Strait of Hormuz Dispute; Divisions in Islamic Republic over Confrontation with U.S. Become More Apparent
Harsh criticism by Hossein Shariatmadari of the positions held by the Deputy Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic regarding the Strait of Hormuz, coinciding with remarks by the U.S. Vice President about internal divisions in the government and a Reuters report on the role of Tehran’s threats in altering Washington’s calculations, suggests deepening divisions within the structure of the Islamic Republic.
Disagreement among figures close to the Islamic Republic’s leadership over how to manage the crisis with the United States and the issue of the Strait of Hormuz has returned to the headlines once again. Simultaneously, American officials are speaking of serious divisions in the Islamic Republic’s decision-making structure, and a fresh Reuters report has revealed the role of Tehran’s threats and the concerns of regional countries in preventing the expansion of U.S. military attacks.
Hossein Shariatmadari, editor-in-chief of Kayhan newspaper, harshly criticized statements made by Kazem Gharibabadi, Deputy for Legal and International Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic, regarding an understanding with Oman and the status of the Strait of Hormuz. He argued that providing a passage for ships through Iranian territorial waters effectively means losing one of the Islamic Republic’s most important leverage points against the United States and its allies.
Shariatmadari, referring to Gharibabadi’s remarks, found contradictions between different parts of his statements and raised the question of how one could emphasize on one hand that understanding with Oman does not mean opening the Strait of Hormuz, while on the other hand speaking of an important portion of shipping routes passing through Iranian waters. He described this situation as “opening a passage” and “creating an escape route for the enemy,” and wrote that the Islamic Republic should not abandon one of its most important strategic tools.
This internal dispute coincides with remarks made by JD Vance, the U.S. Vice President. Vance stated: “The power structure in the Islamic Republic is ‘fragmented,’ and while one part of the government seeks to reduce tensions and end the conflict, another group continues to insist on continued confrontation.” He added that these very divisions have complicated and prolonged any negotiation process with Tehran.
The U.S. Vice President also emphasized that Washington is attempting to manage this situation by simultaneously employing military, economic, and diplomatic tools, and to reach an outcome that serves the interests of the United States. According to him, ending this process will not happen quickly and requires time.
Meanwhile, Reuters news agency, citing five informed sources, reported that the Islamic Republic had conveyed a message to regional countries following threats by U.S. President Donald Trump, stating that any broader attack would be met with direct retaliation against energy infrastructure and U.S. positions in the region. According to this report, officials from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and Pakistan also called for preventing escalation of the conflict and a return to the path of diplomacy.
Abbas Araghchi, the Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic, had also conveyed these messages in consultations with regional officials. Reuters sources believe that this set of warnings, combined with the concerns of Arab governments about the expansion of war in the Persian Gulf, played an effective role in Washington’s decision to refrain from broader attacks and continue the path of negotiations.
Overall, the simultaneity of these three events (unprecedented criticism by media close to the Islamic Republic’s leader of the diplomatic apparatus, assessments by American officials of the government’s internal divisions, and the publication of the Reuters report on the role of Tehran’s threats in regional equations) indicates that the Islamic Republic continues to face the fundamental question of whether to continue the strategy of confrontation or to pursue the path of diplomacy to reduce tensions; a question whose answer remains a subject of disagreement at various levels of power.
