Commentary. The latest crisis around the Iran war is being described in the familiar language of deterrence, leverage and military pressure. That vocabulary has its place. Governments have a duty to protect civilians, shipping and national security. But the continuing confrontation—and the apparent impasse over reopening the Strait of Hormuz—should force a less comfortable conclusion: force can create temporary access, but it cannot create a stable political settlement.
Iran’s foreign minister has argued that there is no military solution to the conflict, while talks remain stalled.[1] That statement should not be accepted uncritically. Tehran is a participant in the crisis, and its leaders have every incentive to portray negotiations as the only respectable path while resisting concessions. Yet dismissing the argument because it comes from Iran would be a strategic mistake. The question is not whether Iran deserves trust. It is whether military escalation can plausibly deliver the security and predictability that the region—and the global economy—needs.
The answer, in our view, is no.
A chokepoint is not a battlefield objective
The Strait of Hormuz is more than a strategic map symbol. It is a vital route for energy and global commerce. Threats to its reopening have already heightened fears of humanitarian suffering, broader regional instability and disruption to trade.[4] Every additional day of uncertainty raises costs well beyond the countries exchanging fire: insurers, importers, food producers and households eventually absorb the risk premium.
A military operation might suppress attacks or secure a corridor for a period. It could also produce the opposite result. Civilian infrastructure could be damaged, retaliation could widen the war, and commercial operators could remain unwilling to sail through an area where the political rules are unresolved. A passage cleared by force is not necessarily a passage made safe.
The counterargument deserves respect. Negotiations can be exploited to buy time, divide allies or preserve military capabilities. A government that has repeatedly threatened shipping cannot reasonably demand that other states simply wait. International actors may therefore need defensive deployments, convoy protection and targeted measures to deter attacks. Restraint is not the same as disarmament, and diplomacy without credible pressure can become theatre.
Pressure must have an exit
That is precisely why military pressure should serve a defined diplomatic objective rather than substitute for one. The United States and its partners should state publicly what would end the campaign: verifiable protection for commercial shipping, limits on attacks, access for humanitarian supplies and a monitored process for de-escalation. Without such terms, each operation risks becoming its own justification for the next.
The international community should also separate accountability from collective punishment. Sanctions and prosecutions may be warranted for attacks on civilians or shipping, but broad measures that deepen shortages and weaken ordinary people can make compromise politically impossible. The United Nations secretary-general has called for an end to the war as its effects spread through trade and the region.[4] That appeal is not naïve; it recognizes that humanitarian harm is not an accidental side effect when it becomes the mechanism through which policy is pursued.
There is a further lesson for newsrooms and governments alike. In a crisis, the most dramatic development is often a strike, a threat or a market spike. The less visible work—verification, mediation, prisoner arrangements, shipping guarantees and humanitarian access—rarely produces compelling footage. But those are the instruments that turn a pause in violence into a settlement.
The measure of success
Success should not be defined as whether one side appears dominant after the next exchange. It should be measured by whether ships can move without coercion, civilians can obtain necessities, and the parties have fewer incentives to resume fighting. That requires a negotiated framework involving regional states, international monitors and the commercial actors whose vessels carry the consequences of political decisions.
Iran must answer for its conduct, and other governments must acknowledge their own responsibility for escalation. A durable agreement will not emerge from moral symmetry or from pretending that every action is equivalent. It will emerge from the harder recognition that security arrangements endure only when they address the interests—and constrain the abuses—of all relevant powers.
Our position is therefore straightforward: protect navigation, defend civilians and retain the capacity to deter further attacks, but make diplomacy the central instrument of policy. The Strait of Hormuz should not become another proof that military power can open a door while leaving everyone trapped in the same room.