Putin's adviser warns that the world is on the cusp of the largest energy crisis in history. At first, it seemed like a severe, but contained, crisis that was confined to the Middle East. It quickly went much further, becoming an unprecedented quagmire when Iran raised enrichment to its maximum level by closing the Strait of Hormuz. The world then understood that Hormuz is Iran’s most dangerous "reactor.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared that Tehran was using Hormuz as an "economic nuclear weapon."
The Hormuz "reactor" wasted no time sending its radiation in every direction. A farmer in France braces for difficult days ahead. A worker in Bangladesh fears for the worst. A Chinese citizen takes stock of his situation, his country being the largest importer of Iranian oil. Fears around living costs intensify, especially in fragile regions where poverty is rampant. The global economy seems to be held hostage, threatened with being dragged under by a closed strait: oil, gas, supply chains, prices, stability, all at risk. States must reevaluate their budgets. Governments must reassess and keep a close eye on the street.
The Middle East was not a quiet haven before this crisis. Its conflicts, however fierce, had been less dangerous and did not spill over beyond the region. What the Middle East is experiencing today is more dangerous than the Arab-Israeli wars, the Iran-Iraq War, the invasion of Kuwait, and the war to remove Saddam Hussein's regime combined. The "radiation" from the strangled Strait of Hormuz is more dangerous than the fallout of all those previous wars.
The world has not witnessed a crisis as alarming as the one it is currently experiencing in six decades. Even the disintegration of an empire the size of the Soviet Union did not engender this degree of dread. This is a genuine global crisis. It brings what we have read about the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 to mind - despite all the differences in setting, conditions, and actors. That year, American reconnaissance planes discovered excavation work in Cuba and that tunnels were being built to store nuclear missiles the Soviet Union had been shipping to Fidel Castro's island.
The Soviet move was a reckless gambit by a superpower in a sensitive region. President John F. Kennedy exposed their plans and announced a naval blockade of the island. The world held its breath, fearing a devastating nuclear exchange. It was said at the time that an adventurous Castro had told Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev he would not object to the island's erasure from the map if the confrontation dealt a fatal blow to "American imperialism."
The world endured days on the edge of a nightmare. The occupant of the White House had no intention of backing down and leaving Soviet missiles parked off American shores. Khrushchev feared the consequences of any suicidal miscalculation. Reason prevailed, and a settlement emerged: the Soviet Union would withdraw its missiles, and Washington would pledge not to invade Cuba.
The deal also contained a clause that remained secret for years: the missiles threatening Soviet territory from NATO-member Türkiye were removed. Two years after the world escaped a nuclear inferno, his "comrades" summoned Khrushchev and forced him into retirement. Among the charges leveled against him was the "humiliating solution" to the Cuban crisis.
The Hormuz crisis differs from the Cuban Missile Crisis. Iran is not the Soviet Union. And Donald Trump is determined to deny it a nuclear umbrella after the regional upheaval it has unleashed. But the question is: is fear of a "humiliating solution" hindering a resolution of the Hormuz "reactor" crisis?
The question is entirely legitimate. Can Iran's wounded Supreme Leader, who has been injured and lost his family, and his country's arsenal, and its economy, accept a settlement that the hawks of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards could denounce as a "humiliating solution"? Would it be enough for the United States to pledge not to strike the Iranian regime again and to lift sanctions, for Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions and release its stranglehold on the Strait of Hormuz? The current crisis, after all, began over the nuclear issue, with the central demand being the stockpile of highly enriched material that Trump insists be handed over or removed, just as Kennedy demanded the withdrawal of Soviet missiles from Cuba.
Iran raised the level of "enrichment" by closing the Strait of Hormuz. The message was clear: it would not be the only one to pay a price, and the global economy would pay heavy costs for the American assault against Iran.
Trump, in turn, raised the stakes by announcing a naval blockade of the Hormuz "reactor" and Iranian ports. Experts warn that Iran's currency could collapse further. Its oil storage facilities and wells are almost dry, and its bet on the world's discontent will not spare it from having to make concessions.
Iran is playing for time. It floats proposals, waits, then sends amendments. It behaves as though time is its ally, as though Trump will stumble over the hands of the American clock counting down to the Midterm elections. But Trump is an unconventional player, a man of surprises. He reminds the Iranian regime that its ships lie at the bottom of the sea, that its tanks will suffocate, that its wells will age rapidly, and that Iran will need years to recover from the wounds inflicted by American and Israeli strikes.
Iran makes it move: shifting its narrative and calibrating its words. That is hardly surprising. Trump's language is blunt. He says Khomeini's country must pay the price for what it has done over the past 47 years. He demands surrender, even as he knows the Supreme Leader cannot stomach a "humiliating solution." In effect, he demands that Iran dismantle its grand regional project in exchange for being left alone, as happened with Castro.
Iran made a grave mistake when it failed to understand the full implications of Trump's decision to kill General Qasem Soleimani. The consequences far exceeded those of killing Osama bin Laden. It is making another mistake today if it believes that the threat of the largest energy crisis in history could compel Trump to accept a "humiliating solution."
