The Iranian armed forces, in response to Trump's announcement of a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, have formulated an equation that transcends the maritime passage itself, titled: "ports for ports"
The US is attempting to construct a victory narrative, with Vice President JD Vance claiming that Washington has fulfilled its objectives in the conflict with Iran and is ready to begin winding down the operation. Specifically, he emphasized that the decision now rests with Tehran, while noting that the format of the dialogue could change if Iran does not open the Strait of Hormuz. Increasingly, sources report that the US and Iran are expected to return to the negotiating table within the week, likely in Pakistan again. This push is supported by key US allies, such as Saudi Arabia, as well as the markets, which are urging Washington to abandon the idea of a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and return to discussions. Furthermore, experts highlight that the US Navy cannot guarantee the enforcement of a blockade, as they consider the inspection of every vessel to be practically unfeasible due to operational constraints. Once again, the US is facing a fiasco that intensely reveals the strategic and political failure of President Trump regarding Iran.
The Trump deadlock
With US President Donald Trump experiencing an unprecedented deadlock, an article in Al Mayadeen examines the reasons behind the failure of American plans to impose terms. In response to President Donald Trump's announcement of a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, the Iranian armed forces formulated an equation that extends beyond the maritime passage, titled: "ports for ports." According to this equation, Tehran expanded the scope to include the entire naval infrastructure in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman, clearly stating that port security is part of a comprehensive deterrent equation: either for everyone or for no one. The question now is whether the US can, in the face of this new development, impose its own equation on the Strait of Hormuz.
Spasmodic movements
Donald Trump’s announcement of a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is not a sudden shift in the war with Iran—a war that began with the strategy of "maximum sanctions," continued with the "12-day war," then with attempts to incite internal unrest, and followed by threats from aircraft carriers and warships of a broad attack. Ultimately, the US-Israeli aggression against Iran—lasting 40 days—failed to achieve any of its goals. After a cycle of negotiations in Islamabad that lasted 21 hours and led to a draft agreement, the US, unable to achieve decisive progress amidst Iranian persistence, returned to escalation via maritime routes. The announcement of the blockade demonstrates the US inability to impose terms at the negotiating table, explaining the shift toward maritime pressure tools. Additionally, it is recalled that Trump had previously promised to ensure free navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, a fact that highlights a clear contradiction and confusion in crisis management. Data suggests that Washington still does not understand the nature of Iranian strategy, which is why the Iranian side was not caught by surprise.
Iran’s equation: "Security for all or for none"
During and after the war, Iran formulated the equation: "security for all or for none." The core idea is that freedom of navigation is not absolute but depends on the security, sovereignty, and behavior of those involved. According to the Iranian narrative, Tehran does not seek a total closure of the Strait of Hormuz, but rather targeted control and restriction of vessels linked to the US and its allies, while maintaining traffic for other countries under specific conditions. In the same context, Iranian officials and military sources argue that the Strait of Hormuz is under Iranian sovereignty and that navigation will be subject to military oversight.
"Blockade within a blockade"
According to the analysis, the US is not blocking an open strait but is trying to create a "blockade within an already existing blockade." Iran, due to its geographical position, controls the critical portion of the passage and can influence the flow of navigation without requiring total military dominance at sea. The US, despite possessing superior firepower, operates from a distance and depends on a relatively stable environment—which is no longer the case.
Why the American blockade will not succeed
Reports from the New York Times and Bloomberg underscore that full US enforcement of control in the Strait of Hormuz clashes with complex geographical and military conditions. Iran can disrupt navigation at a low cost, while the US cannot guarantee safe passage, as the source of the threat is located within the strait itself. Tehran does not need to close the passage completely; it only needs to create uncertainty and increased insurance and transport costs to shift international trade flows.
Course of negotiations
Despite the tension, negotiations have not stopped completely, as mediation efforts continue and the high cost of a direct conflict is recognized. However, the nature of the negotiations has changed: the US attempts to leverage pressure for concessions, while Iran uses time as a strategic advantage.
Talks on US terms
Washington believes that the key objectives in the confrontation with Iran have already been achieved and that the operation can gradually be terminated, Vice President JD Vance stated in an interview with Fox News. He noted that the White House would prefer a transition from military pressure to diplomacy. "I think we are in a situation where we have achieved our goals. We can begin to end the operation. I would prefer to end it through large and successful negotiations," Vance stated. At the same time, the Trump administration does not hide that any further discussion is only possible on American terms. According to Vance, the decision now rests with Tehran; however, contacts may not take place if Iranian authorities do not open the Strait of Hormuz.
The core subject of the dispute
In a separate point, the US Vice President defined the core subject of the dispute—enriched uranium. The US, he explained, is not just asking for restrictions, but for the complete removal of these materials from Iran and substantial control over the country's nuclear policy. "We stated that we want it moved out of their country and we would like to acquire it ourselves. We have made it clear where we are willing to make concessions and we have also made it clear where it is absolutely necessary for nuclear materials to be removed from Iran," JD Vance emphasized. According to him, Donald Trump would like to see Iran develop and not be in isolation. However, this—as he said—is only possible if Tehran does not cross American "red lines" regarding its nuclear program. Under current conditions, he estimates that a deal could be beneficial for both sides.
The previous meeting failed
The negotiations with Iran, in which Washington had invested as a potential turning point toward de-escalation, concluded without result. The meeting took place on April 11 in Islamabad with the mediation of Pakistan and lasted nearly 24 hours, but the two sides failed to agree. Participating from Tehran’s side were Speaker of Parliament Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. The American delegation was led by Vice President JD Vance, with special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner also participating. The meeting was the first direct contact between the sides in over 10 years and essentially the first at such a level since 1979. However, during the talks, Trump chose to watch UFC fights along with Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Tension and disappointment
The atmosphere at the negotiating table, according to Reuters, was tense. The situation was further burdened by the fact that the ceasefire agreed upon on April 8 collapsed almost immediately—Tehran and Washington exchanged accusations, including over the Strait of Hormuz and the nuclear program. After the meeting, Vance stated that his delegation was returning to the US because no agreement was reached. In Tehran, they also did not hide their disappointment.
No compromise on 2 or 3 issues
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei reported that the discussions covered many topics—from the Strait of Hormuz and the nuclear program to sanctions and possible compensation. According to him, progress was made on some issues, but on "two or three key issues," there was no compromise. The main disagreements centered on control of the Strait of Hormuz and the future of enriched uranium stockpiles: Tehran is not willing to abandon them. A Fars source familiar with the talks also confirmed that American terms were not accepted by Iran. Meanwhile, it was noted in Iran that no one expected immediate agreements. The negotiations took place after 40 days of conflict and in a climate of mutual distrust.
Oil market reaction
The oil market has already begun to price in the risks of a blockage of the Strait of Hormuz. The price of oil may reach its peak in the coming weeks if the situation does not stabilize and tanker navigation is not restored. As US Secretary of Energy Chris Wright stated at a Semafor conference, prices will continue to rise as long as the key transport route remains under pressure. Already by April 13, oil had increased and was approaching $100 per barrel. At the same time, executives from three major American oil companies warned the White House about the consequences of a prolonged disruption of passage through the Strait of Hormuz. In their assessment, a long disruption could severely disturb global supply chains and intensify the energy crisis. Former American diplomat Chas Freeman stated that Trump is not considering a military scenario for opening the Strait of Hormuz, arguing that access to it can only be achieved through an agreement with Iran.
Contradictory moves
A report from the Iranian news agency Tasnim states that the US will have to recognize Iran’s "rights" within the coming days and accept a deal that is acceptable to Iran and the "resistance." The analysis emphasizes that the American delegation, despite its claims, adopted a maximum negotiating stance in the first round of talks in Islamabad, Pakistan, trying to impose strict terms and prevent the formation of a common framework for agreement. As reported, the US Vice President allegedly stated after the deadlock that Washington submitted its "final proposal" and that Iran must decide, while US President Donald Trump announced the start of a naval blockade of Iran. Both the tough negotiating stance of the US and the imposition of a naval blockade are presented as contradictory moves. Furthermore, it is highlighted that there is intense "contradiction and confusion" in the American stance, as the US attempts to simultaneously apply pressure on Iran and manage the impact on energy markets. As stated, the two-week ceasefire should not be extended as the US is under greater time pressure, being called to recognize Iranian positions within this timeframe or face the expiration of the ceasefire.
Operational deadlock
Analysts argue that US President Donald Trump’s threat of a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is characterized by military experts as an operational deadlock. As reported, Washington, following failures both in the field and in diplomacy against Iran, is returning to a rhetoric of threats, attempting to create psychological pressure regarding navigation in the region. According to the report, the US claims it can utilize the Navy to inspect every ship entering or exiting the region; however, this approach is considered by experts to be difficult to implement in practice due to operational constraints. As experts point out, the success of such a plan faces key obstacles, such as the need for a large naval presence, control of narrow sea lanes, and the risks of escalation in one of the world's most critical energy arteries. In this context, they argue that the idea of a full naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is more of a tool for political pressure and psychological warfare than a realistic and sustainable military plan.
France: It is illegal – We do not support the US for the Hormuz blockade
France does not support the US initiative for the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz for ships coming from Iranian ports and considers such a practice in international waters illegal. This was maintained by the French Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, Jean-Noël Barrot. The US Central Command (CENTCOM) on Monday night began the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz following an order from US President Donald Trump, after the failure of negotiations between Washington and Tehran. "France declares that free navigation in international waters constitutes a common good of humanity, which must be respected everywhere and under all circumstances. That is why it is extremely important that this blockade be lifted," Jean-Noël Barrot told RFI radio. The head of French diplomacy also expressed concern that further obstruction of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz would affect both global trade and the purchasing power of French citizens, as well as the operation of businesses in the country. Earlier, French President Emmanuel Macron stated that France and the United Kingdom would organize an international conference in the coming days with the participation of other countries ready to join a "defensive" mission to ensure the safety of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.
Strategic weakness for the US in the Hormuz blockade
The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz by the US is a sign of strategic weakness and political failure for Washington, as well as an indirect admission of inability to directly confront Iran, says Iranian political and international relations analyst Hossein Ajlolu. According to the Tasnim agency, Ajlolu argues that recent negotiations between Iran and the US in Pakistan did not result in a specific outcome, which shows that Washington's conventional diplomatic tools have reached a deadlock. As he says, the US is attempting to compensate for previous failures through a policy of "maximum pressure" and psychological warfare. Ajlolu highlighted the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz for global energy, emphasizing that any serious disruption would affect not only Iranian oil and gas exports but also global energy supply chains, leading to price increases and market instability. He also pointed out that a real implementation of a blockade would hit not only Iran but also US allies in Europe and East Asia, endangering global energy security. Referring to Tehran's position, he stressed that Iran has declared that security in the Strait of Hormuz must apply to everyone or to no one, implying it will not allow unilateral exploitation of the passage under pressure. He argued that even within the US, there are reactions and doubts about this policy, as a new crisis in the Persian Gulf could lead to an increase in fuel prices and economic costs for American citizens. Overall, according to the analysis, US policy—from the withdrawal from the nuclear deal to sanctions and threats of a naval blockade—shows a shift from diplomacy toward riskier options, which may cause broader rifts with allies and increase global instability. Finally, the analyst concludes that the threat of a blockade is not a sign of strength, but rather a sign of the failure of previous strategies and a recognition that Iran remains a key and irreplaceable factor in international balances of energy and security.
Mearsheimer (Professor at the University of Chicago): Blockade is pointless and counterproductive
The well-known American theorist of international relations John Mearsheimer, a professor at the University of Chicago, commented on the US naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, characterizing it not only as pointless but also counterproductive. As he stated, the idea that Iran will "surrender easily" is not a serious argument. He argued that the US and Israel represent an existential threat to Iran and that Iran is a deeply nationalistic and resilient country that can absorb intense pressure and strikes. John Mearsheimer added that the US has already allowed the return of Iranian oil to global markets because they need it, as otherwise the global economy could be led into a serious crisis. He also pointed out that if the flow of Iranian oil is obstructed, it will cause significant damage to the global economy. At the same time, he warned that the Houthis of Yemen and Iran might attempt a blockade of the Red Sea, a fact that would affect not only energy from the Persian Gulf but also the transport of goods through the region. In his assessment, such a scenario could paralyze the global economy and eventually force the US government to retreat from its policy.
A step backward
According to statements by the chairman of the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), John Denholm, the situation in the Strait of Hormuz is "extremely concerning" and the US plan for a naval blockade of tankers exiting Iranian ports constitutes a "step backward." Denholm stated at a press briefing during a Hong Kong Shipowners Association event that the ICS had initially expressed optimism when the ceasefire began, but now estimates that the situation is deteriorating. He pointed out that the blockade is considered a negative development and that the immediate reopening of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz is required. He added that the issue is essentially in the hands of the US and Iran, while the shipping community remains an "observer." He emphasized that the imposition of fees for safe passage in international waters is not an acceptable practice for the organization, comparing it to similar charges in passages like the Strait of Gibraltar or the English Channel. According to Denholm, the primary priority of the ICS is the safety of approximately 20,000 seafarers in the Persian Gulf region, who are not in immediate danger but are working under particularly pressurized and unstable conditions due to the conflict.
China sees new US–Iran talks at the end of the week in Pakistan
According to the Chinese state television network China Central Television (CCTV), delegations from the US and Iran are expected to hold talks this week in Islamabad, Pakistan, based on information from unnamed sources. The report states that the two sides will sit at the negotiating table again in Islamabad, though no further details are given regarding the agenda or the composition of the delegations. Reuters is conveying similar information.
www.bankingnews.gr
Readers’ Comments