A report by Financial Times argues that recent geopolitical developments may position Iran to emerge from the current conflict with enhanced leverage and a more influential global standing. The analysis suggests that policies pursued by Donald Trump have, in multiple cases, pushed Washington’s adversaries to develop unconventional tools of pressure, with Iran now demonstrating a similar strategic adaptation.
The report draws parallels with the United States’ trade confrontation with China, where Beijing responded by leveraging its dominance over critical minerals to force concessions. Iran, according to the report, has followed a comparable trajectory by effectively shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, utilising its geographic advantage to inflict rapid economic disruption on Western economies.
Strategic Leverage Through the Strait of Hormuz
The report highlights that Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz extends beyond a defensive posture. It provides Tehran with a strategic instrument that could reshape its international position. Despite sustaining significant losses, including the killing of senior leadership figures and repeated strikes on naval assets, missile platforms, and command infrastructure, Iran has demonstrated resilience.
More notably, it has shown the capacity to impose economic pressure on Gulf states, raising concerns about long-term regional stability. The Strait of Hormuz is presented as a potential financial lifeline, capable of accelerating Iran’s economic recovery and expanding its geopolitical influence.
According to the report, Iran has imposed fees estimated at approximately $2 million per vessel to secure passage through the strait. With an average of around 140 ships passing daily under normal conditions, this model could generate billions of dollars in monthly revenue if sustained.
Limited Western Response Options
The report notes that Marco Rubio recently warned against Iran’s attempt to impose such transit fees, describing the move as unlawful. However, the central issue remains Washington’s ability to respond effectively.
The analysis suggests that viable military solutions are limited unless there is a fundamental political shift within Iran. While the United States has begun deploying ground forces to the region, proposals such as seizing Kharg Island are unlikely to resolve the broader challenge posed by control of the strait.
Western military planners are described as pessimistic regarding the feasibility of reopening the strait through force. The geography of the region, combined with Iran’s advanced capabilities, including long-range drones, makes it difficult to guarantee the safety of commercial shipping, even with naval escorts.
Negotiation as the Most Realistic Path
The report identifies negotiation as the most realistic pathway forward, though it anticipates that Iran will demand significant concessions. Tehran is portrayed as seeking transformative financial gains and now possesses a mechanism to reward or penalise global actors based on compliance.
Trump’s approach is characterised as inconsistent, with the report noting his own admission of difficulty in understanding Iran’s negotiation strategy. It references a proposal for joint management of the strait and revenue-sharing with Iranian leadership, an idea that reportedly received no interest from Tehran.
Regional and Global Implications
Neighbouring Gulf states are described as deeply concerned about the prospect of Iran emerging from the conflict with effective control over regional energy exports, alongside a new revenue stream. While there has been speculation regarding potential involvement by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the report suggests that fears of severe retaliatory strikes on critical infrastructure may push these states towards accommodation rather than escalation.
Asian and European countries may also face pressure to comply with transit fees to secure energy flows. Despite concerns about political repercussions from Washington, deteriorating relations with the United States could lead some allies to prioritise economic stability over alignment, particularly to avoid prolonged high energy costs or a return to dependence on Russian oil and gas.
Internal Pressures and Future Uncertainty
The report acknowledges that internal economic and social pressures within Iran could still threaten the stability of the regime. However, it notes that, so far, the system has demonstrated a notable degree of resilience. Any escalation involving direct US ground intervention would represent a significant turning point.
The report concludes by cautioning that any perception of Iran’s strategic gains as a positive development reflects short-term thinking. It argues that a more confident and hardened Iranian state would have serious implications for global security, the international economy, and the Iranian population itself. Despite uncertainties, this outcome is presented as a credible and concerning scenario.
