Tehran creating security environment in which sustainable shipping in  Strait of Hormuz difficult to imagine without its direct  participation - expert 

ArmInfo.  In a context where the Strait of Hormuz has become perceived as a platform for long-term strategic influence, Iran's goal is not to close the strait, but to  become a participant in its security system such that, if its  decisive role and interests are ignored, ensuring the safety of  international shipping will become difficult. This is stated in an  article by political analyst and Iran expert Aram Shahnazaryan,  published by the press service of the Alternative Projects group.

In it, the political scientist examined Iran's strategic calculations  and the strait's new geopolitical significance. As Shahnazaryan  noted, the Strait of Hormuz continues to be one of the most important  strategic maritime hubs in the global energy system. He noted that,  according to various estimates, approximately one-fifth of the oil  transported via maritime shipping routes passes through this strait.

"However, its significance has long since gone beyond economics.  Hormuz is simultaneously a key factor in strategic deterrence, the  regional balance of power, and international political influence,  where the geopolitical interests of regional and international power  centers intersect," the political scientist noted.

However, as the expert noted, recent events around the Strait of  Hormuz raise a more fundamental question. Shahnazaryan explained that  most international discussions focus on whether the pre-war shipping  regime between Iran, the United States, and Israel can be restored.  This approach, he said, is based on the assumption that restoring the  status quo ante is in the interests of all major participants,  including Iran. However, according to the expert, this assumption  requires reassessment.

"The recent war has changed not only the balance of power in the  region but also Tehran's strategic calculus. While previously Hormuz  was primarily viewed as a tool of pressure used in crisis situations,  after the war it has come to be perceived as a platform for long-term  strategic influence. Under these circumstances, Iran's strategic goal  is no longer closing the strait, but rather becoming a participant in  its security system such that, if its decisive role and interests are  ignored, ensuring the safety of international shipping will become  difficult. This change alters the logic of assessing the war's  outcome. The question is no longer simply whether Iran is capable of  disrupting shipping. It is far more important to understand whether  Tehran seeks to create a security environment in which stable  shipping in the Strait of Hormuz will be difficult to imagine without  its direct participation and consideration of its interests," the  expert believes.

He explained that for Tehran, the strategic importance of the Strait  of Hormuz is primarily determined by its geographical location. As  Shahnazaryan pointed out, Iran controls the northern shore of the  strait, occupying a geographic position that cannot be replaced by  military might, economic resources, or technological superiority. In  this sense, as the political scientist noted, geography for Iran is  not simply a matter of favorable location, but a strategic advantage  upon which its national security and geopolitical influence are  built.

"In this sense, the Strait of Hormuz fulfills three interconnected  functions in Tehran's strategic calculations.  First, it is an  instrument of deterrence. The strait's geographic features, even in  the face of asymmetric military capabilities, significantly increase  the risks and costs of any external intervention. The goal is not to  inflict a military defeat on the adversary, but to increase the costs  and risks of its strategic decisions.  Second, the Strait of Hormuz  is a source of political and economic influence. Events around the  Strait of Hormuz have demonstrated that even limited security  incidents can impact not only shipping but also insurance markets,  energy prices, and the international political agenda. Therefore, the  strait's significance has long since gone beyond its purely military  scope. Third, Tehran views the Strait of Hormuz as a key element of  the Persian Gulf security system. This is why it consistently  maintains that long-term regional security cannot be achieved without  the participation of key regional players, primarily Iran itself.  Over the past decades, this approach has become one of the  fundamental principles of Iran's foreign and security policy,"  explained the Iran expert.

He also noted that this geographic advantage had long existed. As  Shahnazaryan noted, it's crucial to understand why it acquired new  political significance after the last war. The answer, he argued,  lies not so much in the military results of the war, but in the  strategic conclusions Tehran had reached. "The last war served as a  test for Tehran's long-standing strategic calculations regarding the  Strait of Hormuz. The war demonstrated that the global maritime trade  system is extremely sensitive to even limited security breaches.  The  problem wasn't just about ship security. Equally important were the  indirect consequences-rising insurance premiums, rerouting shipping  flows, changing market expectations, and reassessing business risks.  All of this confirmed that the vulnerability of global trade is due  not only to actual military action, but also to the impact of  uncertainty," the political scientist noted.

Thus, as Shahnazaryan explained, if even limited security breaches in  the Strait of Hormuz are sufficient to alter the behavior of  international markets, strategic influence can be achieved not by  completely closing the strait, but by maintaining constant security  uncertainty around it. Under such conditions, he explained, the  normal functioning of shipping is no longer perceived as completely  stable and predictable. Under these conditions, the expert noted, the  very logic of exerting influence changes. "A complete closure of the  strait is an extreme measure that will almost inevitably lead to a  broad international reaction and reduce Tehran's strategic  flexibility. Consequently, the main instrument of influence is no  longer the severance of maritime communications, but the maintenance  of a controlled security uncertainty around the Strait of Hormuz that  forces other participants to constantly factor Iran's possible  reaction into their political, military, and economic calculations,"  the political scientist noted.

Thus, as the expert noted, the main strategic outcome of the war was  not the formation of a new balance of power, but a reassessment of  the geopolitical value of geographical advantage. "What has changed  is not Iran's geographic advantage itself, but the strategic  understanding of how this advantage can be used most effectively. The  determining factor is no longer whether the previous shipping system  will be restored, but the strategic conditions under which the new  system will be formed," Shahnazaryan concluded.