Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz was meant to pressure Washington and strengthen Tehran’s strategic position. But what happens when a country’s strongest bargaining chip begins working against it?
When Strategic Guarantees Become Traps
A strategic choice defines a country’s long-term objectives, while a strategic guarantee provides the means to protect those objectives. But history demonstrates that the mechanism intended to secure national interests can become a source of vulnerability.
Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, intended to neutralise American naval threats while supporting Japanese expansion and access to resources, ultimately contributed to a disastrous war. Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait similarly transformed a perceived strategic advantage into a national catastrophe.
Can Iran continue using Hormuz as an instrument of deterrence without undermining the economic and geopolitical interests it is trying to protect?
Four Ways a Strategic Advantage Can Backfire
Creating New Adversaries
Pressure on global trade can turn previously neutral countries into political opponents.
Losing Flexibility
Heavy military and political investment makes reversing course increasingly difficult.
Enemy Adaptation
Opponents can develop alternative routes and countermeasures that weaken the original strategy.
Dependence on Allies
Regional and international partners may prioritise their own survival and interests over Iran’s.
How the Hormuz Strategy Began Losing Its Edge
Tehran invested substantial military, financial and political resources in presenting the Strait of Hormuz as its principal strategic guarantee against the United States.
Initially, Washington’s focus shifted away from its stated nuclear, missile and regional armed-group objectives towards reopening the strait. However, following a June memorandum with Tehran, the analysis argues that American priorities changed.
Reopening Hormuz became Washington’s central demand, giving Tehran a powerful bargaining position.
Tehran increasingly sought to restore passage, including through a seven-day proposal submitted by Abbas Araghchi in New York that Washington rejected.
According to the analysis, disruption to international energy markets also damaged Iran’s diplomatic position. It cites the European Council’s condemnation of Iranian attacks on regional countries as evidence of changing European attitudes.
Meanwhile, the United States reportedly tightened its blockade of Iranian strategic ports, including Kharg, while facilitating the departure of oil tankers from the Gulf. The analysis maintains that tanker movements helped restore oil exports towards pre-war levels, weakening Tehran’s leverage.
Can Iran Rely on Its Regional Allies?
Iran’s regional partnerships are another source of uncertainty. The analysis argues that Iraqi armed groups are negotiating arrangements over their weapons, Hezbollah’s ability to support Tehran has been severely constrained, and the Houthis must balance operations around Bab el-Mandeb against their own interests in Yemen.
Internationally, Russia and China also have interests beyond Iran. The analysis cites unconfirmed reports of Russian pressure on Tehran linked to negotiations over Ukraine. It also points to China’s efforts to reduce oil dependence, its opposition to Iranian nuclear weapons and its public denials of military and intelligence assistance to Tehran.
The Exit Strategy: Preserve Influence, Restore Navigation
The analysis concludes that Iran risks losing its strongest geopolitical advantage by insisting on restrictions that encourage Gulf countries to develop alternative trade and energy routes.
Recent reported attacks and explosions around the strait are presented as evidence of Tehran’s continued commitment to this strategy, but also of growing challenges to its enforcement.
“The return of normal navigation through the strait serves Iran before anyone else.”Central argument of the source analysis
The proposed alternative is to use ongoing Qatari-Pakistani mediation to negotiate a return to pre-war navigation arrangements in exchange for progress on Iran’s other demands.
The underlying warning is that a strategic guarantee loses its value when maintaining it costs more than the leverage it provides. If regional states permanently reduce their dependence on Hormuz, Iran could surrender a geopolitical advantage it may never fully recover.
