An Israeli commentary by Dr. Yoel Guzansky argues that the U.S.-Iran agreement, signed after the recent fighting, stopped the shooting and reduced the risk of immediate escalation, but left the most important strategic problem unresolved. While the nuclear issue and U.S. sanctions return to negotiations, the Strait of Hormuz has emerged as a separate and possibly more lasting source of tension.
For decades, Iran has threatened to close the strait in wartime. The recent conflict, the article says, showed that this is no longer a theoretical warning, but a real reminder of how exposed the global economy is to disruption there. Because a large share of the world’s oil and gas moves through Hormuz, Iran’s ability to threaten freedom of navigation has become one of its most valuable assets, especially as its conventional military edge is limited and sanctions remain in force.
The piece says some voices in Tehran now want to turn that leverage into a permanent tool of influence, even a source of revenue, through transit fees or restrictions on ships after 60 days of negotiations. At the same time, Gulf states including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Qatar cannot accept a situation in which Iran can pressure their economic lifeline, since any change in the strait’s status could affect revenues, investor confidence, and energy-market stability.
The United States faces a similar dilemma, the article says, because it wants to avoid another escalation while preserving freedom of navigation. Washington also understands that a military solution could trigger a new cycle of conflict. The conclusion is that the nuclear issue is no longer the only defining factor in relations between Iran and the West, and that as long as Iran controls the eastern shore of Hormuz and the world depends on the passage, the strait will remain a central arena of deterrence and struggle for influence.
