Hormuz and Washington: War Fails to Neutralize Iran

By Retired Major-General Dr. Musa Al-Ajlouni

The Hormuz Strait is one of the world’s most important maritime chokepoints, through which approximately one-fifth of global oil trade passes. For this reason, the security of this strait has been a cornerstone of the strategic hegemony system established by the United States in the Middle East since the end of the Cold War.

However, recent military and political developments indicate that this equation no longer operates and Washington’s ability to impose maritime security in the Gulf is no longer absolute as it once was.

Unconventional Warfare Confounds Naval Power

Iran’s military strategy for threatening navigation in the strait relies on a combination of asymmetric warfare tools, such as coastal missiles, drones, fast attack craft, and sea mines. These tools are relatively low-cost yet highly effective, making it difficult for any naval power—even the world’s most powerful—to provide complete protection for every ship transiting the Strait.

Over the past few years, Iran has also successfully developed what is known as the Anti-Access/Area Denial (AAD) strategy, a military doctrine aimed at making it extremely costly for large naval vessels to enter certain areas. In a relatively confined geographical environment like the Arabian Gulf, this strategy becomes even more effective because it reduces the room for maneuver for large fleets.

The challenge here is not Washington’s ability to respond militarily, but rather the impossibility of preventing every potential threat. A single missile or small drone may be sufficient to disrupt navigation or increase insurance and shipping costs, thus achieving the objective of strategic pressure without engaging in a large-scale conventional naval confrontation.

Redeployment of the aircraft carrier… an indicator of a changing equation

One of the most prominent military indicators of this shift is Washington’s own announcement of the redeployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) aircraft carrier away from the waters near the Iranian coast. The carrier, considered one of the largest assets of the US Navy, is no longer operating in the immediate vicinity of the threat, as was the case in previous crises in the Gulf.

According to US statements, this move comes as part of a reorganization of naval forces to better suit the nature of current threats. However, many observers see this change as evidence that the tactical risk balance in the region has shifted significantly.

Tacit Admission of Incapacity

In this context, US President Donald Trump called on international partners to participate in protecting the Strait of Hormuz. He appealed to NATO countries and also called on major economic powers such as China, Japan, and South Korea to contribute to securing the waterway, arguing that Middle Eastern oil flows primarily to their economies, and therefore protecting this vital artery should be a shared responsibility.

This call implicitly acknowledges that the United States is no longer able—politically, militarily, or economically—to bear the burden of protecting global trade routes alone, as it did in past decades.

Limitations of War

This development also reveals another dimension related to assessing the potential outcomes of a war against Iran. Had this war truly succeeded in achieving its strategic objective of neutralizing Iran as an influential regional power, Tehran would no longer be able to threaten one of the world’s most vital energy arteries. Its continued ability to use missiles, drones, and other asymmetrical warfare tools to impact international maritime security indicates that the war, despite the damage it inflicted, failed to diminish Iran’s geopolitical role or remove it from the regional power equation.

Indeed, the current situation suggests that Iran still possesses strategic leverage that enables it to influence the global economy, which explains Washington’s efforts to garner broad international support to protect navigation in the Strait. Thus, the Strait itself becomes evidence that the strategic neutralization of Iran has not yet been achieved.

Attempt to Pressure Allies

Trump did not merely call on allies to participate; he also reminded European countries of their commitments within NATO, recalling the substantial military and financial support the United States provided to Ukraine in its conflict with Russia following the outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian War.

Through this reminder, Trump is attempting to establish a political equation: Washington stood with Europe against Russia, and therefore Europeans should now stand with it in protecting global energy routes in the Gulf.

Expected European Reaction

However, the European response may be more cautious than Washington anticipates. European countries understand that direct military involvement in securing the Strait of Hormuz could place them at the heart of a regional confrontation with Iran, a scenario many capitals are trying to avoid.

Furthermore, past experiences in the Middle East, particularly after the Iraq War, have made European public opinion more hesitant to engage in US-led military operations. Therefore, the European role may be limited to logistical support or limited participation in maritime surveillance operations, without direct involvement in the conflict.

Calculations of Asian Powers

Asian powers such as China, Japan, and South Korea are the most dependent on Gulf oil, but they are also the most eager to avoid becoming embroiled in a military conflict in the region. China, for example, has economic and political ties with Iran and simultaneously seeks to present itself as an international balancing power, not a party to the conflict.

Therefore, these countries may be inclined to support limited security arrangements or international initiatives to guarantee freedom of navigation, without joining a broad US-led military coalition.

Strait of Hormuz: Mirror of the Shifting Balance of Power

Ultimately, the debate surrounding the protection of the Strait of Hormuz reveals a deeper shift in the structure of the international system.

The country that for decades was able to maintain security in strategic waterways now finds itself compelled to seek assistance from its allies and even some of its rivals.

At the same time, it appears that Iran still possesses sufficient tools to maintain its role as a strategic player in the region. Thus, the Strait of Hormuz, with all its importance to global energy, becomes a mirror reflecting the shifting balance of power in the Middle East and the world.

This article war written in Arabic for the JO24 website.

  • CrossFireArabia

    CrossFireArabia

    Dr. Marwan Asmar holds a PhD from Leeds University and is a freelance writer specializing on the Middle East. He has worked as a journalist since the early 1990s in Jordan and the Gulf countries, and been widely published, including at Albawaba, Gulf News, Al Ghad, World Press Review and others.

    Related Posts

    Trump’s Advisor: Warns White House Against Escalation

    Trump adviser David Sacks warns that continued escalation with Iran could destabilize the region and strain Israel’s defenses.

    Key Takeaways

    • David Sacks urged Washington to “declare victory and get out” of the war with Iran before escalation spirals further.
    • He warned Iran could target Gulf oil infrastructure and desalination plants, threatening water supplies for millions.
    • His remarks come amid growing divisions within the Trump administration over whether to escalate the conflict or seek an exit.

    A Rare Warning

    A senior adviser to Donald Trump has warned that Washington may already be approaching the limits of what it can safely achieve in its escalating war with Iran.

    Speaking on the All-In Podcast, White House AI and cryptocurrency adviser David Sacks urged the United States to step back from the conflict before it spirals further across the Middle East.

    “This is a good time to declare victory and get out,” Sacks said, arguing that Washington should seek a negotiated off-ramp rather than push toward deeper escalation.

    “I agree that we should try to find the off-ramp,” he added.

    His remarks are notable because they challenge the dominant narrative coming from the White House and many Republican figures who continue to frame the war as a decisive strategic success.

    Instead, Sacks sounded a far more cautious note, suggesting that the longer the war continues, the more unpredictable its consequences may become.

    ‘Catastrophic’ Consequences

    Sacks warned that Iran retains the capacity to retaliate in ways that could destabilize the entire region.

    One of the scenarios he outlined involved strikes on Gulf oil infrastructure and desalination plants that supply drinking water across the Arabian Peninsula.

    “I think it’s something like 100 million people on the Arabian Peninsula that get their water from desal,” Sacks said.

    Damage to those facilities could have immediate humanitarian consequences across several Gulf states that depend heavily on desalinated water.

    Sacks described such a scenario as “truly catastrophic.”

    His comments reflect growing concern that Iran may respond asymmetrically, targeting infrastructure and economic systems rather than focusing solely on military confrontation.

    Israel’s Position Under Strain

    Sacks also warned that the war could create serious pressure on Israel if it continues to escalate.

    During the podcast discussion, he noted that prolonged regional confrontation could test Israel’s air defense systems and expose the country to sustained missile pressure.

    In the same conversation, Sacks described Iran as holding what he called a “dead man’s switch over the economic fate of the Gulf States.”

    The phrase referred to Iran’s ability to disrupt key economic and energy infrastructure throughout the region if the war intensifies.

    Reshaping the Region

    The remarks came shortly before the United States launched a major bombing raid on Iran’s Kharg Island, a strategic terminal through which the vast majority of Iranian oil exports pass.

    The strike highlighted how deeply the war has already penetrated the economic and strategic infrastructure of the region.

    Energy markets have reacted nervously to the widening conflict, while Gulf states remain exposed to the risk of retaliatory strikes on oil facilities and shipping routes.

    Meanwhile, Iran and allied groups have continued missile and drone attacks against Israel and other targets across the region, expanding the battlefield beyond the initial US-Israeli strikes.

    The result is a conflict that now spans multiple fronts across West Asia.

    Growing Debate

    Sacks’ remarks highlight a widening divide within Washington over how far the United States should go in its confrontation with Iran.

    Publicly, the Trump administration has continued to project confidence that the military campaign is weakening Tehran and reshaping the regional balance of power.

    But behind that messaging, officials and political allies appear increasingly split over what the next step should be.

    Some figures within the administration and the broader Republican Party are pushing for deeper escalation. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has repeatedly framed the strikes as part of a broader effort to weaken Iran’s regional influence and restore deterrence.

    Trump himself has combined victory rhetoric with threats of further escalation. After announcing the bombing raid on Iran’s Kharg Island, he claimed US forces had “obliterated” key military targets while warning that Iranian oil infrastructure could also be struck if Tehran moves to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

    At the same time, a smaller but increasingly visible group within Trump’s orbit appears wary of a prolonged war.

    Those voices argue that continued escalation could draw the United States into a wider regional conflict involving Iran’s network of allied forces across Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere.

    Sacks’ call to “declare victory and get out” reflects that concern.

    Rather than advocating additional military pressure, he suggested Washington should use the current moment to claim success and pursue a negotiated exit before the conflict expands further.

    The contrast between those positions — escalation versus exit — is becoming one of the central political questions shaping Washington’s response to the war. – The Palestine Chronicle

    Continue reading
    How Will Trump Get Out of This War?

    By Ismail Al Sharif

    “We are in an advanced position, and we will decide when the war will end,” said Kazem Gharibabadi, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister.

    President Donald Trump, in coordination with the Zionist entity, is igniting a regional war with Iran which is an unprecedented event in the region. Analysis of the true motives behind this fateful decision vary. One school of thought believes the strategic objective lies in controlling Iranian oil wealth and containing growing Chinese influence. Another links this to the Epstein affair, based on claims of Zionist pressure threatening to expose him to sensitive information.

    A third school believes that Trump is tied to political commitments made to Miriam Adelson, who generously funded his election campaign. Some go even further, alleging that Trump, known for his transactional negotiating style, received substantial financial compensation for engaging in this war. In a related context however, recent reports indicate that Trump himself has blamed his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and several close advisors for instigating this latest military adventure.

    Whatever the true motives behind igniting this war, one path seems almost certain to end it: Trump will hold a press conference declaring a unilateral and absolute victory. The precise timing of this declaration remains uncertain.

    But the decision to cease hostilities does not rest with Trump alone; it is contingent upon the agreement of two other key parties: Tehran and Israel.

    Israel shows no desire to end this war, as it is the primary beneficiary of its continuation. It systematically seeks to dismantle the structure of the Islamic Republic and sees no harm in the regime’s collapse leading to widespread chaos engulfing Iran and the entire region.

    If Trump fails to restrain Netanyahu, the latter will not hesitate to continue his military operations even after any official American declaration of a ceasefire. This may explain why Trump declared that any settlement to end the conflict would only be possible with Netanyahu’s consent and explicit blessing.

    However, the Zionist entity might feign acceptance of a ceasefire while its Mossad intelligence apparatus works behind the scenes to fuel separatist and rebellious sentiments among ethnic minorities within Iran, such as the Kurds and Balouchis, potentially threatening the cohesion of the Iranian state from within. In response, Tehran would have no choice but to continue targeting the entity, which would then retaliate swiftly, potentially drawing Trump back into a cycle of military confrontation.

    Adding to Trump’s predicament is the possibility that he might ultimately declare a ceasefire unilaterally, without any fundamental change to the structure of the Iranian regime, and without extracting any genuine concessions from Tehran regarding halting uranium enrichment, dismantling its missile program, or severing its ties with regional allies—the very pretexts used to launch the war.

    Even more dangerous is the fact that the Islamic Republic’s resilience and its emergence from this crisis with its system intact will make it a unique and exceptional model: The first country to challenge American hegemony and emerge unscathed. This could encourage other countries suffering under the weight of Trump’s policies or ambitions—such as Venezuela and Greenland—to adopt resistance as a path, even if they lack Iran’s military capabilities.

    It seems to me that President Trump may be following in the footsteps of his predecessor, George W. Bush, when he famously declared victory in 2003 from the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, which was then—as it is today—at the eye of the American military storm. It is worth recalling here that Bush’s speech was a highly symbolic and premature declaration, one that was quickly contradicted by events, as the war on Iraqi soil continued for nearly a decade afterward.

    The war has exhausted Iran and burdened it with immense hardships, making it seriously seek a cessation of hostilities. However, it simultaneously finds itself in direct confrontation with American will. Iranian officials have made it clear that any agreement to a ceasefire and the resumption of negotiations is contingent upon receiving firm guarantees from Washington and Tel Aviv that the aggression will not be repeated. Should Tehran manage to withstand and overcome this phase, it is likely to add to its list of demands one of which is the lifting of some of the sanctions imposed upon it.

    Therefore, it appears that the Iranian strategy is essentially based on a policy of systematic attrition; simultaneously exhausting the United States and Israel by driving oil prices to high levels and closing the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s vital energy artery. This would impose heavy economic burdens that might ultimately compel Washington to reconsider its calculations and agree to a ceasefire.

    In short, Trump will not be in a position to deliver a victory speech in the next week or two, and any such declaration without genuine cooperation from Israel and Iran will amount to nothing more than empty rhetoric devoid of any real substance on the ground. There is no doubt that President Trump has put himself, his country, and the entire region in a very complex strategic predicament, from which the way out may not be as easy as those who made the decision to go to war imagine.

    This analysis was originally written in Arabic and reprinted in crossfirearabia.com

    Continue reading

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You Missed

    Hormuz and Washington: War Fails to Neutralize Iran

    Hormuz and Washington: War Fails to Neutralize Iran

    Israeli Official: ‘Life in The North is Dead’

    Israeli Official: ‘Life in The North is Dead’

    White House Economic Council Head Says The Iran War May End in 6 Weeks, Wont Stay Months

    White House Economic Council Head Says The Iran War May End in 6 Weeks, Wont Stay Months

    At Day 16 of The War The Israeli Air Force Say The Dropped 10,000 Bombs on Iran

    At Day 16 of The War The Israeli Air Force Say The Dropped 10,000 Bombs on Iran

    IRGC Spokesman: Most of The Missiles Produced After The 12-Day War Are Yet to be Used

    IRGC Spokesman: Most of The Missiles Produced After The 12-Day War Are Yet to be Used

    IRGC Spokesman: Most the Missiles Launched in This War Were Produced 10 Years Ago

    IRGC Spokesman: Most the Missiles Launched in This War Were Produced 10 Years Ago