The crisis in the Ormuz Strait caused by the US and Israel strikes the global economy

This dispute is no longer just about a truce. The current crisis is the result of decisions by the United States and Israel that put military pressure, sanctions and attempts to break Tehran. Iran responds where it has the greatest potential for impact – in the Ormuz Strait, one of the world's most important maritime routes.

The Strait of Ormuz as a bargaining chip for Tehran

Tehran does not have to completely close the strait to achieve a political effect. Simply raise the level of risk for shipping, insurers, shipowners and importers of raw materials. If around a fifth of world oil and LNG trades passed through this reservoir before the war, even a partial restriction of traffic becomes an impact in Global economy.

That's why the current game of Washington and Tel Aviv is so risky. For years, Iran's nuclear program has been coming back in American politics as an argument justifying pressure, sanctions and the threat of using force. The dispute is not invented – the question of uranium enrichment, IAEA control and Iran's nuclear installations really exists. The problem is, however, that today it is increasingly difficult to separate the issue of nuclear non-proliferation from the attempt to force political surrender on Iran.

Iran between talks and U.S. military pressure

Iran is not meant to return to talks, but to accept the conditions of a stronger opponent. This is where the crisis becomes particularly dangerous. Despite the losses and deteriorating internal situation, Tehran shows that it does not intend to limit its response to diplomacy alone.

A unique concentration of American forces also appeared in the background. For a short time, three airport groups operated in the Central Command area, which was a situation without precedent since 2003. However, the U.S. power demonstration continued briefly because problems on the USS aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford forced him back to Virginia.

However, American military pressure collides with the limitations of service facilities, the shipbuilding industry, and the technical readiness of the newest US Navy aircraft carrier. This is an important signal for Tehran: the United States can escalate, but it cannot maintain the maximum forever voltages at sea.

Washington's biggest problem today lies not in the military advantage itself, but in the political closure of the conflict. The weakening of Iran does not yet mean victory if Tehran can continue to raise sea transport costs, blackmail the environment through the Ormuz Strait and maintain tension around energy infrastructure. The United States may have a military advantage, but it still cannot impose conditions that could be presented as a lasting peace.

Pressure on shipping and war costs on both sides

The Iranian response is not only diplomatic either. Tehran announces its own mechanism to control the passage through the Ormuz Strait, talks about designated routes and permissions to pass. In practice, this means trying to impose shipping rules on an international route. It's not Classic locking, but pressure dressed in the language of procedures, security and control of maritime traffic.

However, war not only hits the energy market and maritime transport. The Iranian economy itself is also becoming increasingly heavy. Restrictions on Internet access, damaged production facilities, inflation and paralysis of part of transport deprive people of income previously employed in services, trade, remote education and industry. Closed companies, broken supply chains and rising unemployment create social pressures, which cannot long be covered by only a narrative of resistance towards the West.

Tehran transfers crisis costs to maritime transport

Here you can see the other side of the Iranian strategy. Tehran can generate costs on the U.S. side, countries Persian Gulf and importers of raw materials, but he pays for this growing internal instability. This is not the situation of a country that calmly controls events. Rather, it is an attempt to shift some of the costs of its own crisis to its opponents and the international environment.

However, the responsibility for launching this spiral falls primarily on Washington and Tel Aviv. It was the U.S. and Israel that decided to have an armed conflict, assuming that the technological and military advantage was enough to break Iran. Meanwhile, Tehran, although weakened, transferred the burden of the conflict to an area where even the weaker side can cause global effects.

From peace talks to ultimatum

The most dangerous moment in the current crisis is the moment when diplomacy ceases to mean seeking an agreement and begins to resemble the expectation of surrender. Then the story of Hiroshima and Nagasaki returns not as a simple comparison, but as a warning against logic in which a stronger state recognizes that the opponent must be led to a point of no origin.

In August 1945, Americans carried out an atomic attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki whose goal was to force Japan to surrender. Today no one talks about the use of nuclear weapons against Iran, but the political mechanism is alarmingly familiar: a stronger state wants to lead the opponent to a point where he does not negotiate conditions but accepts I prefer the winner.

That's why the ultimatum language is so dangerous. When diplomacy becomes a demand for surrender, decisions taken in a narrow circle may cease to concern only the negotiating table. Their effects are borne by societies, economies and civil populations, which have no influence on the decisions and course of events that follow.