The US cannot remove Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormu

The Iran Newspaper, in an analysis, highlighted Iran’s ability to control the Strait of Hormuz. It wrote that when Trump threatens Iran by saying he will turn the Strait of Hormuz into American territory, his administration is essentially seeking to restore the strait as a free, international passageway for global oil shipments. But the US president must face the reality that neither outcome will occur. The war against Iran has made it clear that Washington cannot fully reopen the strait. Tehran has shown that it can still reduce or disrupt the passage of oil tankers. History demonstrates that those who can secure a geographic region often impose political authority and taxation over it, and Iran has shown that it currently wields significant control over the Strait of Hormuz. None of this is desirable for the United States, but the sooner this new reality is accepted, the better it will be for consumers, the global economy, and regional stability. Khorasan: Negotiations with Iran center on the Mecca Agreement Khorasan, in a commentary on Asim Munir’s trip to Tehran, wrote that the signing of the Mecca Defense Agreement among Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia is one of the first regional moves to replace the US -centric security order. One major risk, however, is ignoring the role of Iran and the Axis of Resistance as a key pillar of regional security. It is not unlikely that Asim Munir has come to Tehran to consult on this very issue — especially given his extensive schedule of meetings with newly appointed Iranian commanders. In recent days, signals have also emerged from these countries about expanding the Mecca pact to include Iran and Egypt. Meanwhile, the ongoing Yemen–Saudi conflict has extended into the Bab al‑Mandab Strait. Naturally, the Yemen war has become the Achilles’ heel of the Mecca Agreement, and it is plausible that Munir seeks negotiations in Tehran to resolve this challenge. ***********Siasat-e-Rooz: Strategic patience has ended Siasat-e-Rooz dedicated its editorial to Iran’s warning to neighboring states regarding cooperation with the US in its recent economic sanctions. The editorial argues that Iran will consider any country’s participation or support in America’s economic war against the Iranian people as an act of war. This realistic warning shows Iran understands the scope of the US economic offensive and serves as a pre‑emptive message to regional states: either all countries benefit from security and economic stability, or none will. The assumption that America’s economic war on Iran has no security or economic consequences for the region — and that those regional states can therefore align with Washington against Tehran — is misguided and could ignite the entire region. Iran’s strategy has shifted from “strategic patience” to risk‑taking and pre‑emptive action, and it will respond forcefully to any threat. Sazandegi: The fate of any agreement depends on balancing global powers’ interests Sazandegi wrote that the current Iran–US negotiations cannot be analyzed separately from broader changes in the international system. This complexity is intensified by the long history of mutual distrust. When two sides do not trust each other, even agreement on a simple formula requires intricate mechanisms for verification and guarantees. The Iran–US crisis is not merely a political or nuclear dispute; it can affect the global economy and force governments worldwide to seek solutions. In this context, Iran and the US are no longer the only key players. They are part of a complex network of regional and global actors, each capable of influencing the negotiations. From this perspective, the talks are no longer just an attempt to reach a bilateral deal; they are a test of whether Tehran and Washington can find a path to understanding in a world where no single power dictates the rules. Etemad: Iran will not retreat from its red lines Rahman Ghahremanpour, an international relations scholar, told Etemad that regarding the possibility of US acceptance of Iran’s demands in reviving the Islamabad understanding, each side in any diplomatic negotiation seeks to gain maximum concessions while giving the least. Accordingly, Trump will try to extract the greatest possible concessions from Iran, and the Islamic Republic will seek the maximum from his administration. From Iran’s perspective, continued tension or closure of the Strait of Hormuz could reduce Trump’s and the Republican Party’s chances in the midterm elections. In Tehran’s calculations, now is the moment when applying pressure on Washington — and on Trump personally — could force the US to grant more concessions. For this reason, Iranian officials have recently emphasized that they will keep the Strait of Hormuz closed and that Trump must give ground.