by Leonidas Vatikiotis | kommon.gr
19/07/2026
Leonidas Vatikiotis travels to Iran and records reality through a series of dispatches. This is the second article in the series. Read the first article here.
The U.S. Navy had the rare opportunity to learn some basic sailors' language on the morning of Tuesday, July 14. The Wall Street Journal described the incident. It began with a radio message broadcast on the frequency used by ships in the Strait of Hormuz, stating: “U.S. forces are prepared to ensure freedom of navigation and lawful commerce in accordance with international law. The southern transit route through the Strait remains open.”
That day, of the 21 ships that passed through the Strait, none followed the route indicated by the Americans off the coast of Oman, while 16 used the route designated by Iran's Revolutionary Guards. The remaining five ships most likely followed the Iranian route as well, but with their transmitters switched off so they would not become targets for the Americans.
The U.S. Navy realized very early that the day was not going to go well when the reply it received over the radio was a sailor's version of “go fuck yourselves”...
American disappointment
Even worse is that the same contempt and disappointment toward the Americans expressed by that anonymous sailor in the Persian Gulf is increasingly being echoed by officials and experts who watch Trump revise the previous day's announcement every single day. Chief among these was his announcement imposing a 20% fee on the cost of every commercial vessel leaving the Strait. If implemented, it would send energy prices soaring. For example, on an $80 barrel of oil, the fee would amount to $16, while shipping costs to Europe are only $10 per barrel, and the fee at the Strait of Malacca is just 0.10%. The following day Trump withdrew the measure, only to add that he would collect the same money from the Gulf Arab states through investments and American exports. Nevertheless, his announcement immediately legitimized Iran's demand for transit fees—at much lower rates—and rendered worthless the repeated speeches and interviews of Vice President Vance and Secretary of State Rubio, who had condemned Iran's fees in the name of freedom of navigation.
The abandonment of one military tactic after another and the resort to pirate-like tolls came after the collapse of the American plan.
The interview granted to us in Iran by Ebrahim Azizi, chairman of the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee of the Iranian Parliament, was illuminating on many levels. Excerpts have been posted here. My question concerned the risk (for the Islamic Republic) that the U.S. and Israel might resort to a prolonged, exhausting war of attrition against Iran—a strategy very familiar to them. The chairman's answer was simple: Iran is slowly and steadily eliminating the foundations that would make such a war possible. His exact words were:
“Today we already have behind us two very good and valuable experiences from the previous two wars, and you can clearly see both operations—the twelve-day and the forty-day war—as well as their consequences and everything that happened by obtaining information from our own people.
Didn't the Americans and the Zionists say during the twelve-day war that they had come to impose Iran's surrender, dismantle it, and overthrow its system of government? Didn't they announce at the beginning of the forty-day war that within three days they would force Iran to surrender, overthrow its regime, and dismember the country?
My question is this: did they succeed? Which of those objectives was achieved? None.
On the contrary, the Americans left the region. They evacuated their bases, their warships withdrew, and there were countless dead whom they conceal through censorship. Whatever else they do, the outcome will be even worse. I guarantee it!”
Infrastructure as the target
The latest example of Trump's chaotic declarations was his statement that he would begin bombing civilian infrastructure such as bridges and energy facilities. The use of violence or the threat of violence against civilians and civilian infrastructure to achieve political objectives is the most fundamental definition of terrorism. The United States repeatedly practices state terrorism. Iranian organizations have documented this, showing that 1,413 civilians were killed in just the first month alone. They proved it by bombing the school in the city of Minab, where 168 schoolgirls were killed at the beginning of the war. They proved it again by bombing the Pasteur Institute in Tehran and Sharif University. They proved it recently by bombing Iranian fishermen in the Gulf of Hormuz. They proved it once more on July 15, when they bombed next to a children's oncology hospital in the city of Ahvaz, forcing staff to suspend treatments and operations and evacuate patients from the facility.
However, the Iranians have declared that attacks on Iran's energy infrastructure will not go unanswered. They have warned that they will strike the energy infrastructure of neighboring states—American protectorates: the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, and others.
The Iranian response will widen the rift between the U.S. and the Arab states, as the latter increasingly realize and publicly acknowledge that if the United States cannot protect itself from Iran, how can it protect its allies?
The Iranians have also called on the Houthis to close the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, which connects the Red Sea and the Suez Canal with the Gulf of Aden, if civilian infrastructure is attacked. So far, the Yemeni rebels have only restricted the passage of ships with Israeli interests. They have never completely closed the Strait. A complete closure, combined with a total shutdown of Hormuz, would inflict the most severe heart attack the global supply chains have ever experienced. The economic shock would be unparalleled.
Trump's resort to terrorism and, even more so, his contradictory announcements (the prime example being his attitude toward Iran's political leadership, calling them “scum” one day and “lovely people” the next) are not merely expressions of his hot temper and mood swings. Such personality-centered explanations remain superficial and overlook a plan to attack and subjugate Iran that the United States had been developing for decades. Trump's flip-flops express the strategic dead end into which the U.S. has fallen. The American president insults Tehran when he favors attack and conquest, and flatters it when he favors negotiations and compromise. Behind the constant tactical revisions lies a stark reality: Trump and the American Pentagon are sinking in the Strait of Hormuz, unable to confront Iran with a strategy capable of producing victory in an unprovoked war they themselves began.
A dead end for the U.S.
This strategic dead end is openly acknowledged even in the American press. An expert on the Middle East from Bloomberg Economics told the newspaper of America's largest stock exchange: “Iran is not going to back down when it comes to asserting its control over the Strait, and I believe Trump is becoming increasingly frustrated. I don't see any way out of this situation.”
The same sentiment was conveyed to the Washington Post on Thursday, July 16, by Ilan Goldenberg, who led the Iran team at the Defense Department during the Obama administration: “I've worked on Iran policy for 20 years, and it has always been difficult. But this time we are in a bigger deadlock than ever before. The Iranians have enormous negotiating leverage. They are determined to try to humiliate the United States and secure the best possible agreement in order to send a message.”
The failure of American planning is due in part to the West's ignorance of how Iranians think. Only now are Americans beginning to realize that they are dealing with people who possess not only high morale but also deep and broad education. In the article mentioned above, an expert from the Middle East Institute said that “those negotiating on behalf of the Trump administration do not appear to have fully understood Iran's history or strategy.” I suspect, with little risk of being wrong, that even those in U.S. decision-making centers who read that passage neither understood what the expert meant nor sent an email or made a phone call to ask him exactly—or even approximately—what he meant. By the time they understand, it will probably be too late for them...
The strategic dead end facing the United States is underlined by the lack of options that offer even the slightest chance of victory. We continue by describing the magnificent chaos the Iranians have created within the American elite.
According to the Financial Times, Trump's former Defense Secretary Mark Esper said that aerial bombardment would not bring victory for the Americans and proposed a change of tactics. Specifically, he suggested two options: the first was a full-scale military assault. The second was to impose economic suffocation on Iran in order to force it to negotiate and accept American terms.
Zionism favors a ground invasion
Zionism also favors the first option (ground intervention). “The dilemma is completely straightforward,” former head of the Iran division in military intelligence Danny Citrinowicz told the Wall Street Journal. “At the end of the day, if they want to take control of the Strait, they will have to seize it. They are not capable of achieving their military or strategic objectives with the force they currently have.” However, the Iranians have repeatedly stated that the domain in which they enjoy an incomparable advantage is on land. The Revolutionary Guard, the Basij popular militia, millions of weapons distributed among the population, extremely high temperatures, unique terrain, decades-old defense plans, and above all the unity of the Iranian people guarantee the Americans and the Arabs who come to assist them that Vietnam will look like a walk in the park.
“The Iranians have the ability to turn the region into a kill box for American forces,” wrote the newspaper of the American financial oligarchy.
The second option, economic strangulation, is as old as the hostage crisis at the American embassy in Tehran. Through sacrifice, deprivation, and poverty, the Iranians have built the world's most resilient economy against sanctions and embargoes. The “economy of resistance” serves precisely this purpose: to keep the country intact even under siege. If this method failed to force Iran's leadership to surrender over the past 45 years, why should it succeed now?
An indication of America's long-term defeat is Esper's reminder that the greatest concern remains China. He meant that the more Trump spends billions of dollars, exhausts years' worth of expensive munitions, and exposes the weaknesses of the American military in full view in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, the more he weakens the U.S. position vis-à-vis China, which is its strategic rival.
To summarize, of the five American options, each has already proved—or will prove—to be worse than the previous one. All five appear trapped and ineffective.
U.S. Option | Iranian Response
Collapse of Iran's government within three days through massive bombing | Strengthening of central authority, escalating counterattacks
Prolonged, exhausting war | Elimination of the conditions that would make it possible
Strikes on Iran's civilian infrastructure (bridges, energy centers) | Strikes on Arab infrastructure, closure of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait
Expansion of the war through a ground invasion | Prepared Iran, comparative advantage, massive army
Economic strangulation, new sanctions | Economy of resistance
Unlike the United States, Iran has not yet shown all the cards it holds to influence the course of the war, both on the battlefield and in the economic arena.
On the battlefield, 20,000 American bombing raids have failed to significantly reduce Iran's arsenal. The Iranians even state that they have not yet deployed strategic weapons that they possess. We will soon understand what they mean...
Trump and the global economy are vulnerable
In the economic sphere, Trump has one enormous Achilles' heel, plainly visible: the midterm elections on November 3. Elections held with oil at $85 a barrel, gasoline at American pumps at $4 a gallon ($3.94 on Thursday, July 16, or 32% higher than at the beginning of the war), and diesel at $5 leave Trump little room for victory. The margins narrow even further as inflation feeds itself, entrenching expectations of higher prices and sustaining high costs that erode the incomes of poor Americans.
Trump's economic vulnerability is twofold. If inflation concerns him only because of the election campaign (while he has little concern for poor Americans), the second vulnerability relates to the resilience of American capitalism and concerns energy reserves. Their importance in policymaking became evident when Trump himself justified the United States' signing of what he called the humiliating memorandum with Iran on June 17—which boosted Iranian confidence—because of the alarming depletion of strategic reserves.
Even according to statements by international organizations, the relatively modest increase in energy prices at the height of the offensive, contrary to those who expected dramatic increases of up to $200 per barrel, occurred because Western countries released significant portions of their strategic reserves to support the United States. In May alone, Trump announced the release of 172 million barrels from America's Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which had begun to be accumulated in the 1970s after the two oil shocks as a means of ensuring U.S. energy independence. Then, on June 17, the Americans paused, gave even Iran the green light to resume exports by temporarily freezing sanctions out of necessity and as a gesture of goodwill, in order to refill their half-empty storage tanks. They returned to war days later because Iran rejected the American fait accompli in Hormuz, while warnings have grown that strategic reserves remain at the alarmingly low levels last seen in 1984.
Every additional day of war will either reduce strategic oil and natural gas reserves (at a time when, for obvious and substantial reasons, storage facilities are normally being filled) in order to keep prices relatively under control, or it will drive up energy prices—with dramatic consequences for production and consumption—in order to avoid further depletion of reserves. Iran is fully aware of this dilemma.
The American fiasco can therefore be described from the following perspective: the United States started the war in order to take control of Iran's oil and natural gas, and five months later it has lost its own and is left with minimal reserves. Yet it chooses to continue the war...
The dire position of the United States was described by the two criteria set by the former U.S. Secretary of Defense to evaluate the outcome of Trump's effort.
The transit regime through the Strait of Hormuz should be restored to what it was before the war began—that is, Iran should not impose transit fees. In other words, they wish the war had never started...
The agreement on Iran's nuclear program should be at least as good as Obama's 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), preferably better. In other words, they hope it will not be worse—and that Trump had never withdrawn from it in May 2018...
The U.S. retreat is not the result of miscalculations, carelessness, or imperial arrogance, although all of those existed. It is the result of Iran's victory. In such situations, the clock does not turn back, and the victor takes everything—starting with the Strait of Hormuz.
No comments:
Post a Comment