Iran's flexibility in the face of continued pressure has made any attempt to exclude Tehran from future security structures in the region more difficult than ever, the former Iranian foreign minister wrote in an article for Foreign Affairs magazine. This includes, above all, Iran's pivotal role in securing the passage of global energy shipments and commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
And Mohammad Javad Zarif, the former foreign minister, pointed out that the United States has started its attacks against Iran again, writing in Farren Afers: The memorandum of understanding reached by Tehran and Washington last month in Switzerland, finally collapsed after weeks of remaining hanging by a thin thread. And President Donald Trump said on July 8, “I think it’s over. I no longer want to deal with [Iran].”
The full text of this article is as follows:
The continuation of the conflict is not in the interest of Iran or the United States
The collapse of the MOU is not surprising; Iran and the United States had different perceptions of the terms of the agreement, particularly regarding the Strait of Hormuz. Tehran believed that, as stated in the MOU, Iran had promised to “do its utmost to find safe and free transit arrangements for commercial vessels, and for only 60 days.” Tehran also envisioned that, in cooperation with Oman and other Gulf states, it would "determine future management and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz."
In return, Washington believed that Iran had agreed to unconditional free passage through the strait, and that the United States did not need to abide by any arrangements put in place by Iran. With such a profound difference of perceptions and lack of coordination, the continuation of this agreement was impossible and a return to conflict was inevitable, and timing was the only uncertain issue.
And yet, the continuation of the conflict is not in the interest of Iran or the United States. Although the Iranian people and armed forces have defended their country in the face of two nuclear-armed forces, they still see this conflict as a “imposed” war; They never wanted to start it. This war also distracts Washington from focusing on its grand strategic objective.
For more than a decade, all U.S. administrations have pursued the strategic goal of reducing the burden of their long-term commitments in West Asia, in order to focus on the Asia-Pacific region, and have embarked on a path that various officials have called “turning toward Asia.” And this country’s past policies toward Iran — including the 2015 nuclear deal, the Brahimi agreement (in which several Arab states mediated by the United States normalized their relations with Israel, to form a united front against Iran and delegate most of the U.S. role in the region to Israel), the 1404 (June) Khordad attacks on Iran, and the conflict America provoked in Esfand (March) — were all tools the United States used to achieve this goal.
But, as the current standoff also attests, Washington is incapable of alienating Iran's political system. And only through the path of diplomacy, a new peace agreement and the formulation of a regional and home-grown security structure that the countries of the region are building for the benefit of the countries of the region will the United States find an opportunity to turn its attention to other regions.
Iran's flexibility has made Tehran's exclusion from future security arrangements for the region more difficult
Last year's confrontations were more than a test of Iran, Israel, and the US; These confrontations challenged long-standing assumptions about lobbying, deterrence, and the future of West Asia. The United States and Israel have started recent conflicts with Iran based on the premise that continued pressure could force the Iranian government to surrender or lead to the collapse of the Islamic Republic. Instead, however, they found themselves caught in a strategic impasse.
And none of their actions, including unprecedented attacks on Iran’s political and military leaders and significant losses to its infrastructure, has been able to force Tehran to change course. Iran's territorial integrity and political system have survived, and the resilience of the Iranian people and their ability to defend their sovereignty have been demonstrated even in the most difficult circumstances.
External forces are compelled to understand this reality and its implications correctly. Iran's flexibility in the face of continued pressure has made any attempt to exclude Tehran from future security structures in the region more difficult than ever. This includes, above all, Iran's pivotal role in securing the passage of global energy shipments and commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
Tehran has again blocked most access routes to the strait; It is an action taken by many Western analysts as an excuse to present Iran as an incompatible power that wants to exert economic pressure, disrupt global oil markets, and restrict freedom of navigation. But Iran has disrupted energy markets for a specific strategic reason: forcing the United States and its partners to stop the campaign to destroy Iran.
In other words, this war has forced Iran to look at the Strait of Hormuz from the perspective of its existential security. And before the recent large-scale wars began in Esfand in March, Iran generally tolerated passage through the strait without intervention, although U.S. sanctions — with the help of Washington’s partners — meant that Iran could not access many of the goods passing through that route.
In other words, U.S. sanctions have effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz to Iranian trade while leaving it open to almost everyone. The American and Israeli attacks have ended this restraint, both among Iranian leaders and, more importantly, among the vast majority of the people. And today, Iran’s overriding and overarching goal in the strait is to ensure that opponents cannot misuse this waterway to prepare, facilitate, or sustain pressure against Iran — whether military, political, or economic. The previously accepted distinction between commercial navigation and military traffic has faded. In peacetime, it is the international law of the sea that shapes expectations; But in a time of crisis, international law itself puts national survival at the top of the list.
Iran now operates on the belief that maritime routes cannot be politically neutral if they facilitate the transportation of equipment, aircraft parts, intelligence assets, or logistical support to the United States and its regional partners.
And since the weapons and technologies that have struck Iran’s territory, infrastructure, and civilians have passed through the Strait of Hormuz, Iranian decision-makers have the full right to restrict traffic as long as conflicts persist and as long as economic pressure and attempts to weaken Iran’s rights to maintain its interests in the strait are actively pursued. And it is very difficult for Iran to identify vessels carrying purely commercial goods and those carrying equipment that could threaten Iran’s right to life. Naval movements in the Gulf should be understood within the framework of rules of engagement and strategic intentions, and not based on the rules governing peacetime.
Regional security network is key to reducing tension in the Gulf
And yet the pressure cards the strait provides Iran are fragile. The threat of maritime traffic by Iran could mobilize a large part of the world against it. The continued closure of the strait will also accelerate international investment in pipelines, ports, and onshore logistics corridors that bypass this waterway altogether. And if global markets can successfully find alternative routes, Iran will no longer be able to use the possibility of closing the strait as a deterrent. Hence, Tehran should observe restraint; "Just as other states should refrain from economic, political, and military actions that could jeopardize Iran's interests in the strait."
These include sanctions that effectively deny Iran the benefit of freedom of navigation, establish diplomatic alliances against Iran, or send military equipment that disrupts Iran's security through the Strait of Hormuz. And the best way to achieve these goals is to create a regional and home-grown security network that helps build trust among the Gulf’s littoral states through dialog and cooperation. This trend, by eliminating the justification for the existence of external forces, will end their destabilizing existence and adventures. As stated in the MOU, Iran and Oman “will determine the future management and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz through dialog with other Gulf littoral states, in line with applicable international law and the sovereign rights of the littoral states of the Strait of Hormuz.”
Tehran, Washington Should Distinguish Between Identity Disagreements and Negotiable Subjects
The Strait of Hormuz remains a critical focus, but it is not the only source of tension between Tehran and Washington. And to stop conflicts, Iran and the United States must manage their broader differences. And each side’s goals must be realistic: Tehran and Washington cannot be friends. The recent conflicts, in which America and Israel assassinated and liquidated the senior leadership, senior leaders and innocent students, have deepened the wounds of the old country. These deep wounds will not be forgotten and will not be forgiven, but they should not necessarily lead to the continuation of the conflict or the escalation of tension. The symbol of success is ensuring that, unlike in the past, differences are realistically managed in future diplomatic dealings. Some of the differences between Iran and America are fundamental and identity differences that must be defined in a transparent dialog.
Others are the result of mutual misgivings about common tactical interests which have prevented any tactical cooperation. Other cases involve negotiable political topics appropriate for a strategic agreement. Going forward requires that both countries distinguish between core values and shared, interchangeable goals, while avoiding the futile pursuit of more pressure cards.
Any realistic security arrangements between Iran and the United States will ultimately require the formulation of a mutual non-aggression framework, to ensure that identity differences do not lead to conflict and violence. Tehran and Washington can then coordinate overlapping challenges, such as stabilizing the situation in Afghanistan, combating drug trafficking, and managing migration.
The United States must recognize Iran’s territorial integrity, remove Iran and its institutions from terrorist lists, and permanently lift all sanctions. Washington should also pledge to participate in rebuilding the devastation caused by the aggression, just as it promised in the memorandum of understanding to establish a $300 billion investment fund for the country. And in return, Iran could agree to permanent nonproliferation safeguards — such as ratifying the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Additional Protocol, which gives IAEA inspectors greater access to nuclear facilities. Iran could also turn the late leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's fatwa against nuclear weapons into law.
If the US is seeking peace, it should pay attention to Israel's role. Besides starting the first conflict against Iran in Khordad, June 1404, and urging Trump to get involved in starting the second, successive Israeli governments have consistently opposed U.S. efforts to reduce the conflict in West Asia — including the 2015 nuclear deal and the recent memorandum of understanding.
Therefore, any effort to prevent the recurrence of conflict must confront this destructive factor; And he is a player whose propensity to continue the war—regardless of its costs—runs counter to U.S. interests. Israel's behavior is not only preventing peace with Iran, but destabilizing the entire West Asia. And Israel has shown time and again, by expanding occupied settlements, genocide in Gaza, and the destruction of Lebanon, that it wants to create chaos throughout the region to maintain its hegemony.
And it will be up to the United States and its partners to deal with this enduring source of instability. Trump and J.D. Vance, the U.S. vice president, both pledged in the first clause of the memorandum of understanding to “ensure the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon.” And yet, at the same time, during his visit to the region last month, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio began an active campaign to weaken the provision, pressuring the Lebanese government to accept a unilateral agreement with Israel, while Israel continues to occupy parts of Lebanon. These contradictions in the behavior of the American administration and its indifference towards the daily suffering of the Palestinian people must end. Instead, Washington should start putting real pressure on Israel.
The Joint Enrichment Consortium will be dedicated to the peaceful uses of nuclear technology
Israel is not the only actor that can sabotage a peace agreement between Tehran and Washington. The interests of Iran and its surrounding neighbors in the Gulf require an end to decades of tension between them — which began with the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war and has continued to this day to the detriment of all — by forging a common plan. This means that West Asia must abandon the security model based on the security mandate of outside powers; It is an approach that has brought American troops to the region and contributed to the continuation of the conflicts. The catastrophic failure of this approach has been proven for years; And it is a fact that first appeared with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait after the Iran-Iraq War, and the recent confrontations have confirmed it more than ever. Attempting to delegate security to world powers cannot bring real security, let alone the stability necessary for sustainable economic development.
In return, West Asian countries should establish a deeper rapprochement among themselves; The stability of each country is the stability of the other. The Iranian side has previously proposed several basic pillars for the establishment of such a system. In 2024, as Vice-President, I advocated an institutional dialog among the countries of the region based on mutual respect, non-interference, and a non-aggression pact. This includes confidence-building measures such as humanitarian assistance programs in conflict areas, joint counter-terrorism initiatives, and joint media campaigns to promote coexistence. It also proposed the creation of a regional nuclear network, including an enrichment consortium devoted exclusively to the peaceful applications of nuclear science.
And by pooling the region’s specialized capabilities, member states will expand scientific cooperation and develop joint verification mechanisms — ensuring no member pursues nuclear weapons — thereby establishing the foundations of mutual trust. And China and Russia, along with the United States, could help create such a joint fuel enrichment consortium, with the participation of Iran and interested Gulf neighbors. After its establishment, this consortium will become the only fuel enrichment center across West Asia.
For the development of each country to be at the service of the prosperity and development of other neighbors, it is appropriate for the governments of West Asia to strive for the establishment of an integrated and regional economic environment. For example, they could establish the West Asia Development Fund to fund post-conflict reconstruction, health care, education, and critical infrastructure. Creating an interconnected network of regional connections — including cross-border railways, power transmission lines, digital infrastructure, and maritime routes — can facilitate the flow of goods and capital. And other joint institutions can help West Asian countries address common existential threats such as climate change and water shortages.
If this region can build common and meaningful institutions, it can experience unprecedented development. This region has abundant natural resources, deep-rooted civilizations and a young and educated population. Iran alone has a vast geographical reach, advanced scientific expertise, and human capital of international standards. Arab countries offer unique financial, investment and management capabilities along with global trade networks. Pakistan and Turkey also bring enormous industrial capabilities, strategic weight, and a significant communications location.
And given decades of mistrust and mistrust in this neighborhood, including between some Arab countries, and between them and Iran, none of these measures will be easy. But there is no need for West Asia to remain a prisoner of its troubled past. The recent confrontations have not only revealed the catastrophic costs of the conflict, but also the fundamental limitations of the policy of lobbying. Washington and the Arab states must accept that Iran is a permanent reality in the regional landscape, and that this neighborhood cannot achieve stability by excluding it.
And at the same time, Iran must match its restored self-confidence with opening the door to goodwill toward its neighbors, and pursue security through joint cooperation as well as deterrence. The world must accept this fact; It is that lasting stability cannot be injected into West Asia from the outside, nor can it be imposed on it by exerting pressure. Such stability must be shaped by the will and action of the peoples and Governments of the region.
comments