Hormuz and Washington: War Fails to Neutralize Iran

CrossFireArabia
Analyses
March 16, 2026

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

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.

Analyses

Netanyahu, Iran and The ‘Destructive’ Israeli Personality

CrossFireArabia
June 8, 2026

By Dr Adnan Naeem

The recent escalation between Israel and Iran suggests that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is currently experiencing one of his most complex and perplexing political moments. The man who has long relied on military force as a tool to resolve conflicts and impose realities now finds himself besieged by outcomes that fall short of his stated objectives and the immense cost borne by the entire region.

In Gaza, after months of war, destruction, and continuous military operations by the Israeli army, fundamental questions remain unanswered: Where is the victory promised to the Israelis? Where are the strategic achievements that justified the continuation of the war? The Gaza battle was transformed from a project for a swift resolution into an open-ended war of attrition, with the political, security, and humanitarian costs increasing daily and rapidly.

As for the northern front (Lebanon), Netanyahu has failed to impose the equations he repeatedly wanted to create. Instead of restoring Israel’s image of deterrence, new realities have emerged confirming that the region does not respond to threats, and that the power balance has become far too complex to be determined by the rhetoric of force or displays of military capability.

At the heart of these shifts, Iran has emerged as a model distinct from the many adversaries Israel has traditionally dealt with. Tehran does not merely declare its right to retaliate; it exercises this right whenever it perceives its interests or sovereignty are threatened. The recent regional confrontations demonstrated that a policy of threats is no longer sufficient to subdue or deter adversaries while military calculations have become far more costly and complex than Netanyahu imagined.

It is to be noted while Netanyahu sometimes speaks of opportunities for negotiation or security and political arrangements, he at the same time continues to generate the conditions for escalation. How can peace be built while the circle of confrontation widens? And how can the world be convinced of the seriousness of the political process when the language of force remains the sole instrument for managing the conflict?

He appears like a cunning fox, claiming to be engaged in negotiations for peace but focusing on security matters rather than the political file. The security file establishes a limited, relative stability, not a lasting one, waiting to reignite conflict in the region, particularly on the Lebanese front.

Netanyahu works on downplaying and delaying the importance of resolving the political issue first. He thus evades political obligations and commitments under international pressure regarding Lebanese rights for instance, most importantly ( is a complete withdrawal, even from the Shebaa Farms, demarcation of borders, including maritime borders, and Lebanese rights to the gas fields off the Lebanese coast – the Karish field).

This contradiction reveals a crisis deeper than a mere disagreement over military tactics; it reflects a personal political predicament facing Netanyahu. He understands – as he approaches the general elections – that a ceasefire could open the door to domestic accountability regarding security and political failures, and could revive questions about his political future, not to mention corruption cases and crises such as his dismantling of the judicial system and the conscription of Haredim. Therefore, it seems the continuation of the tension gives him more room to maneuver than political compromises would.

Within Israel itself, and as the general elections approaches, the gap between Netanyahu and growing segments of society widens. The opposition is gaining strength, protests continue unabated and the families of fallen and wounded soldiers are raising their voices in an unprecedented manner. Meanwhile, criticism is mounting from security and military figures who believe the government lacks a clear vision to resolve the crisis.

Today, Netanyahu’s image resembles that of his missiles: Soaring into the sky, creating a deafening roar, but quickly returning to reality, where difficult questions and stubborn facts await him. Wars may postpone crises, but they do not eliminate them, and escalation may temporarily alter the landscape, but it does not create a lasting victory.

Conversely, the United States appears more inclined toward de-escalation and preventing the region from erupting into a full-blown war. Washington understands its strategic interests require containing the conflict, not expanding it. It prefers pursuing political and security arrangements that reduce the likelihood of a major confrontation. However, this approach clashes with Netanyahu’s desire to keep the region on the brink of conflagration, hoping to alter the facts on the ground or escape the demands of domestic politics.

Between heaven and earth, Netanyahu oscillates between the rhetoric of power and the reality of impotence, between his political ambitions and the limits of what military force can achieve. As for the region, it continues to pay the price for this oscillation, which has so far produced nothing but more tension and instability.

This article, written by Dr Adnan Naeem, an Israeli affairs expert, was published in the Arabic Maannews website and reprinted in crossfirearabia.com

Analyses

Iran: ‘Strategic Patience’ to ‘Sustained Confrontation’

marwan
June 7, 2026

By Najih Mohammad Ali

In a clear and direct language, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) affirmed that regional “peace and stability will not be achieved unless there is withdrawal from the occupied Lebanese territories.” This stance followed Hezbollah’s Secretary-General’s rejection of the Washington talks, emphasizing his refusal to separate the arenas and the “Dahieh for the North” equation.

This statement expresses a coherent strategic vision that considers regional stability inextricably linked to ending occupations and aggressions. It places the defense of Lebanon, Syria, and the region among Iran’s political and military priorities.

This shift to a strategy of “eternal war”—or continuous confrontation—and reflects a pragmatic and principled decision made by Tehran after decades of pressure and aggression. Iran did not abandon the idea of a settlement in vain; rather, it realized that relying on partial agreements with Washington, which imposes unilateral conditions and disregards the rights of peoples, is no longer a viable option.

The cowardly assassination of Martyr Qassem Soleimani, followed by direct strikes targeting high-ranking Iranian leaders, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, proved that relying solely on “strategic patience” is mistaken for weakness. Therefore, Iran has shifted to a doctrine of active deterrence based on the entire axis of resistance, making any aggression costly for its adversaries.

This transformation was not the result of the absolute dominance of a hardline faction, as Zionist-American narratives and their Arab proxies (and, of course, the Iranian opposition abroad) claim. Rather, it is a natural evolution of the Iranian elite that stood united in the face of external aggression.

After significant losses, the priority of maintaining national and revolutionary cohesion emerged. Defending revolutionary principles—exporting the spirit of resistance and confronting arrogance—has become an essential part of the regime’s identity that has become a source of strength to prevent internal collapse whilst uniting the people behind the leadership in the face of sanctions. Pragmatists and hardliners alike now agree that continued confrontation better protects national interests than concessions that could lead to disintegration.

The leaders of the Iranian regime believe—and I think they are right—that continuing the confrontation will yield greater strategic gains than any fragile peace agreement. History proves that America understands only the language of force and attrition. From Vietnam to Afghanistan, wars of attrition forced Washington to withdraw.

Today, the “Axis of Resistance” is cleverly applying this equation: Linking the arenas to prevent separate deals that would weaken Lebanon, Iraq, or Yemen, and imposes a heavy price on its adversaries. Iranian diplomacy has been transformed into the diplomacy of the field, as General Soleimani envisioned, and is now a flexible tool that buys time and exposes the contradictions of the other side, while maintaining full military readiness.

The American-Israeli strikes have already altered Tehran’s calculations in favor of adopting an offensive-defensive posture. Instead of settling for limited responses, Iran is developing comprehensive deterrent capabilities through its natural allies, who represent the will of the region’s peoples in the face of occupation.

This is a calculated escalation, a precise strategic calculation based on resilience and strategic depth. Within the elite, a balance prevails between caution, fearing losses, and resolve, which sees resistance as the only path to dignity and independence.

Compared to the previous “strategic patience,” the strategy of sustained confrontation has proven effective in preserving battlefield gains and preventing the regional collapse of the resistance axis. It has succeeded in exhausting the enemy and strengthening internal unity, despite economic challenges primarily attributed to unjust sanctions, not Iranian policy.

The most serious risk facing this strategy lies in the possibility of miscalculation by adversaries and their attempts to impose a full-scale war, but Iran has repeatedly demonstrated an exceptional capacity for resilience and adaptation.

We are indeed facing a “simmering cold war,” where there is no false peace imposed by force, nor a total war that destroys everyone. This situation serves Iran and its axis because it maintains the strategic balance, prevents surrender, and opens the door to a comprehensive and just settlement based on withdrawal from occupied territories and respect for the sovereignty of states.

In conclusion, this “perpetual war” relies on the long-term vision of the Iranian character. It is not a whim, but an existential choice imposed by the ongoing aggression against Iran and the peoples of the region.

Iran is defending itself and the dignity of the nation, and affirms that true stability begins with ending aggression, occupation, and foreign interference. This path, despite its difficulties, reinforces Tehran’s position as an indispensable regional power and paves the way for a new balance of power that respects the rights of peoples. The region needs such firm stances to achieve an honorable peace, not surrender.

The author is a researcher in Iranian and regional affairs and this article is reproduced from the Arabic Al Rai Al Youm website and reprinted in crossfirearabia.com.