Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz was a predictable possibility, present in every potential war scenario with it. There was a precedent for its closure in the 1980s when Iran planted mines, targeted ships, and threatened maritime traffic. Known as the "Tanker War," Iran used missiles and speedboats. This war is historically significant because Iran caused and brought about foreign naval intervention, establishing a permanent American military presence in the Gulf. Before Iran's attacks on maritime transport, the Americans did not have bases and warships in the Gulf.
The first battle was in the height of the Iran-Iraq war. At the time, Iraq was also attacking Iranian oil tankers. Tehran not only attacked Iraqi naval forces but also attacked the naval vessels of Gulf countries, just as it attacks its Gulf neighbors today.
When the Fifth Fleet entered the region, an American warship was hit by an Iranian naval mine. That incident changed the rules of engagement, as the United States became an active party in the crisis, and naval battles ensued for the first time since World War II. Iran targeted Kuwait's oil tankers and struck Gulf maritime installations, so Kuwait requested support, and American flags were raised on the tankers, which were escorted by American naval vessels. With the internationalization of the war, Iran's naval military capabilities and oil platforms were destroyed.
That was an important round of fighting that concluded the long war later with Iran's defeat, and it accepted a ceasefire. Today's war is a continuation of a series of wars and clashes since the 1980s that express Iran's intentions and policies.
Among the five negotiating conditions, which Iran is said to have put forward through Pakistan, is its demand for the evacuation of the region from American military bases. This unrealistic condition is met by a list of 15 American conditions, and despite the White House's lack of confirmation of their validity, they seem consistent with official statements. To stop the war, Washington requires Iran to abandon its offensive military capabilities, such as programs, systems, and stockpiles, and adopt an executive mechanism. Here, if Iran accepts this, talk of ending the American bases becomes reasonable, because they were built primarily against Iranian threats, despite the lies of conspiracy theory propaganda that claim the bases have hidden motives to seize the Gulf and the region.
Trust in the Iranian regime is lacking, and it is difficult to build trust that would allow for the abandonment of American bases, at least in the foreseeable future. The regime may change its policy at a later time in a positive way or change altogether, and that is another matter that would then require a review of strategies to confront the Iranian threat.
Talking about the future is left for when circumstances change, but today we are living in ancient history. The war of closing the Strait of Hormuz is a repeat of the Tanker War in the 1980s, which confirms the difficulty of trusting the Iranian regime, which is replicating itself despite changes in the players, the oil market, and the passage of half a century. That war was between Saddam's Iraq and Khomeini's Iran; today, it is between Israel and Iran. Oil and gas were and still are strategic commodities for the world's economy.
The Iran of the 1980s is the Iran of today, spreading chaos and terrorism. Its regime is the last of the standing rogue states, after Saddam, Gaddafi, and Assad were eliminated.
However, the regime, although it seems cohesive and standing on its feet in the current war, is not the same regime that fought the eight-year war and the Tanker War; at that time, it was in its prime and at the peak of its popularity. Today, it is old and has lost its popularity, especially among the new generations who are aware of its policies and reject the squandering of their country's wealth on wars in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Africa, and South America.
The Strait of Hormuz is a passage that is no longer an American matter but primarily concerns China, India, South Korea, and Japan, whose economies depend on it. These importing countries will find themselves forced in the future to protect their ships from Tehran's policy of using the strait and installations as a weapon against its neighbors, and the economies of the "new" global powers are in danger as a result of Iran's aggressive tendencies.
The United States is the main combatant this time, but it will not defend the interests of these countries later, as President Donald Trump has said. Tehran has used the strait as a hostage against the Gulf countries, as well as against its partners, such as China and India.
Regionally, Iran is an undeniable military power, and this is one of the reasons of the outbreak of the preemptive war to stop the growth of its nuclear and missile capabilities. Its factories produce thousands of missiles and drones that were not a commercial business, but a regional political project aimed at destabilizing the region.
The war revealed that Iran was planning to use its arsenal in its expansionist project, whose frantic destructive activity we see in strikes against six Gulf countries, Iraq, and Jordan, and reaching the Indian Ocean and Mediterranean Sea, in addition to its militias in Yemen, Lebanon, and Iraq. Intentions are reflected by actions, not words.
If Iran pledges and commits that it will not return to developing its aggressive military capabilities, the American, British, and French bases will leave because they are a result of Iranian threats, and Iranian threats are not a response to their presence.
