If the Strait of Hormuz can be regarded as a barometer of geopolitical stability, then the latest Iranian attacks on three civilian ships and subsequent American strikes on more than 80 targets in Iran suggest that more stormy weather lies ahead.
The reckless targeting of Qatari and Saudi tankers in Omani waters underlines the speed with which the situation can deteriorate. Already, developments are worrying. Speaking at the Nato summit in Ankara yesterday, US President Donald Trump said the June 17 interim agreement with Iran to halt the war “is over”, hours after the US snapped back sanctions on Iranian oil.
How the region got to this dangerous point raises a critical question: who exactly in Iran is calling the shots? This is a question that is literal and metaphorical. Although diplomatic channels involving Iran’s civilian leadership continue to function, at least intermittently, Iranian actions in Hormuz and beyond paint a more complex picture. The regime’s ultras – the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – appear to be pursuing a strategy that mixes economic pressure and deniable attacks. The result is this latest breakdown in diplomacy.
Further complicating the picture is how this escalation comes amid reports of a possible maritime security operation involving France and the UK. This suggests that more external powers are preparing for a sustained presence in one of the world’s most critical waterways. This would be at a time when the US-Iran ceasefire is in danger of completely breaking down.
The risk in this for the world is that the Strait of Hormuz becomes a theatre of militarised multilateralism, where overlapping agendas and unclear chains of command risk turning every incident into uncontrollable escalation. Yet more ships and more patrols, in the absence of a coherent agreed-upon framework, could deepen rather than resolve the problem.
The precarious nature of this moment makes Iran’s decision-making more consequential than ever. With the death of Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei earlier in the conflict, and the nationalistic fervour of his days-long funeral, questions about Tehran’s internal cohesion are no longer abstract. If authority within Iran is contested or fragmented, then re-establishing the US-Iran agreement or enforcing its provisions becomes that much harder.
Breaking this pattern requires clarity and a commitment to de-escalation above everything else. Although short-term reassurance is possible, ambiguity about who is making key decisions in Tehran does little to address the underlying issues. Diplomacy must continue, but it must be clear. A starting point would be a structured, rules-based maritime framework that commands broad regional and international support.
By doing so and establishing accountability as well as a shared understanding of what constitutes a ceasefire breach, preventing more hostilities from breaking out would become more feasible. However, Iran must make clear that its leadership – all of it – is committed to drawing the string from this situation.
