received

In 1988, during the call “tanker war” between Iran and Iraq, a single low-cost naval device managed to seriously damage to a state-of-the-art American frigate in the Persian Gulf. That crisis left an uncomfortable lesson for the great powers: in the busiest maritime straits on the planet, a handful of well-placed threats are enough to put entire fleets in check and alter the balance of the world economy. A global appeal. Two weeks after the start of the war against Iran, the United States finds itself facing a paradox most disturbing. Despite the massive bombings against Iranian military installations and the blows against its strategic infrastructure, the Strait of Hormuz (the energy artery through which a fifth of the world’s oil passes) still blocked for much of the maritime traffic. The White House has responded with a unusual request: ask other powers to send warships to escort trade and reopen the passage. In fact, Trump’s call has not only been directed at traditional allies such as the United Kingdom or France, but also at rival powers. like china. This movement reflects, once again, an increasingly evident reality: the war is much more difficult to end than Washington expected. Reluctant allies. The international response has been prudent when not directly evasive. Spain has been the clearestbut the United Kingdom has insisted that the priority should be reduce escalation military rather than expanding naval deployment. For its part, Japan has recalled that its pacifist constitution limits participation in armed conflicts. South Korea has limited itself to promise consultations with Washington, while France has suggested that could participate in naval escorts, but only if the conflict is stabilized first. In other words, the allies recognize the strategic problem of the strait, but none seems willing to assume the political and military cost of fully entering the war. A notice to NATO. The frustration of the White House has ended up translating into a very direct message through a interview in Financial Times. Trump has publicly warned that NATO could face to a “very bad future” if its allies do not help the United States reopen the strait. The president’s argument is simple: Europe depends on the oil that passes through Hormuz and should help protect that route. In its vision of things, Washington has supported its allies in crises such as the war in Ukraine and now expect reciprocity. The problem is that this pressure comes at a time when many European governments fear being dragged into a military escalation with unforeseeable consequences. Appeal to China. In the face of Western coldness, the American appeal surprisingly included also to Beijing. China buys large quantities of Iranian oil and depends largely on the energy flow that passes through Hormuz. For Washington, this dependence could turn China into an actor interested in stabilizing the area. However, the maneuver has a complex diplomatic background: The United States is asking for help to resolve a war that it itself has started, and it is doing so even from a power with which it maintains a global strategic rivalry. Support for Iran. And while Washington seeks support from the most unexpected places, Tehran has responded proving that it is not isolated. The Iranian government has confirmed that maintains political, economic and even military cooperation with Russia and China. The relationship with Moscow has narrowed especially since the Ukraine war, in which Russia has used Iranian drones as part of its arsenal. With Beijing, the link is supported above all in energy trade and in long-term economic agreements. For Iran, this support does not necessarily imply direct intervention, but it does reinforce its position in the face of Western pressure. The strategic letter. we have been counting. Control of the Strait of Hormuz has become the main instrument of Iranian pressure. Tehran maintains that the passage is not closed to world trade, but only to the ships of the United States, Israel and their direct allies. This narrative seeks to present the situation as a selective retaliation and not as a global blockade. At the same time, it allows Iran use the threat on energy trafficking as a tool to force other countries to become diplomatically involved in the conflict. Economic war underway. Meanwhile, the impact on energy markets is already visible. The price of oil has exceeded $100 per barrel and several countries fear that the rise in energy prices will cause new inflationary tensions. For Asian economies, especially dependent on Gulf crude oil, the blockade represents a direct risk to their growth. That economic pressure is part of the Iranian strategic calculation: turn the conflict into a global problem that forces other powers to pressure Washington to find a solution. Late help. In that context, the implicit response of Iran is quite clear. In his view, the war has entered a phase in which calls for international cooperation no longer change the balance of the conflict. US attacks on strategic targets like the oil island of Kharg They have raised the tension to a level that makes any rapid retreat difficult. In other words, if Washington now seeks external support to close the war, Tehran interprets that it does so when the opportunity to avoid that escalation it’s already happened. An unexpected script. The final paradox begins to become increasingly evident, because the United States insists that has seriously weakened to Iran and that it can reopen the strait “one way or another”, but at the same time it is requesting international help to do it. This contradiction reveals that keeping Hormuz open under constant threat of mines, drones and missiles requires military coordination much larger than expected. Thus, the war that began as an air campaign fast has become a strategic challenge that involves (or seeks to involve) the entire international system. An increasingly complex board. The result is a scenario in which traditional alliances are shown extremely cautiousthe rival powers support Iran and the world economy is beginning to feel the impact of the … Read more