LONDON - The Iranian response to the United States has so far included all the principles that cannot be compromised. It focuses decisively on Iran’s rights, which it says are non-negotiable. The response emphasizes the key points that must be part of any agreement, namely three fundamental issues: Firstly, Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz as part of its geography, considering it a right that cannot be compromised, along with establishing mechanisms to regulate ship passage.

Second, including Iran’s allies in any agreement, with Iran and its allies considered one entity and any violation in the region would constitute a breach of the agreement. Third, affirming Iran’s nuclear rights guaranteed under international law and by the International Atomic Energy Agency, through its participation in and signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This includes the resulting rights to uranium enrichment under international supervision, and that the right to enrichment is non-negotiable.

As for the remaining nuclear-related issues, they can be discussed, and Iran may offer certain compromises in that regard. The other issues that the United States considered objectives and causes for war have failed to be achieved, and Iran considers them outside the framework of negotiations, such as hypersonic ballistic defense capabilities, or what is described as Iran’s regional influence through its relations with allies.

The American position in response to Iran’s reply has been awkward and constrained, and it may have only limited weak options. Firstly, the American blockade against Iran in the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea cannot be comprehensive or complete. Secondly, it cannot be permanent or sustainable. Thirdly, it encourages the creation of land alternatives and routes through the Caspian Sea, including trade via Iran’s extensive borders with many neighboring countries.

Therefore, the naval blockade imposed by America cannot be highly effective. Iran has become accustomed to dealing with different kinds of sanctions and has gained extensive experience in overcoming them. Additionally, an important point is that all the strength Iran has achieved has come because of sanctions. Self-sufficiency in utilizing its resources and productive capacities, including food, medicine, defense, and services, was achieved under the harshest sanctions. In fact, it became a driving force for creating alternatives and strengthening sovereignty.

Iran therefore sees the current naval blockade as an opportunity to strengthen its internal and external trade movement.
Especially considering that this war has given Iran increased external credibility as the only power willing to fight fiercely in defense of its interests, and the only one that stood against American hegemony and struck back when attacked.

In addition, the war provided an opportunity for asserting sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz and bringing this strategic card openly into use. It has done so in a way that has weakened America’s grip and its ability to pressure countries and companies into complying with US sanctions, under the threat of penalties. In reality, the damage those countries and companies could suffer if they became involved in blockading Iran would be greater than the consequences of not complying. This is another important card in Iran’s hands.

Therefore Iran is stronger, more credible, and possesses the tools to defend itself.
The most important pressure point is that of the global economy, rising energy prices, transport costs, fertilizer prices, and the resulting inflation worldwide, inevitably creating pressure to find a solution.

If the military option has failed, it is unlikely the Americans will consider another major military solution, except for limited operations that would provoke responses beyond the level America intends for such strikes.
This could lead to greater attacks on American interests and those of the Israeli occupation entity, potentially threatening the complete withdrawal of the American presence from the region.

This would greatly strengthen Iran’s regional role and place countries protected by American military bases in a very fragile position. It would also increase Iran’s moral authority through the independent path it takes, serving as a model that inspires peoples to break free from American dominance and from their rulers. It also weakens those regimes and threatens their survival.

This reality is recognized by many countries, including European states that did not directly participate in this war, even though their interests are heavily affected by it and by imports from the Persian Gulf region, which were disrupted to the point of stoppage during the war. The same applies to China and other countries affected by the closure of the Strait and the American blockade being imposed on Iran.

European countries led by France and Britain have tried to send military forces, including the French nuclear aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle and the British destroyer HMS Dragon. In addition, they have tried to gather a coalition of up to 40 countries to deploy in the region, under the pretext of clearing mines and escorting ships exiting the Strait. This is not a war mission or an entry into the American confrontation. What America failed to achieve despite all its destructive capabilities, cannot be achieved by Europe or any other power in the world.

Rather, the Europeans wish to say: ‘we are present,’ send reassurance messages to Persian Gulf countries, and wait to see how the war develops. However, this presence increases tensions, as the Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister stated that this militarization of the Persian Gulf raises the risk of confrontation. But those who did not intervene at the beginning of the war will not intervene now, after the results showed Iran’s ability to respond and America’s inability to reopen the Strait. Western countries will not throw themselves into a conflict to forcibly reopen the Strait, which is considered impossible.

Where can things go from here? From now until an agreement is reached, which is considered inevitable, global pressure and economic suffocation will increase because of disrupted supply lines and supply chains in the Persian Gulf, along with rising costs of energy, transport, food, and services. America may continue symbolic moves, such as attempting to enable ships to enter or exit the Strait of Hormuz, arranging symbolic ship departures, issuing rhetorical threats about striking infrastructure, occupying islands, or seizing Kharg Island and oil facilities.

There is a small possibility of such attempts, but they would fail with heavy losses. This would not be in America’s interest, and ultimately matters must end with an agreement according to the conditions set by Iran.