No Peace, No War: Why the US Fails to Intimidate Iran in the Persian Gulf

In an interview with Pravda.Ru, Alexander Perendzhiev, member of the expert council of the organization Officers of Russia and associate professor at the Plekhanov Russian University of Economics, talks about the conflict between the United States and Iran, the situation surrounding the Strait of Hormuz, and the prospects for further escalation in the Middle East. He also assessed the impact of the crisis on the global order.

Photo: commons.wikimedia.org by NASA Johnson Space Center, https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/pdm/

Strait of Hormuz

Trump and the Strait of Hormuz

Q: Donald Trump announced the launch of an operation to "unblock” the Strait of Hormuz, calling it "Project Freedom.” The operation effectively began, with reports of exchanges of fire and mutual denials. How do you assess what is happening?

A: Trump is demonstrating more rhetoric than action. On the Iranian side, by contrast, there is more action and less rhetoric. For now, that is exactly how the formula looks.

As we know, Trump brings a great deal of emotion into what is happening and speaks extensively about his actions, but in practice he does considerably less. The Iranians, meanwhile, are responding calmly to all threats, clearly warning that the Americans will not get through and that the situation will remain under their control. In essence, that is what is happening now.

The Americans did indeed attempt to enter the Strait of Hormuz, but they received a tough, though very careful, rebuff from Iran. The Iranians did not stage any major battles — they simply pushed the Americans back, demonstrated their missile capabilities, after which the Americans withdrew to their original positions.

The main question now is what happens next. Above all, the Americans are thinking about this. Iran, meanwhile, is sticking to its strategy and not stepping outside its framework. The Iranians are acting very carefully, unwilling to turn the situation into a bloodbath. The Americans, judging by everything, also do not want serious escalation. As a result, only Trump continues telling everyone about his own heroism, while the real participants in the conflict are trying to behave as cautiously and even, in some sense, respectfully toward one another as possible.

The Real Capabilities of the United States and the Information Narrative

Q: The Americans announced that 100 military aircraft and 15,000 servicemen are involved in the operation. Where are they located? On aircraft carriers? At bases in the Emirates?

A: That is a very good question. These figures are largely intended to create a propaganda effect — for American society, for Western audiences, and perhaps as an attempt to intimidate Iran. But the Iranians are not impressed by such numbers.

It is obvious that there are no 15,000 servicemen on ships. At most, there could be about 2,000 personnel there. The rest are stationed somewhere on bases, or perhaps not even involved at all.

This is more about creating the desired image than about the actual forces directed against Iran. The United States even threatened a ground operation, but Trump perfectly understands that any large-scale landing of American troops would mean the end of his political career because it would lead to enormous losses.

Therefore, when we hear such figures, we need to understand that this is an informational construct. The real forces directly involved in any potential combat operations are many times smaller.

Is the Strait Actually Being Cleared of Mines?

Q: At first I thought the Americans would be escorting tankers. But now they are only talking about detecting mines and passing information to ships. So what does this "unblocking” actually mean?

A: That is exactly what Trump wanted — to create the impression of a real convoy operation. In reality, there is no convoying taking place. Moreover, there is no full-scale mine-clearing operation either. There is only talk about it.

Q: Are there even mines there? Has Iran actually mined the strait?

A: Yes, there are mines. But the question is how they are controlled. If a mine is anchored to the seabed and its coordinates are known, that is one situation. But if it is drifting and its coordinates are unknown, that is entirely different.

The question then becomes: how many mines are truly stationary, and how many are freely drifting? And what can the Americans actually do about that? A drifting mine can unexpectedly appear anywhere and inflict serious damage on a ship, potentially even sinking it.

So no real mine-clearing operation is taking place. But the US Navy needs to justify its presence, hence the corresponding rhetoric.

The Strike on Fujairah and the Third Force

Q: Reports have emerged about a strike on an oil refinery in Fujairah in the UAE. Iran denies responsibility. What do you think happened?

A: I would also question whether it was really Iran. In conflicts like these, there is always a third or even fourth force acting covertly and trying to pit the participants against one another. It is entirely possible that the strike was carried out by forces interested in provoking a conflict between Iran and the UAE and then blaming everything on Tehran. This has happened before.

I recall the strikes on Nakhchivan, which some also tried to attribute to Iran. At that time, it was obvious that someone wanted to provoke conflict between Iran and Azerbaijan so that Azerbaijan would launch a ground operation against Iran. This is a classic strategy: turning related peoples against each other.

Therefore, I would not rush to automatically blame Iran, especially since the Iranian side denies the strike. And honestly, I believe Iran on this issue.

Q: So if Iran really had carried out the strike, they would not have hidden it?

A: Exactly. If they had struck, they would have said so directly.

Is De-Escalation Possible?

Q: There is a sense that tensions are gradually easing. Talk about a nuclear strike and a ground operation has quieted down. How do you think the situation will develop further?

A: There is no exit from the conflict yet — only a temporary pause. The problem here lies primarily with the Americans. It was the United States that started this war, and Trump wanted to demonstrate a triumphant march. But there was no victory. Now Washington is trying to present the situation as though the war is over, while American bases remain in the Middle East. A condition of "neither peace nor war” is emerging.

However, Iran will not agree to this. Tehran is demanding guarantees that there will be no further aggression either against Iran itself or against Lebanon by Israel. Neither the United States nor Israel has provided such guarantees. That means a new accumulation of forces, weapons, and military equipment will inevitably begin, followed by another round of conflict.

Does US Policy Change When Administrations Change?

Q: What if a new administration comes to power in several years — Democrats, for example? Could that change anything?

A: After many years of observing American foreign policy, I have concluded that it is pointless to expect change based on a смена администрации. In US foreign policy, virtually nothing changes regardless of who is in power. Domestic changes are possible — and important for Americans themselves. But for the rest of the world, there is almost no difference. Both Republicans and Democrats have unleashed wars, carried out bombings, and attacked other states. In the post-Soviet period, there has not been a single truly peace-loving US administration.

Iran as Gravedigger of American Hegemony

Q: There is a growing sense that Iran has become precisely the kind of opponent capable of seriously damaging American influence. Could this war change the world order?

A: In this case, Iran will become the gravedigger of American hegemony. We are not talking simply about a local defeat, but about the beginning of the United States' retreat from the position of global leader.

At one time, Afghanistan became such a symbol, from which the Americans effectively fled. Now the situation for the United States could become even more difficult.

For Washington, this is a high-tech war being fought over enormous distances. Iran, meanwhile, has chosen a very pragmatic strategy: destroying expensive infrastructure with cheap but effective means.

In addition, Iran has understood that the war is taking place not only in the military sphere, but also in the geo-economic sphere. That is why the question of blocking straits is becoming central.

The Struggle for the World's Strategic Straits

Q: The issue of control over straits is likely to become one of the central themes in global politics in the coming years. Tensions are already emerging around the Panama Canal, the Strait of Malacca, the Bosporus, and the Dardanelles.

A: And the Bab el-Mandeb Strait as well.

Q: Yes, of course. We are seeing how maritime communications are gradually becoming the main object of global control — in the Baltic Sea and across the world's oceans. I would even say that we are no longer talking about a world war in the traditional sense, but about a global war. Unified blocs will not necessarily fight directly against each other. The conflict will be distributed across the entire globe.

Future Military Alliances and Geo-Economics

Q: So this will become a conflict of everyone against everyone?

A: Not exactly. I believe that the Shanghai Cooperation Organization will eventually be forced to become not only an economic bloc, but also a military alliance, or at least a system of military-political partnership.

The Western bloc is already beginning to crack apart. The Iranian conflict showed that the United States effectively has only one full-fledged ally left — Israel. NATO countries did not want to become proxy forces against Iran. At the same time, Trump himself effectively became a proxy force for Israel.

Many extremely important processes are taking place right now — for military science, for political science, and especially for geo-economics. Because we are no longer talking only about geopolitics, but specifically about geo-economics:

• transport corridors,
• communications routes,
• strategic straits,
• resources,
• oil prices.

The use of economic instruments for political and military-political purposes — that is precisely what geo-economics is.