Trump Promised to Open Hormuz, but It's Iran That's Still Calling the Shots - Iran News
U.S. President Donald Trump declared that the Strait of Hormuz was open and vowed it would remain so. Yet over the past few days, Iran has demonstrated its ability to disrupt traffic there. Its forces attacked on Tuesday two United Arab Emirates tankers sailing through the strait, killing one crew member and wounding eight others.
For now, it remains unclear how Trump intends to keep the strait open or protect commercial shipping passing through it. On Monday, he wrote on Truth Social that he planned to impose a 20 percent fee on the value of cargo passing through the waterway.
Major shipping companies and industry groups quickly voiced concern over Trump's proposal. They rejected the idea of paying to use an international waterway that, unlike the Panama or Suez canals, has no infrastructure requiring maintenance.
Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi mocked the proposal, writing that Trump was "absolutely right" to demand compensation for safe passage through Hormuz, before adding that "20 percent is, of course, too much. We will be fair." Trump has since backed away from the proposal, but the damage had already been done.
This might be amusing were it not for its potentially devastating consequences for the Middle East and the wider world. When the leader of the free world effectively validates Iran's demand to charge ships and tankers for passage through Hormuz, Tehran can hardly be expected to give up the strategic leverage it holds.
Iran and the United States will likely continue to exchange blows, each convinced that the other wants to avoid escalation and a return to all-out war. For now, however, the risk of such an escalation is growing. The Arab states, which have so far done everything they could to prevent the conflict from escalating and preserve the cease-fire, may also abandon their fence-sitting in such a scenario.
Further evidence of the growing tensions is emerging in Yemen. Two days ago, an Iranian aircraft attempted to land in Sanaa, the Houthi-controlled capital. Saudi Arabia responded by striking the city's airport. Some reports claim the attack was carried out by Yemen's internationally recognized government, backed by Riyadh, rather than by the Saudis themselves. Either way, the Houthis blamed Saudi Arabia.
The Houthis retaliated within hours, targeting Abha Airport in southwestern Saudi Arabia and two military bases. The fighting continued into the night. Saudi forces struck the Houthi leader's stronghold in the Saada region near the border, after which the Houthis warned airlines flying through Saudi airspace, signaling that further escalation could follow.
Does the escalation in Yemen point to a shift in Saudi Arabia's approach toward the conflict with Iran? It is still too early to draw firm conclusions, but there is no doubt that this marks the most serious intensification between the sides since they agreed to a cease-fire in 2022. This time, Saudi Arabia appears less willing to ignore Iran's overt military presence in Yemen.
In May, international media reported that the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia attacked Iran in March. Recently, Kuwait also attacked pro-Iranian militias in Iraq in response to shelling across its borders. Following Iran's incessant provocations, fueled by its growing sense of power, the Arab states realized that under the current stalemate, they were already paying a heavy price, whether they refrained from military action against Iran and its proxies or engaged in it.
Officially, Saudi Arabia remains committed to mediation efforts alongside Pakistan, Turkey and Egypt. Yet Iran's increasingly aggressive actions appear to be pushing Riyadh and other Arab states closer to Washington and farther from Tehran. Riyadh may also believe that if another large-scale conflict erupts, the Houthis will join the fighting regardless and could even attempt to block the Bab el-Mandeb Strait at the entrance to the Red Sea, something they did not do during the previous round of fighting.
The problem is that even if the Arab states ultimately join forces with the United States in confronting Iran, it is difficult to see how they would achieve Washington's two main objectives: securing the Strait of Hormuz and reaching an acceptable resolution to Iran's nuclear program. For now, Trump has no clear operational plan for keeping the strait open and secure, just as he had no such plan when the war began. Iran, meanwhile, is not going anywhere. It will retain the ability to strike U.S. warships, tankers and commercial vessels, even from hundreds of kilometers away from the shores of Hormuz.
If Trump launches another war against Iran soon, what would its objective be? Would he once again try to topple the regime, committing hundreds of thousands of American troops just months before the November midterm elections while risking another global energy crisis and a sharp rise in oil prices at home? Or would he instead seek to pressure Tehran through strikes on critical infrastructure that has so far been spared, hoping to force greater flexibility at the negotiating table?
That strategy, however, would face an obvious obstacle. Iran's leadership has shown no intention of giving up either the Strait of Hormuz or its nuclear program, and would likely squeeze every last drop from the lemon that has fallen into its lap. And what happens if Tehran still refuses to play by Washington's rules?
As noted, both sides have continued to push the limits, each hoping the other will blink first. Washington and Tehran would still prefer to find a diplomatic solution, even a temporary one, rather than become trapped in a full-scale war. But the likelihood of a broader confrontation is constantly rising, the spoilers are multiplying, and the plot is thickening. Anyone expecting another short war ending in "total victory" should remember that Iran has never presented easy solutions. It still doesn't.