When, on 28 February, the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran and caused colossal destruction by obliterating its leadership and military-civilian infrastructure, the world condemned such acts. The U.S. and Israel became the centre of world criticism, with demands that aggression against Iran should be immediately stopped.

The killing of 150 school children by a U.S. bombing in Iran triggered global denunciation. But more than a month after the outbreak of the Iran war, there is a likely paradigm shift in condemnation of U.S.-Israeli aggression against Iran. Now, the world is asking Iran to lift the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and stop attacking Gulf States.

Why is there a shift in placing the onus on ending the Iran war, and why is Tehran being asked by the international community to take measures to de-escalate the war by reopening the Strait of Hormuz? Is Iran losing the high moral ground it achieved because of massive Israeli-U.S. attacks, which killed thousands of people and eliminated its top leadership?

The five-point peace plan presented by China and Pakistan the other day to end the Iran war also calls upon Tehran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Moreover, a few weeks ago, the UN Security Council also passed a resolution calling upon Iran to stop its attacks on Gulf States. Ironically, that resolution, which was also supported by Pakistan, did not condemn U.S.-Israeli aggression against Iran. At that time, Tehran argued that it was from American bases in the Gulf that attacks were carried out against Iran.

If the onus to de-escalate the war in the Gulf is shifting from the United States to Iran, it reflects the economic implications of closing the Strait of Hormuz and the threat of Houthis, an ally of Tehran in Yemen, targeting Bab-el-Mandeb, another choke point on the Red Sea, which is also a key route for oil tankers to the rest of the world.

The Iranian parliament has also decided to impose a toll on ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz, which is a violation of international law. The Strait of Hormuz is an international waterway, and neither can it be blocked in war nor peace, nor can a toll be imposed on ships passing through it. The notion that all is ‘fair in love and war’ does not give Iran the right to control the Strait of Hormuz because, from any standpoint of international law, all ships have a right to use that choke point.

If the Strait of Hormuz is shared by Iran and Oman, then why has Oman not imposed a toll or blockade on that Strait? Controlling international waterways and imposing tolls on ships will set a dangerous precedent.

The U.S. should also be mindful that it has failed to achieve its objectives of regime change or dismantling Iran’s missile and nuclear programme

The U.S. should also be mindful that it has failed to achieve its objectives of regime change or dismantling Iran’s missile and nuclear programme

According to an Al-Jazeera report of 25 March 2026, “the legal regime governing navigation through international straits is set out in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 1982. Under Article 38, ships and aircraft enjoy the right of transit passage through straits used for international navigation.

Article 44 states that coastal states cannot hamper or suspend transit. Although some regional states, including Iran, are not parties to UNCLOS, several of its core provisions reflect international law and are binding on all states.

Even in situations of armed conflict, the law of naval warfare recognises the importance of protecting neutral navigation through international waterways. The 1994 San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, which reflects widely accepted customary principles, stipulates that neutral vessels may continue to transit international straits used for international navigation. The international straits regime predates UNCLOS and is affirmed in international jurisprudence.”

Therefore, according to international law, Iran is not supposed to block the Strait of Hormuz for some countries. The Iranian decision to charge a toll on ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz is also illegal and has no sanction under international law. The example of the Suez or Panama Canal does not apply in the case of the Strait of Hormuz because, unlike the two canals controlled only by Egypt and Panama, the Strait is an international waterway.

Shifting of the onus from America to Iran on de-escalating the Gulf war needs to be analysed from three standpoints. First, neutral countries in the Iran war are unhappy that, because of the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and Tehran’s attacks on the Gulf countries, not only are foreign workers suffering but oil prices are also rising.

Since the U.S. has not yet launched a ground attack on Iran or obliterated its oil refineries and desalination plants, it absolves itself from the escalation of oil and food prices. Hence, the world is now blaming Iran for the economic crisis and its refusal to agree to a ceasefire.

From the Iranian point of view, the United States and Israel crossed the red line on 28 February by eliminating Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other top military leadership. Heavy Israeli and U.S. bombing of Iran’s civilian and industrial infrastructure compelled Tehran to retaliate by launching drone and missile attacks on Israel and American bases in the Gulf. Iran argues that it is a victim of U.S.-Israeli aggression and has a right to retaliate accordingly.

Second, Iran’s attacks on the Gulf States, Jordan, Turkey, and Cyprus have been counterproductive and caused its international isolation. Critics argue that instead of attacking Arab and other states, it should have focused on targeting Israel and American forces deployed in the Persian Gulf and its vicinity.

Now, millions of workers, particularly from Asia and the Middle East, are facing hardships because if the war continues, they will lose their jobs, and remittances may also decline. If Iran is being held responsible for the escalation of the global economic crisis, it can tactically address that matter by opening the Strait of Hormuz and stopping its drone and missile attacks on the Gulf countries.

Furthermore, if Iran is losing the high moral ground it achieved in the initial days of the war, its intransigence in not opening the Strait of Hormuz and continuing its attacks on Gulf states is tantamount to losing popular support, particularly in Muslim countries.

But, in a situation where Iran is facing a do-or-die scenario, can it take the risk of not playing its cards well, particularly regarding the Strait of Hormuz?

Finally, Europe and the West (excluding the U.S.), which had been relatively neutral in the Gulf War, may turn against Iran. If the West joins hands with the U.S. and Israel against Iran, it will cause a major setback to Tehran.

For Iran, it needs to regain its high moral ground in its war with the U.S. and Israel by allowing the Strait of Hormuz to remain open for navigation and stopping its attacks on the Gulf countries. However, Iran should not surrender or acquiesce to Donald Trump’s humiliating conditions.

Shifting the onus in the Iran war back to the U.S. and Israel would require Tehran to actively support the China-Pakistan five-point peace plan without compromising its principles. Iranian demands that its sovereignty be respected, that it should not be attacked again, and that its missile and nuclear programmes must not be dismantled.

Iran has been betrayed by the U.S. twice; in the middle of nuclear talks held in Geneva in June 2025 and February 2026, it was attacked by America. The U.S. should also be mindful that it has failed to achieve its objectives of regime change or dismantling Iran’s missile and nuclear programme.

As far as Pakistan is concerned, its role in the current diplomacy to de-escalate the war is pivotal, but under no condition should it allow the narrative to take root that the U.S., with the help of Pakistan, will invade Iran from its province of Baluchistan. Such an eventuality would have grave ramifications for Pakistan.

© The Friday Times