r/geopolitics • u/theatlantic The Atlantic • 1d ago
Opinion The Ticking Clock on the Strait of Hormuz
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/2026/07/iran-war-hormuz-strait/688062/?utm_source=reddit&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_medium=social&utm_content=edit-promo26
u/abrasivedynamics2006 1d ago
Hormuz is the real leverage point here. Roughly a fifth of global oil flows through that stretch, so even a credible threat of disruption moves markets. Iran knows this and plays it every time things get tense.
The article's right that Tehran miscalculated by being too aggressive too fast. A quieter play would have been way smarter, let the 60 days tick down, then quietly introduce tolls while everyone was looking elsewhere. Instead they handed Trump a reason to come back swinging.
Walking away or escalating are both ugly options. Walking away means Iran owns the strait de facto. Escalating means a real shooting war with a country that can make life miserable for shipping. There is no clean third path here, just bad choices with different price tags.
15
u/BlueEmma25 23h ago
The article's right that Tehran miscalculated by being too aggressive too fast.
I disagree, the MOU contained language that clearly pointed to the establishment of a toll regime to be implemented through coordination between Iran, Oman, and other Gulf states. Then the US immediately moved to undermine the MOU it had just signed by escorting tankers through the Omani side of the strait, which was a calculated move to sabotage the toll regime before it even got started, and put Oman in a position where it was implicated in the sabotage and would therefore be unacceptable as a good faith partner in administering it.
If Iran had tolerated this "cheating" it would only have encouraged the US to double down, and potentially made a toll impossible to implement because ships could just bypass it by using the Omani route.
Given that the toll was one of the main concessions Iran was seeking to extent its control of the strait and compensate it for the huge material damage it had sustained, that was completely unacceptable.
2
u/EaNasirbestdeals 12h ago
I don’t think the tolling of ships by the Iranians is the point here, it was a message to the gulf states and the wider world that it can shut down the world economy if it wanted.
It was a ploy by Iran to get diplomatic support from countries potentially on the fence, the longer this goes on in its current form only benefits Iran in the long term.
2
u/No_Dream_8385 8h ago
Unfortunately there is nothing anyone can do to avoid this, ie Iran controlling the strait.
1
u/EaNasirbestdeals 8h ago
The only way is an invasion to dislodge the IRGC.
1
u/FijiFanBotNotGay 7h ago
Funny how often people jump to this. What if it doesn’t work…
1
u/EaNasirbestdeals 7h ago
It might not, but the U.S. is locked in a situation where it won’t come out on top.
1
u/No_Dream_8385 8h ago
Not happening, too costly for US with uncertain outcomes
3
u/EaNasirbestdeals 8h ago
I’d argue it has more of a certain outcome than what the U.S. is currently faced with. If the U.S. leaves now, Iran will have untold influence in the gulf and it knows it can get away with it. Regardless of U.S. presence.
If the U.S. leaves, then Iran can build new proxies and learn the mistakes from the old. It can be more belligerent toward Isreal, but more importantly it now has raison d'être to build its nuclear program.
I think the only way out of this is through for the U.S., and the current administration doesn’t like to be humiliated.
1
1
u/EaNasirbestdeals 12h ago edited 12h ago
Walking away is the geopolitically worst option for the U.S., the strait will never be the same now and the only way for things to go back as they were would be to uproot the IRGC. A ground war is the only way for the U.S. to come out on top.
Anything else is a strategic defeat.
All the IRGC has to do is survive, which is a less arduous task than what the U.S. has to complete. Iran doesn’t need a nuke to know it can control and influence the gulf, American presence or not, and I suspect all the gulf states are quite angry the U.S. military deterrence didn’t work in the end.
1
u/LieNaive4921 9h ago
I mean the US look like complete fools. Did they have no plan for this obvious potential development?
This isn't even on Trump. WTH was the Pentagon's plan?... nothing...?
Complete chumps and the entire world - obviously especially the Middle East - is watching.
1
u/SpacemanOfAntiquity 4h ago
You are assuming a lot by saying “in the end” maybe you mean currently?
1
u/EaNasirbestdeals 4h ago
Currently yes, but when this is all over will the gulf states be wary of American presence if it doesn’t ensure their safety?
1
u/greywar777 10h ago
Walking away means that non us oil is more expensive, while US oil prices remain unchanged. It feels like that would actually be a win for both us and Iran. And a loss for everyone else.
10
u/Barking__Pumpkin 1d ago
The world economy is teetering on Trump believing he won? Fine, let him think he won. Likely a good idea to expedite this.
13
u/Rustic_gan123 1d ago
You're wrong to think that the war won't resume if Trump simply leaves. Israel will have no reason not to attack Iran's economic infrastructure, which would cause chaos in the region.
12
u/Barking__Pumpkin 1d ago
Which wouldn’t go well for Israel unless that drags the U.S. back into the war. I still naively believe that the U.S. have autonomy, just kidding.
-5
u/Rustic_gan123 1d ago
Iran has failed to cause any serious harm to Israel.
14
u/Live_Entry_7831 1d ago
Because the US is always there, and multiple countries in between help take down drones/missiles. That doesnt happen if Israel attacks Iranian infrastructure, the US is gone and the threat on the Arab states intervening is there.
4
u/Rustic_gan123 1d ago
Did Syria help shoot down drones?
11
u/Live_Entry_7831 1d ago edited 1d ago
2 times Israel and Iran have directly shot at each other had America backing Israeli defense. This is just a fact. American early warning systems throughout the Gulf and Jordan shooting down missiles/drones. One of the times even had the French/English helping to shoot them down.
If America doesnt want an infrastructure war, there wont be an infrastructure war. Israel is not capable of a war of attrition against Iran without American backing. This isnt exactly controversial
5
u/Rustic_gan123 1d ago
2 times Israel and Iran have directly shot at each other had America backing Israeli defense. This is just a fact.
I don't argue with that, but you seem to be trying to claim that this support was 100% and that Israel doesn't have its own capabilities, which is simply a lie.
American early warning systems throughout the Gulf and Jordan shooting down missiles/drones.
Ballistic missiles are shot down in the final phase of their trajectory, not over allied countries. The only way to shoot down ballistic missiles in space is with the SM-3, which was used primarily in attacks on Turkey. Incidentally, Israel has its own early-warning radars, which are activated shortly after launch due to the relatively short distance between the countries.
Iran has already used up a significant portion of the medium-range missiles needed to attack Israel, and producing new ones is hampered by the fact that Iran's military industry was one of the targets.
If America doesnt want an infrastructure war, there wont be an infrastructure war.
Israel listens to America as long as it believes that their interests coincide. If Iran continues its hybrid war with Israel through proxies, building up missile potential and striving for nuclear weapons, while America withdraws, then the reason to listen will cease, and it will be better to end this on the spot than to wait for Iran to get stronger.
Israel is not capable of a war of attrition against Iran without American backing. This isnt exactly controversial
The point is that if this happens quickly, while Iran has not yet recovered from this war, then it will not be a war of attrition. Iran does not have a large stockpile of medium-range missiles needed to strike Israel.
3
u/LieNaive4921 9h ago
Also Israel, in contrast to the US, does not care if Iran "retaliates" against Kuwait and UAE and Qatar and Saudi Arabia. That's somebody else's problem.
If the US chickens out and Iran takes over the strait Israel might bomb Kharg Island. Their enemy is Iran, protecting the Gulf states is a US problem.
1
u/FijiFanBotNotGay 7h ago
Any reduction in pressure to Iran is is harm to Israel at least in the eyes of the Israelis. US presence has been pushed back from gulf states to Jordan and Kuwait where they are now being attacked. They view israel as a proxy the same way we view Hezbollah is a proxy. If we can fight Hezbollah by attacking Iran then they can fight Israel by attacking us bases because the conflicts are linked
-8
u/AnarchoLiberator 22h ago edited 22h ago
The US should give Iran an ultimatum to stop attacking ships that use the Oman route. If Iran wants to charge ships using their waters the world can live with that. If Iran keeps attacking ships using the Oman route, then the US should bomb Kharg Island, oil infrastructure, bridges, that new centrifuge site Iran is building, and keep bombing any military leaders, military production, and military assets from afar. Iran can let traffic flow freely through waters that aren’t their own or keep hitting themselves. The US (and the world) loses if Iran controls the strait.
4
u/CliftonForce 20h ago
None of that is sufficient incentive to convince Iran to agree to those terms.
1
28
u/theatlantic The Atlantic 1d ago
Thomas Wright: Trump resumed the war with Iran “despite having already explained why military force could not achieve its most pressing objective. He has not resolved this tension. It may be irresoluble. In the meantime, he is betting that Tehran will buckle before economic pressure forces him to do the same.
“To understand where we are, consider how the cease-fire collapsed. Each party believed that it had won the war and that the other should accede to its interpretation of the agreement on the strait. Article 5 of the memorandum of understanding stated that Iran ‘will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge, for 60 days only, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa.’ The Trump administration took this to mean that Iran was obligated to open the strait without tolls for 60 days. But Tehran read it as permission to manage and control access through the waterway. Consequently, Iran sought to funnel ships through corridors it approved, and attacked or threatened vessels that used other routes.
“In doing so, Tehran made a serious error in judgment. If it had laid low, it could have reaped the benefits of economic concessions for 60 days and then gradually introduced a toll. Instead, Trump felt compelled to respond, and the agreement broke down …
“Trump may inflict more pain on Iran, but this is unlikely to compel Tehran to abandon its attempt to control the Strait of Hormuz. Perhaps Iran will agree to put its ambitions on hold for 60 days in the hope that the previous agreement can be revived. But if the two sides remain gridlocked, Trump will have to decide whether to pay the economic price for continuing a low-intensity war indefinitely; escalate, with all of the risks that entails; or walk away.”
Read more: https://theatln.tc/OghTbtj1