By Abdulrahman Al-Rashed

Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz was a predictable possibility, present in every potential war scenario. There was a precedent for its closure in the 1980s, when Iran planted mines, targeted ships and threatened maritime traffic. Known as the “Tanker War,” Iran used missiles and speedboats. This war is historically significant because Iran caused and brought about foreign naval intervention, establishing a permanent American military presence in the Gulf. Before Iran’s attacks on maritime transport, the Americans did not have bases or warships in the Gulf.

The first battle came at the height of the Iran-Iraq war. At the time, Iraq was also attacking Iranian oil tankers. Tehran not only attacked Iraqi naval forces but also the naval vessels of Gulf countries, just as it attacks its Gulf neighbors today.

When the US navy’s Fifth Fleet entered the region, an American warship was hit by an Iranian naval mine. That incident changed the rules of engagement, as the US became an active party in the crisis, and naval battles ensued for the first time since the Second World War. Iran targeted Kuwait’s oil tankers and struck Gulf maritime installations, so Kuwait requested support and American flags were raised on the tankers, which were escorted by American naval vessels. With the internationalization of the war, Iran’s naval military capabilities and oil platforms were destroyed.

That was an important round of fighting that later concluded the long war with Iran’s defeat and acceptance of a ceasefire. Today’s war is a continuation of a series of wars and clashes since the 1980s that express Iran’s intentions and policies.

Among the five negotiating conditions that Iran is said to have put forward through Pakistan is a demand for the removal of American military bases from the region. This unrealistic condition was in response to a list of 15 American conditions, which, although not confirmed by the White House, appear consistent with official statements.

To stop the war, Washington requires Iran to abandon its offensive military capabilities, such as programs, systems and stockpiles, and adopt an implementation mechanism. If Iran were to accept this, talk of removing the US bases would become plausible, as they were primarily established to counter Iranian threats — despite the lies of conspiracy theory propaganda that claim the bases have hidden motives relating to seizing the Gulf and the region.

Trust in the Iranian regime is lacking and it would be difficult to build the kind of trust that would allow for America to abandon its bases, at least in the foreseeable future. The regime may yet change its policies in a positive way, or it could change altogether, but that is another matter that would then require a review of strategies to confront the Iranian threat.

Talking about the future is left for when circumstances change, but today we are living in ancient history. The war of closing the Strait of Hormuz is a repeat of the Tanker War in the 1980s, which confirms the difficulty of trusting the Iranian regime. The situation is replicating itself despite changes in the players, the oil market and the passage of nearly half a century. That war was between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Ayatollah Khomeini’s Iran; today, it is between Israel and Iran. Oil and gas were and still are strategic commodities for the world’s economy.

The Iran of the 1980s is the Iran of today, spreading chaos and terrorism. Its regime is the last rogue state standing, after Saddam, Muammar Qaddafi and Bashar Assad were eliminated.

However, the regime, although it seems cohesive and still on its feet in the current war, is not the same one that fought the eight-year war and the Tanker War; at that time, it was in its prime and at the peak of its popularity. Today, it is old and has lost its popularity, especially among the young generations, who are aware of its policies and reject the squandering of their country’s wealth on wars in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Africa and South America.

The Strait of Hormuz is a passage that is no longer an American matter but primarily concerns China, India, South Korea and Japan, whose economies depend on it. In the future, these importing countries will find themselves forced to protect their ships from Tehran’s policy of using the strait and its installations as a weapon against its neighbors. The economies of the “new” global powers are now in danger as a result of Iran’s aggressive tendencies.

The US is the main combatant this time, but it will not defend the interests of these countries later, as President Donald Trump has said. Tehran has used the strait as leverage against the Gulf countries, as well as against its partners, such as China and India.

Regionally, Iran is an undeniable military power and this is one of the reasons for the outbreak of the preemptive war to stop the growth of its nuclear and missile capabilities. Its factories produce thousands of missiles and drones that were not a commercial business but a political project aimed at destabilizing the region.

The war has revealed that Iran was planning to use its arsenal in its expansionist project, whose frantic destructive activity we see in the strikes against six Gulf countries, Iraq and Jordan, as well as reaching the Indian Ocean and Mediterranean Sea, in addition to its militias in Yemen, Lebanon and Iraq. Intentions are reflected by actions, not words.

If Iran pledges and commits that it will not return to developing its aggressive military capabilities, the American, British and French bases would leave because they are a result of Iranian threats — and Iranian threats are not a response to their presence.

Abdulrahman Al-Rashed is a Saudi journalist and intellectual. He is the former general manager of Al-Arabiya news channel and former editor-in-chief of Asharq Al-Awsat, where this article was originally published. X: @aalrashed

© Eurasia Review