Renewed confrontation in the Strait of Hormuz, occurring days after the June 17 US-Iran interim framework, exposes a central weakness in Washington’s Gulf security approach. While the United States can militarily defeat individual Iranian attacks and deploy forces, it struggles to maintain normal, safe commercial traffic at an acceptable political and economic cost when Iran raises risk.
The latest disruption, which saw shipping again slowed after attacks and transit issues, highlights that US military superiority does not automatically equate to strategic control. Iran's geographic position near the strait, coupled with its sea denial capabilities like shore-based missiles, drones, and mines, which do not need to defeat the US Navy, allows it to make the waterway dangerous and expensive for commercial actors. This leverage is magnified by the economic stakes, as Hormuz carried 20 million barrels per day of oil and over one-fifth of global LNG trade, meaning even minor disruptions have global consequences. A realistic US strategy requires preserving deterrence while building mechanisms like military-to-military deconfliction, clearer transit rules, and a diplomatic track to address political disputes, recognizing that stability cannot be imposed by force alone.
No comments:
Post a Comment