Siege, economic pressure at core of U.S.–Iran conflict

Media outlets this morning highlighted how siege and economic pressure are being utilized in the U.S.–Iran conflict, as well as the role of the Strait of Hormuz in global energy equations.

Conflicts and the Formation of Strategies

In this regard, Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper noted that strategies are not formulated in times of calm, but rather take shape amid crises, when states come to recognize the limits of military power.

It pointed out that the U.S.–Iran conflict has revealed a significant shift in confrontation tools, with economic sanctions and financial isolation becoming more influential and less costly than full-scale wars, due to their capacity to cause internal exhaustion that restricts the opponent’s options and pushes them toward negotiation.

At the same time, Iran possesses influential pressure cards, most notably its position over the Strait of Hormuz, which represents a vital artery for global energy supplies, granting it the ability to influence international markets and impose unconventional deterrence equations.

Mitigating the Strait of Hormuz Crisis and the United States as the Biggest Beneficiary

For its part, Independent Arabia examined the repercussions of tensions in the Strait of Hormuz on oil markets, noting that the world has moved toward strategies aimed at mitigating the crisis rather than finding real alternatives to this vital passage.

It explained that producing countries have resorted to logistical solutions such as pipelines and strategic reserves to compensate for part of the supplies, while rising prices have led to a relative balance between supply and demand. It also noted that the United States has emerged as one of the main beneficiaries of the crisis by increasing its exports of oil and gas, in contrast to significant losses for Gulf countries and Asian economies dependent on energy.

Iran War: The Gap Between Political and Military Victory

Meanwhile, An-Nahar newspaper focused on the gap between military achievement and political outcome in war, arguing that the Iranian case clearly reflects this disparity. Despite the military superiority achieved by the United States and its allies, this has not translated into a political resolution or Iranian surrender.

It added that Tehran has relied on long-term strategies, including strengthening its internal structure and preparing for unconventional warfare, alongside leveraging media and propaganda to reinforce an image of resilience. In contrast, Washington may have achieved partial objectives, such as weakening Iran’s nuclear and military capabilities, without reaching definitive political results.

A-H 

ANHA