Ahmadian: The American blockade is a cover for possible military action against Iran policy

Hassan Ahmadian, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at the University of Tehran, painted a picture of a scene open to the possibilities of escalation between the United States and…Iran In light of the faltering negotiation path and the escalation of pressure tools, the chances of a political solution are declining in favor of the logic of force, which portends more tension in a region that is already experiencing the impact of intertwined crises.

Ahmadian warned, during his intervention in the analytical studio, that any escalation, especially if the blockade turns into a comprehensive measure targeting Iranian oil exports or shipping, will be considered a direct act of war, which will push Iran to respond militarily, in the absence of any other alternatives, as he put it.

He said that recent experiences, including targeting Iranian ships, showed that Tehran is ready to respond, which may prompt Washington to wait temporarily before any new escalation.

In the midst of the continuing escalation between the United States and Iran, Hassan Ahmadian provided a critical reading of the course of the confrontation, considering that what is being proposed by Washington does not rise to the level of real negotiation, but rather falls within the policy of imposing conditions by force.

He stressed that negotiations in their traditional sense are based on the principle of give and take, which, as he put it, is absent from the American proposal that demands comprehensive concessions from Iran without offering anything in return, describing this as closer to a “surrender request” and not an equal negotiating process.

He believed that this approach prevented reaching a joint formula, especially in light of Iran being subjected to military attacks despite its engagement in a negotiating path, which, in his opinion, reflects that the military option is not the last of Washington’s tools, but rather one of its most prominent.

Balances of power

The professor of Middle Eastern studies at the University of Tehran said that the war did not achieve its strategic goals, but rather contributed to undermining the image of the United States as a hegemonic power, noting that Iran’s steadfastness, despite its limited capabilities, reshaped the world’s view of the balance of power, as Washington was no longer seen as the same force that had previously raised fears.

Regarding the negotiation process, Ahmadian explained that Tehran did not reject it in principle, but rather actually participated in negotiating rounds, including meetings in Pakistan, but – according to his account – it was surprised by an American attempt to impose preconditions that went beyond the negotiating framework, which prompted it to retreat.

He added that the military threat, after being used effectively without achieving decisive results, has lost a large part of its impact, despite Washington continuing to brandish it.

As for field developments, especially with regard to sea lanes, the spokesman indicated that the closure… Strait of Hormuz It was not on the table before the outbreak of war, considering that what happened later came in the context of what Tehran describes as defending its national security.

He stressed that the United States, after failing to impose its conditions through negotiation, resorted to new pressure tools, including the blockade, which he believes goes beyond the economic nature to take on a military dimension, and may be used as a cover for possible military action.

In the legal context, Ahmadian criticizes what he describes as American double standards, considering that Washington lacks legal cover for its military operations or blockade measures, while rejecting Iran’s justifications related to managing navigation in times of conflict, pointing out that Tehran sees in its movements a legal basis linked to the conditions of war and its requirements.