Iran’s New Doctrine: A Forever War in the Strait of Hormuz

The recent U.S.-Israeli war with Iran appears to have reinforced a central conclusion in Tehran: Iran cannot rely on the United States to honor political understandings, whether reached through negotiation, a memorandum of understanding, or even a formal agreement. From this perspective, only deterrence – not diplomacy – can shape U.S. behavior. Iranian strategists therefore appear to be adapting the country’s security doctrine accordingly. Rather than relying on negotiated guarantees, they advocate for preserving the capability to impose maximum economic pressure on the global economy through the Strait of Hormuz whenever the United States resorts to military action, thereby raising the cost of any future strikes against Iran.

• June 30: A Supreme National Security Council mouthpiece Nour News Agency article argued:
  • “The recent war demonstrated that the Strait of Hormuz remains Iran’s most important geopolitical lever in the regional balance of power. Despite employing its extensive military capabilities, the United States was unable to eliminate this leverage, while Iran demonstrated that it possesses both the will and the capacity to influence this strategic waterway. This factor played a significant role in preventing Washington from achieving some of its political objectives.”
  • “For this reason, it appears that Washington has shifted its strategy from direct military confrontation to efforts aimed at altering the political, legal, and security balance in the Persian Gulf. Building regional consensus, forging alliances with the southern Gulf states, seeking to internationalize the security of the strait, and promoting alternative transit routes can all be understood within this strategic framework. In other words, the objective has not changed, only the instruments have.”
  • “The reality is that no political agreement, by itself, can prevent an adversary from changing its behavior. What ultimately shapes the conduct of states is their assessment of the costs and benefits of their actions. Whenever policymakers conclude that they can create new geopolitical realities without incurring meaningful costs, the incentive to continue along that course is only strengthened.”
  • “Accordingly, it is essential to make systematic and effective use of the instruments that, during the war, helped reduce U.S. resilience and contributed to Washington’s shift from military confrontation to political negotiation.”
  • “Foremost among these measures should be the managed closure of the Strait of Hormuz, coupled with comprehensive efforts to counter any initiative aimed at establishing alternative transit routes that would diminish Iran’s geopolitical leverage over the strait. Such a strategy would impose both tangible and psychological pressure on global energy markets, substantially increasing the costs to the United States of efforts to constrain Iran’s geopolitical influence. In practical terms, its proponents argue, this would strengthen Iran’s deterrence.”

The views represented herein are the author's or speaker's own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AGSI, its staff, or its board of directors.