Jolyon@jolyon

متابعة

U.S. Iran tanker for tanker conflict

The real danger with the new U.S. approach to the Iran conflict might not be escalation but permanence. Washington has shifted to a policy where an Iranian attack on a commercial vessel in the Strait of Hormuz triggers a strike on an Iranian tanker. And they've already put that into practice, hitting two government-owned tankers in port this week. It's the first time the U.S. has gone after Iranian ships as payback for attacks on shipping rather than to enforce a blockade. The big clashes from earlier have faded into something much narrower, mostly around Hormuz. There's no heavy bombing campaign or rush to change the regime in Tehran. Instead, both sides seem to be crafting rules for a war that could go on indefinitely, and neither wants to end it. The core issue hasn't gone away: Washington needs the strait open for shipping, while Tehran just has to show it can make it dangerous. Traffic through the strait is still way below normal, and the IRGC has warned they'll 'tighten the lock' after the latest strikes. So the conflict might be cooling down in intensity at the same time it's becoming more entrenched. That's the catch with a tanker-for-tanker policy. It doesn't offer a way out, it just sets the terms for staying in.

2w

Jolyon@jolyon

متابعة

U.S. Iran tanker for tanker conflict

The real danger with the new U.S. approach to the Iran conflict might not be escalation but permanence. Washington has shifted to a policy where an Iranian attack on a commercial vessel in the Strait of Hormuz triggers a strike on an Iranian tanker. And they've already put that into practice, hitting two government-owned tankers in port this week. It's the first time the U.S. has gone after Iranian ships as payback for attacks on shipping rather than to enforce a blockade. The big clashes from earlier have faded into something much narrower, mostly around Hormuz. There's no heavy bombing campaign or rush to change the regime in Tehran. Instead, both sides seem to be crafting rules for a war that could go on indefinitely, and neither wants to end it. The core issue hasn't gone away: Washington needs the strait open for shipping, while Tehran just has to show it can make it dangerous. Traffic through the strait is still way below normal, and the IRGC has warned they'll 'tighten the lock' after the latest strikes. So the conflict might be cooling down in intensity at the same time it's becoming more entrenched. That's the catch with a tanker-for-tanker policy. It doesn't offer a way out, it just sets the terms for staying in.

2w