By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Strait of Hormuz has seen renewed passage of several vessels, including Omani-operated tankers, a French container ship, and a Japanese gas carrier, since Thursday. This development reflects Iran’s policy to permit transit for ships it deems friendly following a period of closure after U.S. and Israeli airstrikes. Markets are closely watching for signs of resumed traffic, with the French vessel specifically signaling its nationality to Iranian authorities before entering Iranian waters. Despite these passages, numerous Japanese-owned vessels remain stranded in the region.
Read the original article here
It’s quite striking to observe the recent passage of Japanese, French, and Omani vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, especially when considering the broader geopolitical shifts and the evolving role of this critical waterway. One can’t help but notice how the dynamics of passage have seemingly changed, transforming the Strait into something akin to a newly minted Suez or Panama Canal, where tolls and terms of transit are now a significant consideration.
The idea that Iran might now be in a position to levy fees or control passage is a significant departure from how things were. Previously, ships could navigate this vital chokepoint with relative freedom, and Iran’s ability to capitalize on it was limited. However, current events suggest a different reality is unfolding, one where Iran has effectively gained leverage, perhaps even establishing a new revenue stream, which has undeniably boosted its power and influence.
This development appears to be a direct consequence of a shift in approach, where nations themselves are now being encouraged or perhaps even implicitly directed to manage the security and passage through the Strait. The implication is that while certain countries might find themselves navigating these new realities, others, specifically US vessels, may face challenges in gaining unimpeded access, leading to a curious reversal of fortunes.
The question of whether these passages are entirely free for “friendly” nations or if some form of payment or agreement is in place with Iran is a subject of much speculation. It’s conceivable that a tiered system of access might be emerging, where adherence to specific currency requirements, like transacting in Chinese Yuan, could become a prerequisite for passage. This move would not only further isolate the US economically but also solidify Iran’s strategic and financial gains.
Oman’s geographical position, holding territory closest to the Iranian shore at the Strait’s tip, is of particular importance. Should Oman decide not to facilitate passage or cooperate with broader initiatives, it could significantly complicate efforts to implement security measures, such as the anti-drone systems being utilized elsewhere. This would then place greater reliance on alternative territories, like those within the UAE.
The potential absence of key contributors like France and Japan from any force aimed at reopening the Strait by military means leaves a significant gap. Without their naval assets, such as destroyers and frigates, the remaining friendly nations, outside of the US, may find it challenging to achieve the necessary maritime dominance to unilaterally enforce passage. This situation naturally leads to questions about how European and Asian countries might adapt, potentially by increasing prices for their own goods to offset any perceived tariffs or increased costs associated with this new transit regime.
The broader economic implications are also worth considering. If Iran is indeed able to dictate terms or extract revenue, it’s plausible that the ripple effects could eventually impact global prices, potentially affecting economies far beyond the immediate region. The idea of other nations, like Indonesia or Singapore, establishing their own tolls for waterways like the Strait of Malacca doesn’t seem so far-fetched in this evolving landscape of maritime control.
There’s a sentiment that Iran has effectively “owned” the situation, even amidst ongoing conflicts, and the shift towards transactions in Yuan highlights a growing economic alignment that bypasses the US dollar. This has led to a curious scenario where, despite international pressures, Iran appears to be emerging stronger, potentially using the generated revenue to rebuild its country and assert its regional standing.
This entire situation is viewed by some as an orchestrated maneuver, designed to empower Iran and transform it into a dominant force in the Middle East’s energy market. The “Art of the Deal” is being invoked, with a particular focus on Iran allowing passage for all nations except the US, a strategy that maximizes its leverage and economic benefit.
While the Iranian regime’s actions are a cause for concern for many, the current circumstances are undeniably beneficial to its financial and strategic position, effectively bolstering its resources. The perception is that previous approaches may have inadvertently provided Iran with both increased power and a significant new revenue stream, leading to a seemingly counterproductive outcome for those seeking to contain it.
The notion that a more hard-line approach might have inadvertently created a profitable enterprise for Iran is a recurring theme. While this current arrangement might be unsustainable for Iran in the long term, particularly once broader conflicts subside, it’s undeniable that it has presented them with a considerable advantage. The possibility of Iran imposing a “straight tax” on passage, or resorting to piracy and blackmail due to economic hardships, was always present, but the current situation has provided them with a more structured and perhaps even legitimate avenue to achieve similar ends.
Ultimately, the current geopolitical landscape suggests that the United States might be experiencing the most significant drawbacks from these developments, while other nations find ways to adapt and potentially emerge stronger from navigating these complex international waters. The idea that this is simply “straight tax” and that Iran could have achieved this through less confrontational means highlights the perceived strategic missteps.
The notion that Trump’s actions have created misery primarily for Americans, while other nations endure and adapt, is a stark assessment of the situation. The current economic and strategic gains for Iran, coupled with the perceived setbacks for the US, paint a picture of a significantly altered global power dynamic. The rapid acquisition of foreign currency by nations like Iran, driven by increased oil prices and new revenue streams, has led to a surprising stabilization of their regimes, even as the underlying geopolitical conflicts persist.
The fact that Iran has been able to generate more revenue from oil sales during the war, coupled with its ability to charge tolls and transact in alternative currencies, underscores the significant shift in its economic fortunes. This outcome has been described as “fucking the US bigly,” a sentiment that encapsulates the perceived strategic advantages gained by Iran and its allies. It’s a complex situation where sanctions and geopolitical pressures appear to have inadvertently strengthened the very regimes they were intended to weaken.