The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has caused serious turmoil in the global energy and logistics system. The sharp reduction in transits through this strait, one of the world's main oil transport routes, has not only restricted oil and gas supplies but also changed tanker shipping routes, increasing insurance and shipping service fees. Fluctuations in oil prices, in turn, create additional pressure for energy-importing countries in terms of inflation and economic growth.
Modern.az recalls that this scenario is reminiscent of the 1956 Suez Crisis. In that year, after Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal, military intervention by Israel, Britain, and France occurred, and the canal's operations ceased. The US pressured Britain and France to support a ceasefire and troop withdrawal, while the USSR took a firm stance on military intervention. As a result, military operations ceased, paving the way for the canal to resume operations.
Now, a similar question arises regarding the Strait of Hormuz: if the diplomatic and political pressure of great powers like the US and the USSR played a crucial role in opening Suez in 1956, who and how can influence Iran to open Hormuz today? What economic consequences of the 1956 Suez Crisis can the Hormuz crisis repeat, and how significant will the blow to the global economy be this time? What will happen if Hormuz is not opened?
Political scientist Tofig Abbasov commented on the issue to Modern.az:
"The opening of the Strait of Hormuz has already become one of the most acute issues on the world agenda. I assess the possibilities for consensus as very slim. Because Iran is increasingly hardening its demands, and the US cannot accept them. Otherwise, this could literally be considered a defeat for Washington. Therefore, both sides are using their maneuvering capabilities. It seems to me that the main goal of the US is to maintain the current status quo at least until the interim elections in November, and during this period, to gain time and strengthen its military capabilities. Considering Donald Trump's character and the course of events, the option of a strong strike is still on the agenda.
Here, certain parallels can be drawn with the 1956 Suez Crisis, although this comparison is not entirely accurate. During the Suez Crisis, the closure of the canal created serious problems in oil and gas supplies, and the redirection of shipments to longer routes affected prices and logistics costs. Before that, in 1953, the nationalization of oil in Iran also led to a serious confrontation with Great Britain, and a blockade was imposed on Iranian oil. The main difference in today's situation is that currently, the world's most powerful country, the US, and Iran are directly confronting each other.
US attempts to halt Iran's nuclear program and exert political pressure on Tehran have not yielded the expected results so far. Iran, despite economic difficulties, inflation, and the depreciation of its national currency, views this confrontation as a life-or-death struggle. Here, the high sensitivity of sovereignty and territorial integrity issues in Iranian society also limits Tehran's ability to back down. I believe that Iran is not inclined to soften in the near future".
The political scientist stated that this asymmetric warfare model is financially unfavorable for Washington:
"On the other hand, Iran's strikes on US bases in the Gulf region also create serious problems for Washington. Iran is trying to overload air defense systems and exceed their capabilities by using various missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles. As a result, some missiles and drones are reported to have reached their targets, causing destruction. One of Iran's main goals is to weaken the US military presence in the Gulf region and ultimately achieve the withdrawal of American forces from the region. The economic aspect of this war also raises serious questions for the US. Iran forces the US to incur greater defense expenditures with attacks carried out with relatively little funding. This asymmetric warfare model is financially unfavorable for Washington. The situation is also becoming more complicated within the US: inflation, rising energy prices, dissatisfaction with the war, and internal political tension create additional pressure on the Trump administration.
I believe that this situation primarily brings certain advantages to the positions of Iran, as well as Russia and China. Dissatisfaction with US policy is also growing in Europe. Therefore, the main question is how Trump will emerge from the current situation. At the current stage, both diplomatic consensus and the possibility of a quick end to the crisis seem very weak".
Nicat Rüstəm
