Hormuz Deal Collapses Amidst US Lies and Iranian Hardliner Entrenchment
The Hormuz shuffle has turned into a truly incomprehensible dance. A mere day after Trump had exulted over the full reopening of the Strait, things have again slid into total disarray, with Iran in turn announcing Hormuz’s closure once again to stupefied and exhausted onlookers.
The problem seems to have stemmed with a series of grossly inflated US claims about the “deal” that was struck with Iran. Trump seemed to believe Iran would give up its enrichment, along with the “nuclear dust” that seemed to so gravely bother Trump:
BREAKING: The head of the Iranian Parliament's National Security Commission releases a statement on President Trump’s claims from Friday:
“Delivering uranium to America, the complete reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, continuation of the American maritime siege of Iran, and zero enrichment are just a part of Trump's April lies and fabrications,” he says.
Iran’s parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf elaborated:
There are now claims that part of the mixup could also be due to the disagreements within Iranian leadership and the IRGC. An audio of a claimed IRGC broadcast stated that it is the IRGC which will make the rules regarding the Strait and not some “idiot on Twitter”. Many jumped to assume the IRGC was ridiculing Araghchi, but others believe the broadcast is referencing Trump. In fact, the IRGC-linked Tasnim News channel openly rebuked Araghchi shortly afterwards:
Bad and Incomplete Tweet by Araghchi and Incorrect Ambiguity-Creation Regarding the Reopening of the Strait of Hormuz Our country’s Foreign Minister wrote in a tweet just minutes ago that, following the ceasefire in Lebanon, the Strait of Hormuz will be fully open for the passage of commercial ships for the remaining duration of the ceasefire period.
This tweet by Araghchi, which was published without the necessary and sufficient explanations, created various ambiguities regarding the conditions for passage, details, and mechanisms of passage, and led to a great deal of criticism.
While various conditions have been considered for this matter, one of the most important among them is the complete oversight by Iran’s armed forces over the passage of ships, and this passage shall be deemed null and void in the event of the continuation of the claimed naval blockade.
Publishing this tweet, without any verbal explanation or at least sufficient written explanations, constitutes a complete lack of tact in communication. It is obvious that the Foreign Ministry itself must either reconsider this type of communication or the Secretariat of the Supreme National Security Council must fulfill its duty.
And while providing proper notifications in its own domain, it should create a more cohesive and better mechanism for notifications from some institutions, including the Foreign Ministry, and control them. The tweets that officials publish—even if they write them in English—are not seen only by foreign officials!
The great nation of Iran, too, is fully monitoring the scene in accordance with its revolutionary duty. Any attempt to create anxiety or despair among this divinely inspired nation constitutes political disobedience and disruption of national unity.
David Miller has another interesting take:
As can be seen, there is great discord within Iran between the factions. But for perspective: the discord in the US is even greater. One can hardly compare the IRGC’s political clash with the Iranian Foreign Ministry to the age-old rivalry between Republicans and Democrats, Liberals and Conservatives, etc.
There continue to be other rumors of IRGC disagreements with top leadership.
It’s only logical that IRGC hardliners push for a maximalist military stance, while the politicians typically seek compromise and common ground. One can argue that’s the way it should be, a tension always existing between the two sides so that one’s approach never blindly dominates the country’s trajectory.
On this account, WSJ’s new piece acknowledges that Trump’s war has made the situation worse for the US:
The U.S. and Israel launched the war with the hope that killing top Iranian officials—starting with Mojtaba’s father, Ali Khamenei—would create the conditions for regime change or at least the emergence of leaders more willing to bend to America and Israel’s interests. In an address to the nation one month into the war, President Trump called the new leadership “more reasonable.”
Instead, the void is being filled by radical new leaders who have shown little interest in political compromise at home or abroad.
“The war changed the regime—and not in a good way,” said Danny Citrinowicz, who formerly headed the Iran desk for Israeli military intelligence. “We created a reality that is worse than what Iranians were facing before the war.”
Most notably—beyond acknowledging that the US attained none of its objectives in regard to Iran’s political leadership—WSJ notes that the Iranian “regime” has emerged with its structure fully intact:
The new leadership has proved resilient and adaptable, emerging from the first five weeks of the war with its command and control intact. Their hard-line approach is evident in their appointments. They include Iran’s new national security chief, Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr, a former Revolutionary Guard commander with a violent background.
It is now led by hardliners so extreme, WSJ writes, that even Soleimani once had to temporarly “quit in protest”. But as I’ve said many times before: this is, of course, fully within Israel’s interests. Israel needs the most vicious and hardline Iran in order to trap US in a forever war that could lead to the total destruction of Iran.
“The more extreme group in the IRGC are taking charge,” said Saeid Golkar, an expert in Iran’s security services at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. “That makes the prolongation of the conflict more likely.
Not only has the “regime” emerged intact, we continue getting updates that predictably indicate Iran’s drone and missile stockpiles have fared better and better than previously thought.
NYT now admits that up to 70% of Iran’s prewar arsenal could actually be intact, up from 70-90% having been destroyed, as per Trump’s continually-revised claims:
Who would have known such a thing? Readers here would have, at least. After all, how could one trust the figures of a man claiming he’s after the underground “dust” of a previously “destroyed” arsenal?
It really is comical to what lengths the US goes in open prevarication. What we are witnessing perhaps for the first time are the true limits of American power projection. Never before has America’s military power been exposed as so feebly ineffective at scale.
In fact, Bloomberg elaborates on how Iran planned in advance to do just that:
