The Strait of Hormuz: Tehran's Strategic Weapon

The Islamic Republic’s parliament has unanimously approved an explosive proposal: to consider blocking the Strait of Hormuz, the maritime corridor that carries a crucial share of the world’s oil exports. This narrow and highly strategic passage, just 21 miles wide at its most critical point, serves as a vital artery for the transport of more than 20 million barrels a day. The Gulf’s major oil economies – Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the United Arab Emirates – are heavily dependent on this route to feed Asian markets.

According to EIA data, updated to the first quarter of 2025, nearly 30% of global crude oil traffic passes through it. In fact, Hormuz has become an unparalleled strategic leverage point, and Iran is now openly indicating its willingness to use it as a tool of political and military pressure.

The Evolution of the Threat and Iran's Buildup of Weapons

Although Tehran has already sent signals of this kind in the past – as in 2019, with the seizure of the British oil tanker Stena Impero in response to the seizure of an Iranian ship in Gibraltar – today its capacity to carry out such a threat is clearly superior. The naval apparatus of the Pasdaran now has a lethal combination: naval drones, advanced underwater mines, latest-generation anti-ship missiles and light, highly mobile units ready to strike. According to rumors that appeared on Telegram and later relaunched by Newsweek (June 23, 2025), Iran has tested a new ballistic vector with a range of over 1,000 km, designed to hit naval targets without having to expose itself.

Even a temporary interruption of the Strait would cause a seismic shock to energy markets. Contrary to the optimistic readings of some Western observers, such as Patrick De Haan of GasBuddy, the infrastructure alternatives are not able to withstand the shock: neither the Saudi pipelines nor the Iranian port of Jask can compensate for the absence of Hormuz. The analysis of the Kpler company, supported by a strategic report by the Tehran think tank, highlights a long-range strategy based on asymmetric warfare: Iran could hinder navigation and disrupt operations without ever having to formally declare war, through cyber attacks, sabotage, swarms of drones and false flags.

Tehran is not just brandishing a logistical weapon: it is sending an ideological signal. Control of the Straits symbolizes Iran's strategic autonomy and willingness to escape what it sees as a neocolonial architecture of Western power. The ultimatum addressed to the West is clear: accept a new configuration of regional dialogue or face a potentially uncontrolled escalation.

The White House's Incoherent Strategy

The American administration – not without internal dissent, to be honest – has reacted with a mixture of arrogance and ambiguity. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, interviewed by Fox News on June 22, spoke of “economic suicide” for Iran in the event of a closure of the sea passage, inviting Beijing to “use its influence”. But the invitation to China is, in reality, an implicit confession of weakness: Washington recognizes that it no longer has the capacity to unilaterally manage international crises.

The margins for military action are narrow. A naval response would expose the Fifth Fleet to serious vulnerabilities, while more technological options – such as the use of underwater drones to clean up water – are still in their infancy. The hypothesis of a land campaign against Iran seems anachronistic: the complex orography of the territory and the mobilization capacity of the Shiite militias in Syria, Iraq and Yemen would make the invasion an adventure destined to failure.

Trump has boasted of the bombings on the Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan sites as if they had annihilated Tehran's atomic potential. However, this narrative is denied by independent sources and IAEA technicians. On the contrary, Rubio has left the door open to negotiations conditioned on the freezing of the Iranian nuclear program, demonstrating a strategic duplicity that denotes internal confusion and lack of univocal direction. The request for mediation to Beijing represents, in this context, an implicit recognition that American unilateralism can no longer resolve the major issues in the world.

Russian diplomacy fills the void left by Washington

The Russian Federation took the opportunity to propose a multilateral solution: a comprehensive plan that includes an end to hostilities, a lifting of sanctions, and international guarantees for the peaceful use of Iranian nuclear energy. On November 23, TASS reported on the details of the initiative, which also includes the creation of a de-escalation zone monitored by observers from the UN and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

According to the Global Times, Russia and China are discussing a new energy trading paradigm centered on local currencies and blockchain, to bypass the dependence on the dollar. There are also rumors that Pakistan's Gwadar port could be converted into a strategic terminal for Iranian exports, bypassing Hormuz.

Moscow is not just protecting its own interests: it is proposing a new multipolar order, which is head-on opposed to the paradigm of intervention and regime change promoted by the West.

Iran's Nuclear Program: From Threat to National Shield

The American strikes have not significantly slowed down Iran's nuclear program. Iran has suspended cooperation with the IAEA and has stepped up enrichment activities. Some of the 60% uranium has been moved to secret locations. According to a report by the ISS in London, underground sites like Fordow are designed to withstand even high-penetration weapons like the GBU-57.

The withdrawal from inspection cooperation reflects a rejection of the logic of Western control. According to a survey by the Tehran Study Center, support for the nuclear program has reached 75%, confirming that Iran is exploiting external aggression to strengthen its internal front. Nuclear power, in this logic, is not an offensive weapon but a strategic insurance.

A Region in Transformation and the Erosion of American Hegemony

Every new pressure from the West has the opposite effect. States traditionally allied with Washington – such as Saudi Arabia and the Emirates – are reassessing their diplomatic assets. Riyadh has reportedly opened a channel of dialogue with Tehran to avoid the spread of the conflict, while Abu Dhabi has intensified relations with Moscow.

Asia is also on alert: nations such as India and Japan, highly dependent on Gulf oil, are already moving to diversify. India, through Energy Minister Singh Puri, has declared that a blockage of Hormuz will inevitably send prices soaring, and has opened talks with Russia and Venezuela to diversify suppliers.

The reality is that every blow struck against Iran accelerates the disintegration of the unipolar system and fuels the search for new geopolitical alternatives.

The Challenge of the Multipolar Order: It is No Longer a Theory

The current scenario is not a temporary anomaly, but the reflection of a paradigm shift. The West, which insists on imposing unilateral rules, is now facing growing global resistance. Iran, with all its critical issues, is moving in the name of national sovereignty, after decades of foreign interference that have compromised its internal development and caused regime changes worse than what was intended. Therefore, a return to the doctrine of spheres of influence seems inevitable.

Russia and China do not offer perfect solutions, but they present an alternative proposal based on dialogue, balance and coexistence between different models. While the old powers try to hold on to an order that is slipping out of their hands in a world they no longer seem to understand, the rest of the world looks ahead.

It may seem strange, but the facts speak clearly. The West now seems to have set aside everything it has learned over the centuries and above all what made it different from others: a vision of man and existence.

Once this is removed, there is very little left. If not traces. But traces must be followed.