Recently in an interview, General Rahim Safavi, member of the Revolutionary Guards and special military advisor to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, revealed that the latter had asked him, around fifteen years ago, to develop a “comprehensive plan” in anticipation of a maritime conflict that could extend from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, via the Arabian Sea and the Red Sea. With in particular the question of closing the Strait of Hormuz, which has long been among the options regularly discussed in Iran as a final lever to activate in the event of an existential threat against the regime.
Shortly after the first Israeli-American strikes on February 28, which cost the life of the supreme leader, Tehran carried out this threat. A reaction hardly surprising, especially since with the strikes against its nuclear installations during the Twelve-Day War and the considerable weakening of its “axis of resistance” since October 7, the Islamic Republic has few alternatives to dissuade Washington and Tel Aviv from continuing their offensive.
The economic terrain as a means of pressure
By adopting the rationality of its adversaries, Iranian leaders then shift the balance of power on the economic terrain, particularly sensitive for Donald Trump, with the clear objective of placing the cost of continuing the war on Western economies, particularly European ones. If the fate of its own population matters little to the Islamic Republic, the same is obviously not true in the United States, where a surge in energy and fuel prices could cost the American president dearly in the November midterm elections.
It is in this context that Donald Trump signed the memorandum of understanding (MOU) on June 17 in Versailles, a text of fourteen points whose provisions could at first glance appear particularly favorable to Iran and which many observers did not hesitate to describe as an “American capitulation”. Why, then, did the Revolutionary Guards resume, a few weeks later, their attacks against merchant ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz, provoking a new wave of American strikes against military targets and strategic infrastructure on the southern coast of Iran?
The answer lies in the fact that few officials within the Iranian regime actually see the MOU as an Iranian victory. This text, which refers all sensitive issues such as nuclear power, the ballistic program or even Iran’s regional role to future negotiations, has the sole objective of reopening the Strait of Hormuz. For conservatives in Tehran, the signing of this text by the Iranian president amounts to naivety, even “betrayal”, because in doing so, Iran renounces its blackmail on the price of oil without obtaining the slightest substantial gain from Washington.
Iran wants to assert its “sovereignty” over the Strait of Hormuz
However, deeply weakened by the economic crisis, the various protest movements as well as the attrition caused by the two wars of 2025 and 2026, the Islamic Republic has no other means of pressure for future negotiations with Washington than taking the world economy hostage. The most conservative currents in the regime refer to the last message from Mojtaba Khamenei, new supreme guide, who calls for the necessary “revenge” of her father.
He calls not only for the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and that of Bab Al-Mandeb in Yemen, but also for strikes against oil pipelines in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. This, with the aim of asserting Iran’s “sovereignty” over the Strait of Hormuz, where merchant ships would now be obliged to coordinate with Iranian maritime authorities and take routes authorized by the Persian Gulf Strait Authority, thus allowing Tehran to maintain a permanent nuisance capacity on the global economy, like a sword of Damocles.
Faced with this renewed tension, the American hyperpower once again seems to be at an impasse in the war. The naval blockade and airstrikes against critical infrastructure in Iran have so far not been enough to bring the regime to its knees, but the latter has not been able to constrain Washington either. War has thus become a test of resilience, with each side seeking to force the other to bend before giving in first. As long as Washington and Tehran think they can achieve total victory over the other, the confrontation can only lead to an increasingly unstable cycle, alternating war and negotiation.
Reminder of the virtues of international law
The chaos of Hormuz shows the limits of the “law of the strongest”, but also the full relevance of the law. From the Constantinople Convention of 1888 to that of Montego Bay of 1982, States have gradually built a legal framework guaranteeing freedom of navigation. The current impasse may remind Donald Trump of the virtues of international law and multilateralism. Assuming that Washington seeks, ultimately, to reach a lasting agreement with Tehran, it cannot be built outside of this framework. An observation that had already been illustrated by the Vienna agreement on Iranian nuclear power in 2015, which the American president was quick to torpedo during his first term.
If France and the European countries have refused to associate themselves with the Israeli-American war against Iran, they cannot simply observe the consequences, especially since they risk paying a large part of the cost. Defending international maritime law is therefore not only a moral posture, but a strategic necessity.
By relying on the maritime security missions of the European Union in the region and in cooperation with its allies, France could initiate a dialogue aimed at guaranteeing freedom of navigation in one of the main crossroads of world trade. Because what is at stake in Hormuz goes well beyond the conflict between Iran and the United States. It is the future of freedom of maritime movement and, more broadly, that of the international order that is at stake. However, the law will not prevail by itself, it must be given the means to do so.
About opinions
This text is signed by a guest author. He expresses his opinion and not that of the editorial staff. Our Live section aims to allow the expression of pluralism on religious, social and current affairs subjects, and to encourage dialogue, according to the criteria set by our editorial charter.
Share your opinion in comments or by writing to us at: readers.lacroix@groupebayard.com
