The United States and Iran offer directly opposing interpretations of recent military incidents in the Persian Gulf. The American administration insists its strikes were limited and purely defensive, while Tehran accuses Washington of violating the ceasefire. Tensions in the Strait of Hormuz continue to rise despite both sides' efforts to avoid a full-scale conflict.
Security expert Richard Waits described President Donald Trump’s threats as “no more than a light slap.” According to him, Washington’s real goal is to avoid major escalation and present its actions as a “defensive maneuver, limited in time and space.” Waits emphasized that the strikes were carried out in response to attacks on ships, not as a prelude to an invasion or the seizure of Iranian islands.
Iranian researcher Abbas Aslani noted that Tehran views the American moves as a “calculated, limited escalation.” In his view, neither side is interested in a wide regional war, but the situation has reached a negotiation deadlock. Aslani added that Iran will not accept “complete capitulation” without reciprocal concessions from the United States and will continue to adhere to a policy of “resistance economy.”
Observers point out the contradictory rhetoric from Washington, which simultaneously issues threats and calls for dialogue. On one hand, Trump speaks of a “steel wall” naval blockade; on the other, he demands an immediate Iranian response to American proposals. Waits believes this is an attempt to keep Tehran at the negotiating table through calibrated pressure, which nevertheless reveals the White House’s blurred objectives.
Former Fifth Fleet commander John Miller states that the hastily concluded ceasefire remains fragile and full of legal ambiguities. Both sides, he says, are “doing a good job” of preventing total conflict, but mutual violations continue. Miller expressed hope that a full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz will become possible when the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps stops interfering with navigation.
In the end, the crisis demonstrates a protracted confrontation with stalled negotiations. The US has suspended implementation of the “Iran Freedom Initiative,” announcing “significant progress” toward a comprehensive agreement with Iran. In practice, new rules of “deterrence” are emerging, in which each side maneuvers between demonstrating limited force and keeping channels for dialogue open to avoid sliding into full-scale war.
Comments on the news
What is the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and what role does it play in Iran’s political system and control of shipping in the Persian Gulf? — The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is an elite military-political formation created after the 1979 revolution to protect the theocratic regime. In Iran’s political system the IRGC functions as a “state within a state”: its members control key economic sectors (oil, construction, telecommunications), have representation in parliament and councils, and report directly to the Supreme Leader. Regarding shipping in the Persian Gulf, the IRGC, through its naval forces (IRGC Navy), exerts control over the Strait of Hormuz — a strategic chokepoint for global oil shipments. This control is used as a tool of pressure during conflicts (for example, threatening to block the strait in response to sanctions).
What is the essence of Iran’s “resistance economy” policy and how does it differ from traditional economic development models? — The “resistance economy” (economy of muqawama) is a strategy introduced by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei as a long-term response to sanctions and external pressure. Its essence is minimizing dependence on imports, developing domestic production, relying on local resources, and diversifying exports (away from oil). Unlike traditional liberal models that encourage free trade and global integration, the “resistance economy” bets on self-sufficiency, state regulation of key sectors, and support for small businesses through Islamic financial instruments. It also involves active use of so-called “sanctions loopholes” (barter deals, cryptocurrencies, parallel import).
What was the US "Iran Freedom Initiative," and why was its implementation suspended? — The “Iran Freedom Initiative” typically refers to a package of programs launched by the George W. Bush administration in the 2000s aimed at supporting Iranian opposition groups, NGOs, and independent media through structures like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and Radio Farda. Its stated goal was to promote democratic change in Iran. However, implementation was suspended for several reasons: 1) the programs faced severe censorship and suppression by Iranian authorities, making them ineffective; 2) after scandals around funding opposition (for example, following the 2009 elections), the US revised its approach, focusing on less risky humanitarian and educational projects; 3) after the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA), the emphasis shifted to diplomacy, and direct “freedom” projects were wound down to avoid provoking Tehran.
Full version: اشتباكات هرمز.. هل تُرسم قواعد "الردع" الجديدة بالبارود؟