Mideast experts discuss how the U.S. blockade could pressure the Iranian regime

Key Concepts

• Strait of Hormuz: A critical maritime chokepoint for global oil transit; the primary focus of the naval blockade.
• Maximum Pressure Campaign: A U.S. strategy involving economic sanctions and naval interdiction to force Iran to the negotiating table.
• Asymmetric Warfare: Military tactics used by Iran to counter superior conventional forces, such as targeting tankers or oil infrastructure.
• JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action): The 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which the U.S. withdrew from in 2018.
• Regime Change vs. Behavioral Change: The debate over whether U.S. policy aims to force the Iranian government to alter its policies or to collapse the regime entirely.

1. Main Topics and Key Points

The discussion centers on the efficacy of a U.S. naval blockade in the Persian Gulf and its potential to force Iran to negotiate or collapse.

• Economic Vulnerability: Mead Maliki argues that 90% of Iran’s economy relies on trade through the Strait of Hormuz. He notes that the regime is already suffering from internal instability, evidenced by a 47-day internet blackout and the inability to collect taxes or produce petrochemicals.
• Time-Frame Discrepancy: Alan Eyre contends that while a blockade might eventually cripple Iran, the time required to achieve this is too long. He argues that the global economic damage caused by closing the Strait would be catastrophic before the blockade successfully forces a policy change in Tehran.
• Escalation Risks: Eyre warns that the blockade is "performative" and escalatory, potentially forcing the U.S. into dangerous confrontations with third-party vessels (e.g., Chinese or Pakistani ships).

2. Important Examples and Real-World Applications

• Internet Blackout: Maliki cites the 47-day internet shutdown as evidence of the regime’s fear of domestic uprising, noting it costs the economy approximately $50 million per day.
• COVID-19 Resilience: Eyre points to the pandemic as a case study where Iran demonstrated an ability to "eke by" with drastically reduced economic activity and oil exports, suggesting the regime is more resilient to economic pain than some assume.

3. Key Arguments and Perspectives

• Mead Maliki (Foundation for the Defense of Democracies):
  • Argument: Diplomacy is futile with the current regime.
  • Evidence: The regime’s history of violence against its own citizens and its refusal to abandon its nuclear program (which has seen hundreds of billions in investment) makes a peaceful deal impossible.
  • Perspective: The only viable path is sustained, maximum pressure to either force a change in behavior or trigger a domestic collapse.
• Alan Eyre (Middle East Institute):
  • Argument: The U.S. lacks a viable strategy; the current "one-gear" approach of increased pressure is failing.
  • Evidence: Iran has land borders that allow for some trade, and the U.S. is currently unwilling or unable to engage in the sustained, serious negotiations required for a diplomatic solution.
  • Perspective: The U.S. should stop seeking an "ideal" solution and instead focus on finding the "least bad" solution to an unnecessary conflict.

4. Notable Quotes

• Alan Eyre: "In the long run, you're right, a fully effective blockade brings Iran to its knees. But like Keynes said, in the long run we're all dead, and by the time it's effective the world economy's gone over a cliff."
• Mead Maliki: "If the Iranians accept all 10 points [of the U.S. demands], then it would be a really different regime that we're dealing with... I don't think anything other than pressure would work with this regime at this point."
• Alan Eyre: "It's a peculiarly American misconception to think that every problem has a solution."

5. Synthesis and Conclusion

The experts are divided on the utility of the naval blockade. Maliki views it as a necessary tool to exploit the regime's extreme economic fragility and force a fundamental change or collapse. Conversely, Eyre views the blockade as a high-risk, slow-acting strategy that threatens the global economy while failing to address the core diplomatic impasse. Both agree that the current situation is a stalemate, with the U.S. administration appearing to lack a clear path toward a diplomatic resolution, leaving the region in a state of high tension with the potential for further asymmetric military escalation.