Amid escalating U.S. military deployments and diplomatic pressure, Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz remains its core strategic asset—shifting the balance from nuclear negotiations to territorial deterrence, while Oman emerges as the only viable mediator to de‑escalate a crisis that threatens global energy markets and regional stability.
By Sadeq Dehqan, Iran Daily Staff writer
The Strait of Hormuz has in recent days become the main arena and focal point of military tensions and confrontation between Iran and the United States. New waves of tension and the prospect of a broader military confrontation have gripped the Persian Gulf region in recent weeks.
Against this volatile backdrop, examining possible scenarios and assessing the economic and security consequences of each has taken on particular importance. While some have voiced concern about the outbreak of a major, even extra-regional war, others remain hopeful that negotiations will continue and a political solution can be found.
In this context, the role of regional countries such as Oman, a historic mediator, and the possibility of establishing an indigenous security mechanism in the Persian Gulf to manage the Strait of Hormuz have emerged as among the few sustainable ways to break the deadlock.
Iran Daily spoke with international affairs expert Afifeh Abedi to examine the less visible dimensions of the dispute from different angles. The following is the full transcript of the interview.
IRAN DAILY: Some analysts believe the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz for Iran goes even beyond the nuclear issue. To what extent is this assessment accurate in your view? What benefits, deterrent leverage and geopolitical advantages does Iran’s control and influence over the Strait provide that Tehran is unwilling to easily give up?
ABEDI: It is not correct to draw an equation between Iran’s nuclear rights and Iran’s territorial sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz. In today’s technological world and the age of scientific advancement, Iran has the right to possess peaceful nuclear technology. The politicization of Iran’s nuclear issue by the United States and Israel for ulterior geopolitical purposes is directed not only against Iran but against all countries in the region.
The claims surrounding a potential US nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia, reportedly conditional on the recognition of Israel, can be cited in this regard. There is no doubt that even if Saudi Arabia pays the price of recognizing Israel, the United States will not provide the kingdom with the technology.
The Strait of Hormuz, however, is a matter of Iran’s territorial sovereignty. Iran is fighting to preserve its territory. The fact is that the geopolitical circumstances surrounding the Strait of Hormuz have changed following the aggressive war waged by the United States and Israel against Iran, and Iran has the right to protect this part of its territory with the utmost vigilance.
In fact, the geopolitical position of the Strait of Hormuz has changed following the US and Israeli warmongering against Iran, and Tehran is the only side seeking to pave the way for a peaceful resolution of the crisis.
In recent weeks and months, the increased military presence of the United States and some of its allies in the region, alongside intensified political and diplomatic pressure, has fueled speculation about the possibility of a broader confrontation. To what extent do you see these moves as a sign of preparations for military conflict, and to what extent can they be viewed as part of psychological warfare and a maximum-pressure policy aimed at forcing Iran to accept negotiations and make concessions?
These moves appear to be pursuing a combination of both objectives. The deployment of military equipment and forces indicates operational preparations, and the possibility of a major confrontation cannot, naturally, be ruled out.
However, the experience of recent wars and the overall geopolitical, humanitarian and military circumstances show that the United States faces significant limitations when it comes to war, while a major conflict cannot guarantee the achievement of its strategic objectives. Therefore, the increased deployment of equipment and war preparations are, at a second level, intended to increase psychological pressure on Iran.
Based on the experience of recent years, which scenario do you consider more likely under the current circumstances: a move toward a political and diplomatic agreement or an escalation of tensions and military confrontation? What factors could tip the balance in favor of either scenario?
The most likely scenario is the continuation of a controlled conflict alongside negotiations. The United States is fundamentally not seeking an agreement with Iran; rather, it is seeking to impose its will on Iran. However, it faces a major deadlock in pursuing its strategic objectives through military means.
The United States is pursuing several tactical objectives through scattered warfare and intermittent negotiations. First, it seeks to prevent further pressure on oil prices and the global economy. The United States starts a war, and whenever oil prices approach a major shock to the global economy, it raises the issue of negotiations. Then, after oil prices fall significantly, it starts a new war again.
Along this path, the United States seeks to shift the main costs of the war onto its Arab allies in the Persian Gulf and cover these costs in various ways from the pockets of the peoples of the region.
This is a situation in which negotiations, political pressure, military deterrence and periodic tensions continue simultaneously. Only a high number of US casualties, domestic pressure in the United States or other unforeseen events may eventually alter this course of attritional warfare.
If tensions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz continue, what consequences would this have for global energy security, oil markets, the economies of regional countries and even Iran’s trade? Could these consequences themselves prevent a major conflict from breaking out?
Any instability in the Strait of Hormuz would have an immediate impact on the global economy. Higher oil prices, increased maritime transport costs, higher insurance premiums for ships and disruptions to the energy supply chain would be among the first consequences.
The oil-exporting countries of the Persian Gulf would also suffer from such a situation, as their exports depend on this waterway. At the same time, Iran would not be immune to the economic consequences of such circumstances, and its foreign trade and energy exports would also be affected.
This mutual interdependence has led the United States to pursue a course of attritional warfare in the region so that the shock to the global economy can be contained. However, the United States is seeking in various ways to reduce the costs it incurs from a war of attrition in the Strait of Hormuz, and in my view, it does not care about the rising costs faced by other countries in the region.
What do you see as the sustainable solution for reducing tensions in the Strait of Hormuz? Is it possible to reach an agreement that would address Iran’s security concerns while also responding to the concerns of energy-consuming countries and global powers?
The sustainable solution is to entrust security in the Strait of Hormuz to the two littoral states, Iran and Oman. There was not the slightest disagreement over this cooperation before the war, and it continued during the war. Iran and Oman had also reached an agreement on the arrangements for the post-war period, but US interference in the matter and pressure on Oman disrupted the agreed mechanism.
The United States was seeking a formula that would eliminate Iran’s sustainable security role in the strait. In fact, if the US ends its interference in the region, peace will be established in the region.
Oman has repeatedly served as a trusted mediator between Iran and the West. How can the country help reduce tensions related to the strait? Is there potential for a joint security mechanism between Iran and Oman to manage the waterway, and could such a mechanism help resolve the issue?
Over the past decades, Oman has shown that it is one of the few regional actors to have maintained a degree of trust among all sides. Its balanced foreign policy, active neutrality and constructive relations with Iran, Arab countries and the West have turned it into an effective mediator.
However, recent US interference and the impact of American pressure on some Omani positions have affected this role. The United States has, in fact, begun interfering in this relationship precisely with the aim of undermining trust between Tehran and Muscat.
Muscat, however, can play an important role not only in facilitating political negotiations but also in establishing joint mechanisms for managing maritime security, coordinating naval forces, preventing unintended incidents and protecting commercial shipping through an independent approach.
Overall, Oman should not allow the United States to exert pressure on the Arab country.
