A siege that reached a dead end.
Will the naval blockade of Iran lead to Tehran's withdrawal or return America to war? The Chatham House think tank warned in a recent analysis that Washington's economic pressure, despite the damage to Iran's financial resources, is not a guarantee of obtaining essential concessions from Tehran and may even lead to a new round of military conflicts.
According to Bilal Saab, a researcher at Chatham House, the main difference between the two sides is the order of operations; Iran wants to lift the blockade and accept its terms before fully reopening the Strait of Hormuz, while America demands nuclear concessions first.
The experience of maximum pressure in 2019 also showed that economic pressure can be accompanied by security responses and threats to the region's energy infrastructure.
This analysis considers two effective factors in Tehran's resistance; First, the political approach of the Islamic Republic against foreign pressure and secondly, China's economic support and the costs that the continuation of the crisis will cause to the Arab countries in the Persian Gulf. From this perspective, Tehran may imagine that as time goes on, pressure from America's regional allies to end the blockade will increase.
Chatham House sets three paths in the face of the crisis; Continuation of the siege, return to military conflict or a graduated agreement. The author considers the third way to be the best way out of the impasse; An agreement that begins with a mutual reduction of pressures and then comes to nuclear negotiations and the gradual lifting of sanctions.
Details of the report on the World Economy website.
The official channel of Donya Akhtaz newspaper.