Developments around the Strait of Hormuz are moving quickly, two days after the United States began a naval blockade. While US Central Command initially said that no ships had passed through the blockade of Iranian ports and that six ships had been turned back, later reports suggested that about 20 commercial ships had passed through the strait in the past 24 hours. The US blockade specifically targets ships entering or leaving Iranian ports, while ships transiting to or from non-Iranian ports are allowed to pass through the Strait of Hormuz.
In an interview with Radio Free Europe on April 14, Azeem Ibrahim, a longtime Middle East observer and director of special initiatives at the New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy in Washington, said the Strait of Hormuz is increasingly becoming more than just a point through which oil passes, describing it as a space where economic pressure, military danger and geopolitical ambition intersect, with important implications for what might happen next.
Radio Free Europe: Two days of blockade, what do you see as the key objective? Is it pressure or advantage?
Azeem Ibrahim: It's hard to say because U.S. objectives are changing. About 88 percent of the oil that passes through the Strait of Hormuz is not Iranian oil. That means Gulf states — and big consumers like China, which gets about a third of its oil through this route — are being hit hard.
We have already seen signals from Beijing that it is objecting, stressing that its energy deals with Iran are not open to outside interference. Reports indicate that some ships – particularly Chinese ones – are bypassing the blockade altogether.
If ships can pass, then this raises serious questions about whether this is a blockade, in real terms.
“Long-term capacity to cope with pressure”
Radio Free Europe: But the US is aiming to create an advantage. How quickly can this translate into real concessions?
Azeem Ibrahim: This is one of the main challenges. This conflict will not be decided by who can inflict the most damage, but by who will endure the most. The US undoubtedly has the upper hand in terms of military power. But Iran has demonstrated that it has the long-term capacity to withstand the pain.
During the Iran-Iraq war, Iran suffered heavy losses, including chemical attacks, but did not capitulate. For Tehran, this is essential. Concessions would mean the end of the regime.
Iranian leaders have also studied US conflicts, such as the Vietnam War and the war in Afghanistan. In both cases, the US achieved battlefield success but ultimately retreated. Tehran believes that Washington has no patience for prolonged confrontations.
So Iran will likely wait. Over decades, its system has been structured to withstand precisely this kind of pressure.
Radio Free Europe: If Iran continues to resist, what are the next steps for Washington, more pressure or a change of strategy?
Azeem Ibrahim: If I had to guess, I would say that the blockade could fade over time. Ships – especially those supported by major powers – will continue to pass through. Eventually, the US could declare some kind of victory and withdraw.
But the long-term consequences could be significant. Iran has effectively weaponized the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20 percent of global oil passes. This creates an opportunity for Tehran to profit financially from its use, potentially by charging ships for safe passage.
At the same time, we are seeing a shift in the implementation of sanctions. Some of the previously restricted oil – both Iranian and Russian – is returning to the markets to stabilize supply.
Perhaps more worrying is the strategic lesson Iran could learn. With the departure of former supreme leader Ali Khamenei and the religious ban he imposed on nuclear weapons no longer binding, Tehran may conclude that only nuclear deterrence can prevent future conflict. Such an outcome would run counter to the objectives of almost all international actors.
Can Iranian retaliation be stopped?
Radio Free Europe: If there is going to be retaliation, how limited might it remain? And, what does this indicate about the risk of broader escalation, are we nearing a point where the conflict could expand beyond the Strait of Hormuz and involve other regional or external actors?
Azeem Ibrahim: Iran has already signaled that it could target desalination plants throughout the Persian Gulf. In a region where water shortages are acute, this would be catastrophic.
Likewise, American military bases – long considered secure thanks to air superiority – are becoming increasingly vulnerable to drone and missile attacks. The battlefield has changed.
There is also external involvement. Support from Russia for intelligence and from China for equipment complicates the balance. Iran still has a significant asymmetric advantage.
Radio Free Europe: What is the position of US allies on this issue?
Azeem Ibrahim: The challenge is that the countries most affected by disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz may not blame Iran, they may blame Washington.
The United States is the world's largest oil producer and is relatively unaffected by supply chain disruptions. But countries that rely heavily on Gulf energy could face severe consequences. Many of them are already exploring independent diplomatic channels with Tehran.
We are seeing signs of fragmentation in the international order that the United States helped build. Some governments are openly considering bypassing Washington in negotiations. This is a significant shift.
Radio Free Europe: Are China and Russia taking advantage of this situation?
Azeem Ibrahim: Yes. They see the US embroiled in yet another costly and complicated conflict in the Middle East. Meanwhile, Washington is spending huge resources and depleting its stock of key munitions.
This also highlights the limitations of the defense industrial base in the US and Europe. Sustaining a long-term, high-intensity conflict is proving difficult.
For China in particular, there are strategic opportunities. Hypothetically, even a blockade of Taiwan could shift global pressure significantly, especially given Taiwan's central role in semiconductor manufacturing.
Radio Free Europe: What would a successful outcome look like?
Azeem Ibrahim: Ideally, it would mean a negotiated agreement in which Iran commits to giving up its nuclear weapons ambitions, allows full inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and takes steps to reduce regional tensions. In return, it would receive sanctions relief and a degree of economic reintegration into the global system.
But this outcome, in my opinion, is looking increasingly unlikely. From Tehran’s perspective, even accepting these demands may not provide lasting security guarantees. The leadership may count on the agreements being scrapped or undermined over time, and confrontation with the US and its partners essentially inevitable.
On this basis, they may conclude that the most rational strategy in the long term is to withstand the pressure now and come up with stronger deterrence capabilities later, rather than relying on an agreement that may not be respected or last. This is the challenge the US must face now./REL/
t7 live
