The situation surrounding Iran and the Strait of Hormuz has reached a multi-faceted impasse—military, diplomatic, political, and economic— according to international relations expert Demosthenes Dimopoulos, who, speaking to KYPE, noted that, despite conflicting statements from Washington and Tehran regarding control of the Strait, in practice Iran still has the ability to disrupt international shipping.
When asked to comment on the latest developments—and specifically on the statements by both the U.S. and Iran that they control the Strait—Mr. Dimopoulos said that “At this moment, we are at an impasse—one that is as much military as it is diplomatic, political, and economic. It is an impasse on all levels.”
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
The Houthis attacked airports in Saudi Arabia
As he noted, what is evident is that the substantive obstacles to the passage of international shipping are being created by Iran, which is leveraging its military capabilities for this purpose.
If the U.S. had effective control of the Straits and could ensure the goal of free navigation, the number of ships passing through them would be much greater, he added.
“It wouldn’t be six or nine ships, as passed through the Strait of Hormuz, but nearly 140, as used to pass through daily before the war,” he said.
He added that Iran is the one that “is essentially blocking and hindering global shipping and keeping the Strait closed,” while the U.S., for its part, can hinder the passage of ships affiliated with Iranian interests, though, in his assessment, having succeeded in opening the Strait and enforcing free passage.
The U.S.’s military options are limited
Referring to where the situation might lead, Mr. Dimopoulos said that the options used so far by U.S. President Donald Trump do not appear to have led to the achievement of Washington’s objectives.
In his view, the bombings, operations against Iranian officials, and strikes on military, political, and economic facilities within Iran have not produced the desired result.
He argued that a ground operation could theoretically increase the chances of achieving U.S. military objectives, though even those would remain highly limited.
“If we say that right now there is a 0% chance of achieving its objectives by military means, such a (ground) operation would have a 5%–10% chance of success,” he said, noting at the same time that a ground operation would be extremely difficult and would entail very heavy casualties.
The most significant problem with such a scenario, he continued, is the reluctance of countries in the region to get involved. According to Mr. Dimopoulos, perhaps only Israel would be willing to assist the U.S., while neither the Kurds in Turkey nor the Gulf states appear willing to take on the risk of a ground operation.
Fears of strikes on critical infrastructure
Countries in the region, he said, fear that further escalation could provoke Iranian retaliation against critical infrastructure, with particularly serious consequences for the Gulf states.
He specifically mentioned energy facilities, oil and natural gas production infrastructure, as well as desalination plants, which are vital to the countries in the region.
For this reason, he noted, these countries “have no intention” of becoming involved in a ground operation against Iran.
At the same time, he assessed that Iran has so far demonstrated economic resilience, while on the political and diplomatic front, it does not appear to be as isolated or under pressure as one might expect.
Although, as he said, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is causing serious problems for the global economy, and despite the attacks it has carried out against neighboring countries, the countries in the region have not essentially turned against Tehran.
“So we’re seeing a dead end,” he noted.
Internal Strife in Iran
Mr. Dimopoulos also addressed the situation within Iran, stating that there is a divide regarding the continuation of the war and the terms of a potential agreement with the U.S.
As he explained, there is one faction that wants to end the war and is open to reaching an agreement with the Americans. On the other hand, there is a more hardline faction, which believes that Iran must “win at all costs using its own methods” and force the U.S. to withdraw from the region.
In his assessment, hardline forces currently appear to be gaining strength in Iran’s domestic political debate.
Iran’s “Strongest Weapon” and the Day After in the Strait
Mr. Dimopoulos described the closure of the Strait of Hormuz as the most powerful geopolitical weapon Iran currently possesses, noting, however, that its effectiveness may diminish significantly in the coming years.
In his view, now that Tehran has chosen to use this weapon, other countries now have a strong incentive to seek ways to reduce their dependence on this particular maritime route.
He estimated that within two or three years, alternative pipelines could be developed, security measures for ships could be strengthened, and other options for transporting energy resources could be expanded.
As a result, he noted, the Strait of Hormuz may not carry the same geopolitical significance in the future as it does today.
Initial U.S. Assessments
Mr. Dimopoulos further assessed that the U.S. side may have relied on overly optimistic assessments regarding developments within Iran and the likelihood of a rapid change in the political.
He referred to scenarios that predicted Kurdish involvement, an internal uprising, and protests against the Iranian regime, which, he said, were not confirmed.
The U.S., he noted, is now also facing the domestic economic and political consequences of the conflict. He cited data indicating that a significant percentage of the American public supports an immediate end to the war, while also noting a rift within the MAGA movement regarding the continuation of U.S. involvement.
Finally, Mr. Dimopoulos referred to reports regarding problems faced by U.S. Navy and Marine Corps personnel serving aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, following a prolonged deployment at sea.
As he noted, the reports mention severe fatigue among the personnel and serious difficulties with living conditions, a fact which, in his assessment, is yet another indication of the strain caused by the U.S.’s prolonged military involvement in the region.
Source: CNA
