Ansar Allah Website. Report | Yahya Al-Shami
(Analysis based on reports from: Goldman Sachs, the International Energy Agency, BBC, New York Times, Reuters, CNBC, Al Jazeera, Bloomberg, RAND Corporation, and Quinnipiac University)
The US is trying to escape its predicament only to sink deeper, dragging the world down with it into its madness, from military failures to diplomatic setbacks to economic and maritime blockades. Meanwhile, Tehran is reinforcing its principled approach to defense: security for all or no security for anyone in the face of American bullying.
While Trump is betting that economic strangulation through the militarization of the Strait of Hormuz and the blockade of Iranian ports might achieve what bombs failed to accomplish, circles in Washington describe the move as the desperate grasp of a wrestler who is clearly failing and is swallowing the bitter pill of the predicament Iran is meticulously crafting. Every time Trump tries to extricaا himself, he finds himself entangled in it. Iran's response, poised for escalation and ready to meet the threat with preparedness, was swift. Iran—accustomed to living under sanctions—did not merely dismiss American threats as "empty rhetoric," but rather formulated a new rule of engagement. Khatam al-Anbiya Central Command clarified its position: "The security of ports and navigation in the Gulf and the Sea of Oman... is either for everyone, or for no one."
Tehran affirms that it will implement a permanent mechanism to control the Strait of Hormuz, in a clear and firm equation: enemy ships have no right to pass through, and international navigation is conditional on compliance with Iranian regulations. Washington's blockade, in Tehran's view, is nothing but "maritime piracy" that will be met with national security regulations that are not open to compromise.
On Sunday, US President Donald Trump announced—via a post on his social media account—the start of a naval blockade on Iranian ports and the Strait of Hormuz. The decision went into effect on Monday. US Central Command confirmed that the navy would intercept any ships attempting to enter or leave Iranian ports, with explicit threats to fire on any Iranian vessels that approach.
This move, which followed the failure of marathon negotiations in Islamabad last weekend, adds a new layer of escalation to the ongoing US-Israeli aggression that began on February 28, 2016. Whether through Iranian shrewdness or American folly, this escalation strengthens Iran's ability to leverage its power and weakens the US, which it perceived as a source of strength in its pressure campaign against Iran.
US Attempt to Force Iranian Surrender:
The tension was quickly reflected in global energy markets. Brent crude jumped by more than 7% to settle near $10,175 a barrel after touching $104. West Texas Intermediate crude rose by more than 7%, surpassing $103 and reaching $10,424 at times. This sharp jump brings prices back to the high levels they had temporarily fallen to after the fragile truce agreement on April 7, when Brent dropped by about 15% to around $94-95. With the return of sanctions threats, analysts expect the upward pressure to continue, especially if the US measures are prolonged.
In the same vein, a chilling assessment emerges from the heart of the Western financial establishment. In its leaked internal memo dated April 12, which Bloomberg reviewed, Morgan Stanley bluntly acknowledged: "Any effective blockade of the Strait of Hormuz lasting more than 30 days would plunge the world back into the hyperinflation of the 1970s." These are not Iranian threats, but rather a diagnosis from financial policymakers themselves. Goldman Sachs reports warn that any prolonged disruption to the flow of approximately 20 million barrels of oil per day—a fifth of global supply—could push Brent crude above $115 a barrel in the coming months.
The International Energy Agency confirmed that April would see a worsening of supply shortages compared to March, and any further escalation would exacerbate the crisis. The Congressional Research Service also indicated that such disruption would directly impact gasoline and diesel prices in the United States, where domestic gasoline prices had already surpassed $4 a gallon at the beginning of the month, with diesel exceeding $5.45 in some areas.
Thus, it becomes clear—and is reaffirmed—that the Strait of Hormuz is not merely a waterway, but a vital artery through which approximately 20% of the world's oil supply and significant quantities of liquefied natural gas, as well as fertilizers and other necessities for global markets, pass. Any disruption to it inevitably and immediately impacts major economies: China, India, Europe, and the United States itself. The American administration appears to lack a coherent strategy: it threatens to "end an entire civilization," then imposes a naval blockade, then partially backs down under the weight of economic repercussions. These actions reflect a state of confusion that is, without exaggeration, unprecedented in American history, and paradoxically, it is dragging the world along with it in behaviors that are more akin to international thuggery than to well-considered policy.
In contrast, Iran possesses multiple strengths, which it bolsters daily with strategic acumen rooted in decades of resilience. Tehran did not recklessly close the strait completely from the outset; Instead, it managed the situation with calculated strategic flexibility: selective strikes on ships, limited mine-laying, navigational jamming, while retaining the option to escalate or de-escalate as circumstances dictate. This approach transformed the Strait of Hormuz into an effective bargaining chip, raising the cost for the aggressor and its Gulf allies, while Iran maintained its ability to maneuver and control the pace of events. US intelligence reports acknowledged that restoring full navigation could take weeks or months, depending on the nature of the Iranian response.
Thus, a historical paradox resurfaces. Just as the US Navy did during the Tanker War of the 1980s, when it discovered that exhausting its resources against mines and fast attack craft was more difficult than engaging in a major battle, the story is repeating itself today: technological superiority clashes with the logic of naval guerrilla warfare, which Iran has perfected over decades. RAND Corporation documented this reality in a 2019 report titled "Lessons from the Tanker War," noting that technological superiority alone cannot win a war of attrition. New York Times recently confirmed that this systematic depletion of Iran's smart missile stockpile has transformed the conflict into a protracted economic test, while Iran has maintained a significant portion of its arsenal thanks to camouflage, dispersed storage, and flexible domestic production. Analyses by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and BBC reports indicate that the US suffered approximately $800 million in damage during the first two weeks alone, with radar systems, early warning aircraft, and refueling facilities rendered inoperable. Some US bases became virtually uninhabitable, forcing thousands of troops to work remotely from hotels and makeshift offices.
Within the United States, the divide is widening daily. Prominent voices within the "America First" camp, such as Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, and Marjorie Taylor Green, are strongly criticizing the war, viewing it as a dangerous departure from campaign promises to avoid "endless wars in the Middle East" and a direct service to Israeli interests at the expense of American interests. Trump responded by labeling some of his critics "disloyal" and "losers," but the division is widening and reaching even the Republican ranks themselves.
There is another, more painful dimension against Washington, one that Tehran has cleverly exploited. The Epstein affair is no longer just a moral scandal after the release of three million new pages of court documents. In January 2026, clear indications emerged of Israeli intelligence officers frequenting Epstein's island. The prominent strategic historian Noam Chomsky, in his recent article in The Nation, posed a pointed question: "Is Trump waging his war against Iran to repay a debt to those who possess compromising material about him?" Even if the answer is exaggerated, the question itself soured the atmosphere within the White House. Unpublished Quinnipiac University polls from March 2026 indicate that 41% of Republican voters see a connection between Trump's push for war and the Epstein affair. This discontent coincides with the escalating controversy surrounding Epstein's extensive ties to Israeli intelligence circles, fueling questions about the use of compromising material to pressure influential figures, including Trump himself, who was once a social friend of Epstein's.
This cunning extends to Tehran's management of its field operations, far removed from any conventional confrontation. Having successfully targeted fighter jets directly, the battle has been waged against American logistical and infrastructure "nests" in the region, striking E-3 Sentry early warning aircraft, KC-135 refueling systems, and radar and communications towers.
Iran has relied on a clever combination of precision ballistic missiles and inexpensively produced drones. Successive waves of drones were launched to overwhelm defense systems like Patriot and THAAD, forcing the US to fire expensive missiles—each costing millions of dollars—to counter threats costing only a few thousand.
Amid this backdrop, Iran is steadily strengthening its position daily. The domestic front remains cohesive despite intense pressure, and popular support for the state and its leadership is growing in the face of US-Israeli aggression. This resilience is countered by a clear vulnerability: Washington is mired in a deep quagmire, pushing Trump toward narrower and more costly options, and causing a global economic downturn that harms everyone, including the US economy itself.
Iranian cunning lies in its ability to link all fronts: from its astute control of the Strait of Hormuz, to the asymmetrical military attrition that depletes the adversary's valuable reserves, to deepening internal divisions within the adversary, and finally, to exploiting the controversy surrounding the Epstein scandal to expose the fragility of US decision-making independence.
The American internal divisions, economic depletion, and the fragility of its decisions—imported from Tel Aviv—have made it a hungry lion rushing into the trap of the Strait of Hormuz. The coming days will not only reveal Iran's resilience but will also teach the world a new lesson: the true superpower controls the pace of conflict, not the size of the bombs it uses. And here, Iran is advancing.
