When news broke of renewed US strikes on the Strait of Hormuz, a funeral procession in Tehran quickly morphed into a political protest. The US strikes came in response to prior attacks by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards on vessels in the same strategic waterway, though many in the crowds appeared unaware of those attacks.
Draped in black and carrying red flags, millions of mourners thronged the city centre for the farewell to their slain leader and his family. While black signifies grief, the dominant red banners evoked martyrdom and blood, amplifying calls for vengeance over the February 28 assassination carried out by the US and Israel.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was buried in a week-long funeral ceremony as Iran conveyed messages of national unity and resilience to the West. For a country that has emerged from two wars in less than a year, organising such funeral proceedings in five cities and two countries (Iran and Iraq) was an impressive feat. The organised demonstrations and a barrage of messaging were also used to create a narrative among supporters of the Iranian government, which has been in power since the 1979 revolution.
‘We must rise’, the official slogan used for the ceremonies, was visible on banners and images displayed by mourners in Iran. A giant statue of a clenched fist was built in a few days over Enqelab (Revolution) Square, the ‘fist of defiance’, a message that the Islamic Republic cannot be defeated. “The US and Israel wanted to dislodge Iran’s government. Trump and Netanyahu should now see the sea of people on the roads. They are not for an uprising; they stand united”, an elderly mourner and staunch backer of the state, Ali Mehdi, told me.
Among the Iranians I spoke to, distrust of Washington was palpable. “We Iranians cannot trust America”, another mourner, Kazim Abbas, told me. “We knew America would attack again. We were at the negotiating table when it imposed war on us. Now they strike just days after signing a peace agreement. We won’t be fooled again; we have our hands on the trigger”. Kazim’s cousin, who was also attending the funeral, interrupted him: “It comes down to this…Iran’s control over the strait has proven a more effective lever than any nuclear weapon. Now Trump has forgotten about Iran’s nuclear issue and just wants control of the strait”.
The mood on the streets mirrored Tehran’s increasingly assertive posture in controlling the strait. Iran now asserts full legal and sovereign authority over the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly a fifth of the world’s oil and gas transits, framing its presence as legitimate ‘guardianship’. Tehran has also targeted vessels navigating the southern route off Oman’s coast, preventing a parallel transit corridor that could erode its bargaining power before any final deal is struck. The US Navy has reinstated its blockade, aiming to punish Tehran, weaken its grip on the strait, and restore the pre-war status quo. US forces have also launched strikes on Iran’s power structure. Iran, in what it calls retaliation, has launched attacks against US military bases in Bahrain, Kuwait, and Qatar, while the Houthis of Yemen have threatened to close the Bab al-Mandab port in the Red Sea. The conflict threatens to widen.
The ensuing tit-for-tat military clashes have not only shattered the fragile peace across the Gulf but also put the interim peace agreement on life support. That agreement was painstakingly negotiated over four months of diplomatic efforts led by Pakistan.
For Washington, the immediate priorities are reopening the strait and securing unobstructed global supply lines for oil, gas, fertilisers and other materials. President Trump initially countered by asserting US responsibility over the waterway, proposing a 20 per cent fee on all transiting vessels. Within a day, he pulled a sharp U-turn, replacing the fee with pledges of “trade and investment deals” with Gulf states, reflecting how lost he is in his own war. The US decision, though reversed, damaged America’s principled stance on toll-free vessel traffic.
In the MoU, the US conceded that Iran would restore freedom of navigation without charge “for 60 days only”, and that Iran and Oman would “define the future administration and maritime services” in relation to the strait. The MoU safeguards the interests of other Gulf states but also emphasises the “sovereign rights of coastal states in the Strait of Hormuz”. Iran might be forgiven for thinking that by agreeing to this language, the US had caved to its demand for control over the Strait.
While Iran’s recent aggressive posturing resonates widely, a minority does acknowledge that Tehran’s fragile economy would be better served by a peace agreement than by yet another military confrontation. With inflation spiralling over 70 per cent, rising unemployment and a youth-majority population, Iran signed the peace agreement because it is in a deep economic hole and needs a degree of reprieve. It desperately wants the unfreezing of its accounts, the release of over $100 billion, and the lifting of economic sanctions.
Thirty days of the two-month ceasefire have already passed. Neither Iran nor the US have discussed the nuclear issue. The end of Israeli hostilities in Lebanon and the end of Iran’s retaliatory attacks against Gulf countries have not been achieved. For Iran, the MoU was a test of whether the US could rein in Netanyahu. For the US, the goal was for Iran to become nuclear-free. For the Gulf countries, whose economic lifeblood flows through the Strait of Hormuz, the stakes are existential. But the U.S. continues its attacks on Iran. Iran targets US military bases in the Gulf with missiles and drones. When America and Iran agreed on a ceasefire, the UN’s International Maritime Organization (IMO) reportedly announced plans to move trapped ships and over 10,000 seafarers out of the Strait of Hormuz. Over 100 of the 600 trapped ships managed to get out, but a few days later, a vessel was attacked and the operation ground to a halt. The strategic international waterway has been effectively closed by Iran since the US and Israel attacked Iran in February and later by the U.S. naval blockade.
Is Iran overusing the card of closing the strait? Iran’s stakes are high; it cannot afford to lose an opportunity to exit decades-long global isolation and strengthen its fragile economy. Yet the strait remains a double-edged sword: any severe disruption to global energy markets would inevitably rebound on Iran’s own beleaguered economy.
“It is (the strait) not dots on a map for us. It is our economic lifeline for generations. It has saved us since the Western world imposed sanctions against us. It’s more precious than our own lives. America cannot have its control”, says an emotionally charged Ali Mehdi. “They did not embrace martyrdom for us to make compromises”, he adds, pointing to the coffins.
Washington’s aggressive posture is steadily eroding its diplomatic standing, undermining the “strategic victory” it claimed from the recent conflict and exposing it to serious blowback. Conversely, Tehran’s tendency to weaponise the strait, wielding it like a nuclear trump card, threatens to undo its recent gains while igniting a broader regional fire across the Arab world.
The writer is a leading Pakistani journalist and analyst with expertise on South Asia and the Middle East. He tweets/posts @OwaisTohid and can be reached at: [email protected]
