties wants to be hostage to a maritime corridor in the future. That is very dangerous. I don't believe "Hormuz" will be completely closed.
Maritime navigation is caught between two "clamps." One is the Iranians, who say you cannot pass unless we agree to it. Another is the Americans, who say to the movement of transport through the strait: We will protect you and enable you to use a southern route when necessary, not passing through the "Iranian sea."
This matter continues to function until now. The problem is that companies have to make choices, which may have future implications. Trump has stated multiple times that he wants a role for his country in managing the maritime passage. How serious and firm is this demand? In any case, Trump began encouraging ships to take the Omani waterway with some protection offered. At the same time, Americans prevented ships "associated" with Iran from navigating Hormuz, thus attempting to exercise some control and oversight.
