What Is Iran’s Endgame in the Strait of Hormuz?

Date: July 9, 2026Author: Ahmad Hashemi0 Comments— Edit

What Is Iran’s Endgame in the Strait of Hormuz?

Realpolitik, by Ahmad Hashemi

Jul 09, 2026

What Is Iran’s Endgame in the Strait of Hormuz?

Ahmad Hashemi

The U.S.–Iran conflict has flared up again in a familiar cycle of escalation. After Iran targeted commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. struck military targets along Iran’s southern coast. Tehran then retaliated by striking the Arab Gulf states hosting those U.S. bases.

While some in Washington might view these rounds of escalation as isolated provocations, Tehran is operating under a calculated strategy.

To comprehend Iran’s endgame, one must grasp the anatomy of its leverage. Tehran’s strategic defense during this conflict rests on three pillars: its proxy network, its nuclear program, and its geographic and physical dominance over the world’s most critical energy chokepoint, the Strait of Hormuz.

Following the devastating military conflicts of 2025 and 2026, the first two pillars have faced immense pressure. The declared nuclear facilities suffered severe damage, leaving the program’s status shrouded in a deliberate policy of “known unknowns” and strategic ambiguity. Meanwhile, though its “Axis of Resistance” proxies—including the Houthis and Hezbollah—remain disruptive, direct military clashes have shown that asymmetric tactics cannot fundamentally stop the U.S. from striking back hard.

Consequently, Tehran has placed its heaviest bet on the Strait of Hormuz. Unlike volatile diplomatic agreements or easily targeted military facilities, the Strait provides Iran with an enforceable, physical piece of leverage that binds its own survival directly to the stability of the global economy. By choking the waterway through which a fifth of the world’s petroleum passes, Iran shifts the costs of its containment away from itself and onto global markets.

This fixation on maritime dominance is born from a bitter history of U.S. diplomacy. The Iranian economy remains in dire straits, yet the regime refuses to trade its regional leverage for sanctions relief. From Tehran’s perspective, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) proved that American promises are highly volatile, dependent on renewable presidential waivers, election cycles, and a hostile Congress that can restore economic punishments with the stroke of a pen.

The Iranian regime believes that easily reversible U.S. concessions cannot justify irreversible Iranian sacrifices. Control over the terms of the global energy trade, however, cannot be erased by a future U.S. election. This is why Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, the Speaker of Iran’s Parliament, recently called the Strait a “divine blessing,” stating that controlling it was Iran’s “greatest means of power.”

Tehran’s immediate strategic objectives in the Strait are both defensive and predatory. On one hand, it serves as a vital deterrent against full-scale foreign intervention—a shield for a regime that lacks a modernized air defense system. On the other hand, it functions as an aggressive bargaining chip to squeeze economic concessions (such as sanctions relief) from an American administration highly sensitive to domestic fuel prices and upcoming midterm elections. Furthermore, it offers a venue for potential revenue extraction via arbitrary “environmental protection fees,” “service fees,” or “transit fees” on passing tankers, while driving a wedge between the Gulf States. By punishing neighbors like the United Arab Emirates for aligning too closely with Israel while preserving a pragmatic détente with a more cautious Saudi Arabia, Iran exploits the strategic fractures of the region.

The fundamental danger for U.S. policymakers lies in a misunderstanding of this logic. The Iranian leadership genuinely believes that the geopolitical genie is out of the bottle; there is no returning to the pre-war maritime status quo in the Strait of Hormuz. For the regime, keeping a firm grip on the Strait signals the erosion of American invincibility and deterrence, while securing what it views as a multi-decade security insurance policy.

This leaves Washington facing a sharp, uncomfortable dilemma. If the primary U.S. priority is to achieve a durable, diplomatic agreement with Iran, policymakers must accept that the rules of the game have fundamentally changed. Tehran will not simply bow to more sanctions pressure or return quietly to past maritime boundaries. If, on the other hand, Washington’s priority is the absolute, immediate restoration of traditional freedom of navigation, it must recognize that the path of diplomacy is effectively dead, at least for the time being. If the U.S. opts to select the military route, the risk of a full regional conflict will spike. The U.S. administration cannot successfully chase both goals at once.

The temporary 14-point Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was rushed through merely to keep diplomacy on life support. It failed to solve the core disputes, including Iran’s highly enriched uranium, the Israeli presence in southern Lebanon, and the status of the Strait of Hormuz. Limited military strikes will not alter Tehran’s calculus; they will only push both sides further from a peaceful settlement.

Iran’s endgame is recognition of its control over the Strait of Hormuz, even at the expense of constant military confrontation with the U.S. This high-stakes gamble carries massive risks, including the complete alienation of its Arab neighbors and the frustration of its vital global backers, Russia and China, whose patience is not infinite. Yet, with no faith in a long-term grand bargain and an identity tethered to an anti-imperialist, anti-American, and anti-Zionist worldview, the regime is entirely unready for a transformational shift that would abandon its ideology to make future conflicts unnecessary.

Considering the Iranian regime’s unchanged nature and its intransigence, Washington can either think the unthinkable by deploying boots on Iranian shores to control the Strait—which comes with an immense risk of escalation and fatalities—or it needs to be ready for a new reality of Iranian control over the strategic waterway. America needs to choose between two not-so-desirable options, but until Washington confronts the reality of Iran’s need for durable maritime leverage, the volatile waters of the Strait of Hormuz will remain at the center of an unavoidable conflict.

#AhmadHashemi

#StraitOfHormuz

#IranVsUS

#Geopolitics

#GlobalEnergy

#MiddleEastConflict

#ForeignPolicy

#StrategicLeverage

#AxisOfResistance

#MaritimeSecurity

#SanctionsRelief

#USForeignPolicy

#ChokepointPolitics

#RegionalDeterrence

#GlobalEconomy

#OilPrices

#InternationalRelations

#MiddleEastNews

#NationalSecurity

#WorldPolitics

#AhmadHashemi

#IslamabadMOU

https://realpolitikbyahmad.substack.com/p/what-is-irans-endgame-in-the-strait

https://ahmadhashemi.net/2026/07/09/what-is-irans-endgame-in-the-strait-of-hormuz/

 

 

For Peace to Prevail, Mutual Recognition Is Needed in Tel Aviv and Tehran

Date: July 7, 2026Author: Ahmad Hashemi0 Comments— Edit

For Peace to Prevail, Mutual Recognition Is Needed in Tel Aviv and Tehran

Realpolitik, by Ahmad Hashemi

Jul 07, 2026

For Peace to Prevail, Mutual Recognition Is Needed in Tel Aviv and Tehran

Ahmad Hashemi

In an effort to forge peace between Israel and Lebanon, the Trump administration has aggressively accelerated its diplomatic maneuvering. These efforts recently culminated in Washington, D.C., where the two nations signed a historic 14-point framework agreement. Yet, despite the fanfare, these piecemeal diplomatic triumphs are fundamentally doomed to fail because the primary barrier to a durable Middle Eastern peace remains unaddressed: Israel’s entrenched occupation and expansionist policies.

Today, the Israeli military continues to kill children in Gaza, assassinate Lebanese people, destroy heritage sites across south Lebanon, and target ordinary Syrians while the regime of Ahmad Sharaa remains accommodating, innocuous, and weak.

Israel justifies the occupation of the entirety of Palestine, parts of Syria, and portions of southern Lebanon through a combination of biblical claims, citing historical “Promised Land” borders in the Torah, and geopolitical security doctrines. Alarmingly, Israel’s thirst for land grabs appears boundless; senior Israeli officials openly discuss the creation of a “Greater Israel” by reconquering biblical lands spanning from the Nile to the Euphrates, while others actively contemplate a war with NATO’s second-largest standing military force, Türkiye, to solidify regional hegemony.

Compounding this instability are the reckless, joint U.S.-Israeli military strikes against Iran carried out in June 2025 and on February 28, 2026. Far from forcing a total surrender or triggering a collapse of the Iranian regime, these interventions achieved the exact opposite: they emboldened Washington’s adversaries and intensified Tehran’s domestic repression, as well as its nuclear and regional ambitions.

These strategic errors make prioritizing comprehensive diplomacy more urgent than ever. President Trump, who frequently touts himself as “the Peace President” worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize, must realize that he cannot earn that title by becoming “the Forever-War President” and repeating the mistakes of his predecessors.

In addition, peace cannot be established in a compartmentalized fashion. For decades, the international community has treated the Middle East as a zero-sum theater where one nation’s security inherently requires another’s destruction. Washington has historically approached these overlapping conflicts through isolated, piecemeal diplomacy—brokering a normalization agreement here, managing a containment strategy there. The periodic explosions of violence are a stark reminder that this fragmented approach does not work, and any comprehensive strategy must recognize that the root cause of regional tensions lies in the Palestinian issue.

If we are to break this cycle of generational violence and trauma, we must simultaneously confront the region’s two most defining standoffs, centered on Iran and Israel. True, lasting peace requires a grand, reciprocal shift in legitimacy: Israel must recognize the State of Palestine, and consequently, Iran must recognize the State of Israel.

To suggest this dual proposition in today’s highly polarized climate sounds like dangerous idealism. However, continuing the current trajectory is a recipe for perpetual warfare. Israel can no longer operate under the illusion that the Palestinian issue can be indefinitely managed behind security walls. Security cannot be built on the permanent disenfranchisement of millions of people living under occupation.

This is not a game of chicken; as the occupying power, Israel bears the responsibility to take the first step and make a concession, not Iran. For Israel to secure its future as a democratic homeland for Christians, Muslims and Jews, it must end the occupation and unconditionally recognize the State of Palestine without further ado. Rather than being a concession, this is an act of self-preservation and a correction of the historic injustice of the Nakba. A viable, sovereign Palestinian state would instantly undermine the narrative of armed resistance, stripping extremist groups of their primary recruitment tools and unlocking full integration for Israel within the Muslim world. To achieve this, Israel—as a settler-colonial project founded on Zionist supremacist ideology—must undergo a transformational change, dismantle its apartheid system, and treat Palestinians as equal human beings worthy of their own state. Ultimately, the only door to lasting peace is the two-state solution.

The ideological implications would be monumental. By establishing an independent Palestine, the regime in Iran would be disarmed of its primary geopolitical narrative. Suddenly, Tehran would find itself in an identity crisis and soul-searching. This, in turn, would pave the way for the Iranian regime, alongside the broader Arab and Muslim worlds, to formally recognize Israel.

The radical regime in Iran, too, needs to do its part by undergoing transformational change. The Palestinian cause remains the most enduring and unifying popular movement across the Muslim world. For over forty years, the Islamic Republic has anchored its identity on leading this cause, funding an “Axis of Resistance” at an immense economic cost to its own citizens, and explicitly denying Israel’s right to exist.

Henry Kissinger famously argued that Iran’s leadership must decide whether it wants to function as a traditional, sovereign “nation” focused on mutual international cooperation and its own national interests, or as a revolutionary “cause” dedicated to ideological crusades and regional destabilization.

The continued occupation of Palestine has long radicalized the Islamic world, and this radicalizing force has deeply influenced the strategic culture in Iran. Yet, the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state would reverse this inclination and facilitate Iran’s transition from a revolutionary “cause” to a “normal” state.

While this transition remains a bumpy road, expediting Iran’s evolution from an ideological cause into a status quo, Westphalian state is key. Ultimately, if Iran formally recognizes Israel within secure, internationally agreed-upon borders, it would dismantle the foundational justification for regional proxy wars.

Achieving mutual recognition is a massive, complex challenge. Skeptics will rightly argue that neither political establishment in Tel Aviv nor Tehran possesses the will for such a paradigm shift.

However, strategic realities are forcing hands. President Trump may have been hyperbolic in his achievements regarding Iran, but he is absolutely right that, in some ways, regime change has already happened there. Recent U.S.-Israeli airstrikes have triggered leadership changes in Iran’s political, military, and clerical ranks, potentially opening the door for new, modernizing MBS-like leaders. Meanwhile, Israel’s upcoming October elections could finally end the hardline tenure of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

President Trump currently possesses the unique coercive leverage to pressure both sides. He is the most pro-Jewish, pro-Israel president in U.S. history and has the legitimacy to pressure Israel to halt its forever wars and put a leash on Israel’s insatiable settler-colonial and expansionist tendencies. Trump has already taken steps in the right direction by establishing the Board of Peace for Gaza, effectively halting the genocide, and demanding a cessation of military operations in Lebanon.

Washington must expand peace efforts across the board. This objective aligns with Iran’s push for a “multifront peace,” which centers on a comprehensive diplomatic strategy to permanently end regional conflict, including hostilities involving proxies like Hezbollah in Lebanon. Remarkably, both the United States and Iran now appear to be on the same page regarding the necessity of a comprehensive, multi-front ceasefire. This synergy provides a rare opportunity for the White House to capitalize on this alignment and permanently abandon its fragmented strategy and adopt a comprehensive approach.

The Trump administration must trade the illusion of total victory over Iran for the hard, necessary compromises of coexistence between Israel, Palestine, Iran, and the Arab states in the region—a long-overdue process that starts with Palestinian statehood. Palestinian freedom translates directly into Israeli security. It is time for Israel to see Palestine, and it is time for Iran to see Israel.

• #AhmadHashemi
• #MutualRecognition
• #TelAvivAndTehran
• #AhmadHashemi
• #MiddleEastPeace
• #GrandBargain

• #TwoStateSolution
• #FreePalestine
• #EndTheOccupation
• #PalestinianStatehood
• #IsraeliSecurity
• #EastJerusalem

• #IranIsrael
• #AxisOfResistance
• #WestphalianState
• #Tehran
• #MiddleEastDiplomacy
• #ComprehensivePeace

• #TrumpForeignPolicy
• #PeacePresident
• #ComprehensiveDiplomacy
• #NoMoreForeverWars
• #BoardOfPeace

• #ForeignPolicy
• #InternationalRelations
• #MiddleEastPolitics
• #Geopolitics
• #PeaceProcess

 Why Iran Must Build the Tallest Trump Tower in the Middle of Tehran

Realpolitik, by Ahmad Hashemi

Jul 02, 2026

---

Why Iran Must Build the Tallest Trump Tower in the Middle of Tehran

Ahmad Hashemi

Foreign policy is a chess match played with cold, calculated strategy, binding treaties, and ideological alignments. But to understand the current trajectory of American foreign relations under Donald Trump, one must throw out the traditional playbook entirely. Trump’s worldview does not operate on geopolitical principles, a rules-based order, or democratic values; it runs on personal connections, architectural vanity, and transactional deals.

Trump has hyperbolically threatened to wipe out the entire Iranian civilization. He has repeated the threat a dozen times, and he has the political will and intent to inflict serious harm by targeting Iran’s civilian infrastructure and population centers. This leaves no room for doubt in Iran that these are not just hyperbolic rhetoric, but rather real threats. If Iran, as a nation-state, wants to survive this menace and neutralize the threat stemming from Trump and Netanyahu, it needs to stop looking at the map of international law and start looking at real estate.

Iran needs to study and act upon Trump’s worst instincts, desires, and cravings—including his drive to monetize his presidency and his thirst for revenge, reward, and praise. However, as a first step toward creating a conducive environment for peace, trade, and business, Iran must allow a gleaming Trump Tower to be built in the middle of Tehran: a tower taller than those in Dubai and Tel Aviv to satisfy Trump’s ego.

At first glance, the proposition sounds entirely absurd, if not deeply offensive, to Tehran, considering that Trump has eliminated senior military, political, and religious leaders in Iran. It wouldn’t be easy to sell such an idea because it was Trump, after all, who pulled the United States out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal and ordered those assassinations. For a regime built on anti-imperialist rhetoric, welcoming the gilded brand of its chief American antagonist into the heart of its capital seems like an impossible ideological pill to swallow.

Yet the regime needs to act from a realpolitik perspective. To protect the country’s civilian infrastructure from future indiscriminate airstrikes, Tehran must make sacrifices, including abandoning policies such as threatening to kill Trump in retaliation for the elimination of senior figures like Qasem Soleimani and Ali Khamenei. Foreign policy requires pragmatism over pride. A closer look at recent history shows that Trump’s political grudges are remarkably malleable when real estate and praise are involved. Look no further than Damascus. Recently, a real estate company proposed a 45-story Trump Tower in the Syrian capital.

Designed as a strategic diplomatic overture to defuse tensions between Washington and Damascus, remove the $10 million bounty on the Syrian leader’s head, and lift U.S. sanctions, the project quickly gained traction, with developers actively seeking building permits and trademark licenses for the Trump name. If Syria—under the newly reconfigured leadership of former al-Qaeda figure turned rebranded statesman Abu Mohammad al-Jawlani (now Ahmad al-Sharaa)—can contemplate a Trump-branded skyscraper to reset relations with Washington, why shouldn’t Iran copy the blueprint?

If Ahmad al-Sharaa, who led an al-Qaeda-affiliated militant group repeatedly targeted by U.S. airstrikes during the Syrian civil war, can let go of old grievances and mend fences with the U.S.—and in return receive sanctions relief, cologne, and compliments from President Trump—why can’t Iran’s leaders replicate the same approach and be rewarded for it?

Trump has consistently shown that he values acquiescence, compliance, and personal rapport with authoritarian rulers over institutional alliances with democracies. He has openly praised authoritarian figures like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping while frequently clashing with the leaders of traditional, democratic American allies in the European Union, Great Britain, and Canada. In the Muslim world, his relationships are anchored by real estate, AI, cryptocurrencies, and other personal networks that have acted as major revenue drivers for the Trump family businesses. His existing towers in Istanbul secure his affinity for Turkey’s all-powerful leader, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and he maintains lucrative relations with the dynastic rulers of the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.

Iranians will be better off with the current repressive regime’s downfall. However, Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are not threats to the regime alone; their unjust wars and indiscriminate airstrikes pose threats to the entire civilization and population of Iran. To defuse this menace, Iran needs to secure diplomatic progress.

Among other things, the mechanism for achieving this diplomatic breakthrough relies on understanding the ecosystem surrounding the presidency. This progress is attainable, as Trump is a deeply transactional leader who responds to the overtures of family and trusted business associates. To make the Tehran project a reality, Iranian intermediaries would need to establish lines of communication with the highly influential figures in Trump’s orbit—whether through corrupt family members like Jared Kushner and Donald Trump Jr., or close billionaire real estate allies like Steven Witkoff. By inviting a Trump-aligned construction conglomerate to break ground on a massive, 100-story luxury skyscraper—poised to be the tallest Trump Tower in the world—Tehran would immediately shift the calculus of American foreign policy.

This could be a once-in-a-generation opportunity for the Iranian people to improve ties with the U.S. The geopolitical return on investment for Iran would be staggering. History suggests that once Trump has a personal, branded stake in a country’s landscape, his willingness to accommodate its strategic ambitions increases exponentially. For the price of a premier piece of Tehran real estate and a massive construction contract, Iran could find a U.S. administration suddenly willing to overlook its regional influence, remove crippling sanctions, or even forgo rigid restrictions on its non-military nuclear program. A president invested in the safety and prestige of a signature property in Tehran is a president highly unlikely to authorize airstrikes against that very city, no matter the amount of pressure from the Israeli lobby.

Ultimately, international relations under a transactional Trump presidency are no longer about changing a nation’s core ideology; they are about understanding how to appease and incentivize the leader at the top. If a Trump Tower in Damascus can be seriously leveraged as a tool to lift sanctions and reset relations with a former al-Qaeda leader, Iran has a golden, high-rise opportunity staring it in the face. By building a monument to Trump’s favorite thing—himself—right in the middle of Tehran, the Iranian regime could achieve through concrete and glass what decades of traditional diplomacy, proxy groups, missiles, and drones failed to secure: a lasting ceasefire via a non-aggression pact with the United States.

· #AhmadHashemi

· #TrumpTowerTehran

· #RealEstateDiplomacy

· #TrumpForeignPolicy

· #TransactionalDiplomacy

· #IranUSRelations

· #IranForeignPolicy

· #MiddleEastGeopolitics

· #TehranSkyscraper

· #USIranRelations

· #SanctionsRelief

· #SyriaBlueprint

· #TrumpAndNetanyahu

· #PragmatismOverPride

· #ConcreteDiplomacy

· #TrumpWorldview

· #GeopoliticalChess

· #TheArtOfTheDealTehran

· #DonaldTrump

· #IranNews

· #ForeignPolicy

· #CurrentAffairs

· #InternationalRelations