Will the American naval offensive in Hormuz reshuffle the deck?

The week opened with a new diplomatic back-and-forth and a risk of military escalation between Iran and the United States.

Washington stepped up its pressure on the Islamic Republic, which reacted by firing missiles at... the United Arab Emirates.

At the heart of this new standoff is, once again, the strategic Strait of Hormuz, which the US Navy managed to unblock on Monday, to Tehran's great dismay, by escorting ships into Emirati territorial waters, which were quickly targeted by the Iranian army.

According to various American media sources, the latest Iranian proposal submitted by Tehran for a resumption of talks with Washington was not too bad. But it did not really meet Donald Trump's expectations, especially regarding the nuclear issue, which the Iranians are seeking to postpone as much as possible, and the control exercised by Iran over the Strait of Hormuz, blocked since the beginning of the war.

Moreover, in his comments on Friday and Saturday, the American president had not rejected it. He had only expressed his “dissatisfaction” and considered that the Iranian conditions were not yet “acceptable”.

Amendments to the document were submitted, via the Pakistani mediator, to the Iranians, who are expected to respond during the week.

But pending this response, Trump increased the pressure on Tehran. He announced, with great fanfare on Sunday evening, a military operation dubbed “Project Freedom” aimed at restoring freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

The operation in question consists of helping ships stuck for two months in the Arabian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman to cross “safely”.

This impromptu decision, explained by Trump's exasperation with Iranian stalling, immediately raised tensions in the region. Iran reacted immediately by threatening to attack ships that venture into this passageway that it controls.

Above all, it raises questions about its true motivations, presented by the American president as being of a “humanitarian” nature.

Is Donald Trump seeking to disorient his adversary to push them to engage, without wasting time, in talks according to American conditions? Is he trying to show Tehran, pending the resumption of negotiations in Islamabad, that it has no power over this passageway which falls under international law, at a time when the Islamic Republic imposes a toll on the cargo ships it authorizes to cross?

Is he seeking to drag Tehran into a new war that his Israeli ally is ready to resume? Or is he trying to ease pressure on the markets to initiate a drop in oil prices?

The answer may be the sum of all four.

Oil prices moreover stabilized on Monday on Asian markets, with a barrel of Brent, the global benchmark for crude, at $109.29, far from Thursday's $126.

According to the news site Axios, citing an American official, Donald Trump is mostly fed up with this “neither war nor peace” situation and wants an agreement as quickly as possible with Tehran, without ruling out a major military strike should the Islamic Republic continue to bank on the time factor.

Missile salvos against the UAE

Determined not to be intimidated, Iran reacted with threats that it quickly carried out, without however daring to target American warships directly.

Following the warning from the Iranian military command, which had cautioned that it intends to “target and attack” the US army if it approached the Strait of Hormuz, cruise missiles, rockets, and Iranian combat drones were fired a first time “as a warning” against the Arabian Gulf, supposedly targeting US army frigates.

In a serious development, these shots were however followed by at least three other salvos that targeted different sites in the United Arab Emirates.

The Emirati Ministry of Defense announced that cruise missiles were intercepted “over their territorial waters and Dubai”. Three Indian nationals were injured in a strike that targeted the Fujairah oil site on Monday, where a fire broke out.

The salvos occurred after the US military command for the Middle East (Centcom) announced a first successful naval escort mission.

“Guided-missile destroyers of the US Navy are currently operating in the Gulf after crossing the Strait of Hormuz as part of 'Project Freedom'. US forces are actively contributing to efforts to restore commercial maritime traffic,” the US command for the region wrote on its X account.

“Initially, two commercial vessels flying the American flag successfully crossed the Strait of Hormuz and are continuing their journey,” it specified.

It then went on to promise to react to Iranian attacks “in accordance with the instructions of President Donald Trump”. The latter, for his part, threatened to “wipe Iran off the face of the earth if it strikes American military ships”.

In his war of attrition against Iran, the American president had, however, just scored a new point by depriving Tehran of an important leverage tool, at the risk of triggering a new round of fighting. Donald Trump had warned on Sunday evening, when announcing the “Project Freedom” operation, that he would “deal with by force” any Iranian attempt to disrupt it.

According to Centcom, the operation in question involves guided-missile destroyers, over a hundred aircraft, and 15,000 soldiers.

It remains to be seen how the Iranians will react over the coming days to this new American challenge, which has elicited mixed reactions on a European scale.

French President Emmanuel Macron expressed his skepticism, considering that the framework of the American operation “is not clear” and that the reopening of the strait should be the result of a “concerted decision between Iran and the United States”.

Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer judged that the reopening of this maritime passage represents a “vital economic priority” but remained reserved regarding the “Project Freedom” operation.

And in Lebanon?

In Lebanon, a showdown of a completely different kind continues to unfold, against the backdrop of upcoming direct negotiations between Beirut and Tel Aviv.

Washington remains determined to accelerate this process meant to put an end to the war, which for now remains limited to southern Lebanon, between Israel and Hezbollah, and to settle for good the obstacle that this group, completely subservient to Iran, represents for the restoration of Lebanese sovereignty.

The United States Ambassador to Lebanon, Michel Issa, met with President Joseph Aoun to encourage him to move forward in this process and to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington. “An opportunity to present his country's demands to him,” he argued during the press conference that followed the meeting.

According to him, such a meeting would be “neither a loss nor a concession for Lebanon”.

“Is Benjamin Netanyahu a bogeyman? He is merely a stakeholder in the negotiations,” he declared, before announcing that he also intends to visit the Speaker of Parliament, Nabih Berri.

The ambassador's move earned him an outcry from Hezbollah, which called on the authorities to declare him persona non grata.

But the head of state is standing his ground. Joseph Aoun reaffirmed in a statement published by his press office that a meeting with Netanyahu remains “inopportune” for the time being. According to him, the priority goes to a security agreement and the cessation of Israeli attacks on Lebanon.

In southern Lebanon, exchanges of fire between Hezbollah and Israeli forces were raging on Monday.

The pro-Iranian group launched a massive salvo of rockets against northern Israel late in the day and announced hand-to-hand combat with Israeli soldiers in an area between Deir Seriane and Zawtar al-Charkieh, while its leader, Naim Qassem, once again denounced Israeli military operations in the south of the country in a statement and reiterated his opposition to direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel.

While he said he was in favor of a diplomatic solution, he deemed that the talks should be indirect, which would in practical terms allow his group to have a say in the process, as had been the case during the indirect negotiations for the demarcation of maritime borders with Israel. These had been led, as is known, by his ally, the Speaker of Parliament, Nabih Berri.

Naim Qassem, whose group had decided to attack Israel to avenge the death of the Iranian supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, killed in a targeted Israeli strike, thus estimated that “it is Lebanon that is being attacked and that needs guarantees for its security and sovereignty”.