Expert: War is a renegotiation over the strait

The conflict between the United States and Iran has recently escalated with intensified attacks, yet both sides continue to signal that limitations exist and a return to an agreement is desired. Middle East expert Aron Lund from the Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI) suggests that the probability of a full-scale war is lower than the parties wish to portray.

“

We had different interpretations of what had been agreed upon. Iran interpreted the agreement as the strait would be opened, albeit under Iranian control. The US believes it has the right to open its own route.

Lund explains that both sides operate under the assumption that the other is lying, and their leaders employ highly charged rhetoric. However, he notes that outright fighting to the bitter end is rare. The recent understanding reached between the US and Iran in mid-June is described as overarching and vague, with the Strait of Hormuz emerging as a significant point of divergence.

"We had different interpretations of what had been agreed upon," Lund stated. "Iran interpreted the agreement as the strait would be opened, albeit under Iranian control. The US believes it has the right to open its own route." Iran has been accused of three ship attacks in the Persian Gulf in early July. U.S. President Trump rejected the ceasefire, and airstrikes resumed.

“

The Iranian position is fundamentally illegal. You cannot shoot at civilian shipping. That said, it is surprising that the US, Arab countries, and even European leaders seem to have been caught off guard by the Iranian stance on Hormuz.

"The Iranian position is fundamentally illegal. You cannot shoot at civilian shipping," Lund commented. "That said, it is surprising that the US, Arab countries, and even European leaders seem to have been caught off guard by the Iranian stance on Hormuz." Despite the seemingly chaotic nature of the conflict, Lund asserts that both sides are calculating. "Both sides envision an agreement. But the other side must be weakened – and convinced to participate." Threats are used as leverage until one side is unbalanced in the power struggle. For the US, this primarily involves expanded air campaigns and potential Israeli involvement. For Iran, it centers on oil prices and regional attacks supported by the Houthi movement and Hezbollah.

“

Both sides envision an agreement. But the other side must be weakened – and convinced to participate.

"It could take time, it could go wrong. But in practice, a renegotiation of the terms initially agreed upon is underway," Aron Lund concluded. The initial understanding involved a 60-day ceasefire and negotiations for a peace solution, with 14 points including cessation of hostilities, ensuring Lebanon's territorial integrity, the US beginning to dismantle its naval blockade of Iran, and the resumption of Iranian oil exports. Iran also agreed to facilitate trade traffic through the Strait of Hormuz for 60 days, including mine clearance, and reiterated its pledge not to acquire nuclear weapons.

“

It could take time, it could go wrong. But in practice, a renegotiation of the terms initially agreed upon is underway.