For decades, Iran’s nuclear programme dominated its confrontation with the United States, triggering sweeping international sanctions and prolonged diplomatic standoffs. Today, however, Tehran appears to have shifted its strategic focus.
Iranian leaders now regard control of the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most important energy shipping route as a far more valuable source of leverage than the nuclear issue.
The Strait has become what Iranian officials describe as the country’s “golden weapon”, one they are prepared to defend even at the risk of renewed military confrontation with Washington.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
That shift was evident this week when Iranian forces fired on commercial vessels transiting the Strait without Tehran’s approval, triggering an exchange of fire with the United States and putting last month’s interim peace agreement under renewed strain.
For years, Iran refrained from disrupting the Strait despite repeatedly threatening to do so. Today, however, senior leaders increasingly view control over the waterway as their strongest bargaining tool in negotiations with the West and believe it was this leverage that compelled Washington to end the conflict.
Echoing that position, Ebrahim Azizi, a member of Iran’s parliamentary committee on national security and foreign policy, urged the United States to “recognise the new Iranian order in the Strait of Hormuz”, calling it “the only way forward.”
According to two senior Iranian sources as cited by Reuters, there is broad consensus within Tehran’s leadership on maintaining control over the strategic waterway, despite the risk of creating another long-term international dispute.
While officials debated whether Iran might be overestimating its leverage, the prevailing view was that no country would willingly surrender such an important strategic advantage.
“The issue of Hormuz, which is Iran’s golden weapon, is something they now want to take away from Iran, and that will be absolutely impossible,” one of the sources told Reuters.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS ADDifferent interpretations of the peace deal
Last month’s memorandum of understanding, signed after US President Donald Trump brokered an interim end to the conflict, reopened the Strait to increased commercial traffic. However, the agreement left unresolved the broader question of who ultimately controls the waterway.
The memorandum states that Iran “will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days only.”
Iranian negotiators interpret that language as an acknowledgement by Washington that Tehran has the right to administer the Strait, provided it does not impose transit fees during the initial 60-day period.
The United States and Gulf countries reject that interpretation. In their view, the agreement simply obliges Iran to ensure the safe passage of commercial shipping without using force or imposing restrictions on international navigation.
Why Hormuz has overtaken the nuclear issue
Iran’s tougher position on Hormuz is rooted partly in deep distrust of the United States. Officials point to President Trump’s 2018 withdrawal from the nuclear agreement, the renewed conflict this year after an earlier ceasefire, and Washington’s decision to launch military operations while diplomatic negotiations were still underway.
According to one senior Iranian source, Tehran believes any retreat on Hormuz would only encourage Washington to press for additional concessions on its nuclear programme, conventional missile arsenal and other strategic issues.
“That means surrender and this is not possible,” the source told Reuters.
Although Iran had long warned it could close the Strait—once describing the move as “as easy as drinking a glass of water”—senior officials privately viewed such a step as a last resort because of the severe diplomatic and economic consequences.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Closing the waterway would likely alienate Gulf neighbours, disrupt global energy markets and inflict serious damage on Iran’s own economy.
That calculation changed after the United States and Israel launched attacks on February 28 that killed Iran’s supreme leader and several senior officials.
Believing they had little left to lose, Iranian authorities shut the Strait to all commercial traffic except their own vessels, causing what was described as the largest disruption to global energy supplies in history.
Washington later responded by blockading Iranian ports.
As the economic costs mounted for both sides, they agreed to last month’s interim deal. But Iranian leaders now believe their ability to close or control the Strait must be formally recognised rather than treated as a temporary wartime measure.
Reuters cited Ali Ansari, professor of modern history at the University of St Andrews, as saying that both Washington and Tehran emerged from the conflict convinced they had gained the upper hand.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
“Both sides were having anxieties about the immediate economic problems they were facing. But both sides also think they’ve won. So there’s this view that they just need to push a bit further to get what they want,” he said.
Today, Iranian officials appear more focused on securing international acceptance of their authority over the Strait of Hormuz than on resolving the decades-old nuclear dispute.
While Tehran believes the interim agreement also implicitly accepts its continued domestic uranium enrichment and management of enriched uranium stockpiles, the nuclear issue itself has been pushed into future negotiations.
For nearly a quarter of a century, Iran’s nuclear programme defined its dispute with the United States, resulting in extensive sanctions and serving as the principal justification for successive rounds of confrontation.
Now, however, Iran has made clear that negotiations on the nuclear file will not resume until Washington accepts Tehran’s full authority over the Strait of Hormuz, Reuters cited senior Iranian sources as saying.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
With inputs from agencies