Summary

Trump’s Project Freedom won’t undo an oil stranglehold created by the US Editorial: Regardless of the president’s latest effort to break Iran’s blockade, freedom of movement won’t be returning to the Strait of Hormuz any time soon Every discussion about the war in the Persian Gulf should include a reminder that the Strait of Hormuz was open and entirely unblockaded before Israel and the United States attacked Iran. Had Donald Trump not decided to join Benjamin Netanyahu’s campaign, we would not now be contemplating a global energy crisis, shortages of food and medicines, and widespread economic recession. Two months in, and the world is poorer and less safe as a result of that decision. Notwithstanding Iran’s unlawful seizure of the channel, some accountability is needed. Framed in that context, Project Freedom – Mr Trump’s audacious new plan to escort “innocent bystander” ships through the blockaded shipping lane – is an elaborate and costly exercise to solve a problem that didn’t exist only a few weeks ago. Freeing the strait from the stranglehold that a combination of war and geography has allowed the Iranians to exert has become the most urgent task in the world, and one that even the mighty United States Navy – the world’s biggest naval force – may find beyond its capabilities. The relatively good news is that Mr Trump’s armada has had some success. The Alliance Fairfax, a US-flagged vehicle carrier operated by Maersk, which had been captive in the strait since the end of February, has now completed its journey through the waterway without incident, and with all crew members unharmed. That is some relief – and has helped to establish “proof of concept”, allowing the Pentagon to say that the exercise has worked. The vessel wasn’t attacked by the Iranians to any great effect (President Trump claims that half a dozen armed Iranian speedboats were destroyed before they could do any harm), and it obviously avoided any marine mines. For this, the US forces should be congratulated. It is in nobody’s interest for Iran to be allowed to break international law, take seafarers hostage and hold the global economy to ransom. Yet it is also difficult to see how this initial success can be radically scaled up so that the usual volume of traffic – transporting some 20 per cent of the world’s oil and gas – can be quickly resumed. The strait remains hazardous and is probably mined, and unarmed tankers and container ships are extremely vulnerable. Nor is it immediately obvious how the Americans can commit such a large proportion of their power to protecting all civilian shipping in the strait indefinitely. The Iranians have retaliated by bombing another civilian vessel and then the UAE’s Fujairah oil port and depot, disrupting an alternative route that bypasses the strait. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps retains much of its stocks of drones and light attack boats. The Iranians will not give in to US demands voluntarily, and the danger is that they may well now break the ceasefire openly and re-escalate the conflict with more attacks on their Gulf neighbours, and ships in the strait, which are mostly defenceless. Tehran has declared that the ceasefire has been broken by the latest US action, while President Trump insists that the Iranian regime hasn’t put forward anyone he can negotiate with. Peace talks in Islamabad, brokered by the Pakistani government, have collapsed. Freedom of movement in the Strait of Hormuz seems as far away as ever. Even if Project Freedom does get more traffic flowing through this vital waterway, it is not a long-term, stable solution that restores the status quo ante. The answer to the challenge posed by a militant Iran remains the same, and just as it was before this futile war began – a diplomatic solution. In some respects, that will now be more difficult, simply because of what the war has done to already hostile relations; but the economic pressures on both sides should also push both towards reaching a deal. It is clear now that a purely military solution is neither practical nor desirable, and that the Islamic Republic is not going to conveniently collapse and be replaced by a more pliable government. An agreement of some sort has to be found, because neither side can “win” this war of attrition – but the fighting may well grow more intense before the sides find a way to bow to the inevitable. Join our commenting forum Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their repliesComments