Shocking! Iran is selling the Strait of Hormuz as a "golden asset," directly marginalizing the entire Gulf region in US-Iran negotiations.
2026-04-21 15:32:57
Amidst a tense geopolitical atmosphere, negotiations between Iran and the United States are entering a crucial phase. The dialogue, originally focused on nuclear facilities, missile programs, and regional proxies, has quietly shifted to a strategically vital location—the Strait of Hormuz. This strait, considered by Iran as a carefully cultivated "golden asset" and a powerful deterrent, has become its most significant bargaining chip. However, this shift has deeply unsettled the Gulf Arab states: while global energy stability may be temporarily maintained, their own security interests have been relegated to a secondary position, even facing the risk of complete marginalization. Recent reports indicate that the Strait of Hormuz has transformed from a long-forgotten topic into a realistic and viable bargaining chip in US-Iran reconciliation, which not only tests the diplomatic wisdom of both sides but may also reshape the entire Middle East's energy and security landscape.
Iranian security officials have made it clear in private exchanges that the Strait of Hormuz is not a temporary tool, but a strategic deterrent measure that has been systematically planned over many years. A senior Iranian security source pointed out that Tehran has long been prepared for the possibility of closing the strait, regarding it as a "priceless asset of gold" derived from its geographical location and which no external force can take away.
Another source close to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard further described the Strait of Hormuz as a "sword drawn from its sheath," its very existence constituting a powerful regional deterrent. It significantly increases the cost of action for external powers without crossing the nuclear threshold, and gives Iran the initiative in setting the rules. Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council, went even further on April 8th, comparing the Strait of Hormuz to a nuclear weapon that Iran has successfully "tested," emphasizing its inexhaustible potential. This positioning breaks long-standing taboos surrounding shipping through the strait, making it a viable bargaining chip for the first time at the negotiating table.
According to informed officials and analysts, the upcoming round of talks in Islamabad will no longer focus on Iran's missile program or regional proxy activities, but will instead concentrate on limits on uranium enrichment levels and how to properly handle Iran's control of the Strait of Hormuz. Although the uranium enrichment issue remains deadlocked—Iran refuses to reduce its uranium enrichment to zero or ship its stockpiles abroad—the priorities of the negotiating agenda have shifted significantly.
Sources in the Gulf indicate that US-Iran diplomacy currently leans more towards managing rather than dismantling Iran's leverage, prioritizing the stability of the global economy and energy supply. While this approach may facilitate a ceasefire to some extent, it also means that the missile threat and proxy conflicts that are of greatest concern to the Gulf states are temporarily shelved.
Officials in the Gulf Arab states have expressed strong unease about this shift. They warn that merely managing Iran's control of the Strait of Hormuz, rather than completely eliminating its leverage, will ultimately consolidate Iran's dominance in Middle Eastern energy supplies. The countries that will bear the most severe energy and security consequences are being excluded from formal decision-making.
A source close to the Gulf government stated bluntly: "Ultimately, the Strait of Hormuz has become an insurmountable red line. This wasn't an issue before, but now it's the core issue; the goalpost has been moved."
Ebtesam Al-Ketbi, Chairperson of the UAE Policy Centre, further pointed out that this negotiation model exposes a serious imbalance between rule-makers and those who actually bear the consequences. She emphasized that what has emerged is not a historic reconciliation, but a deliberate orchestration of a sustainable conflict: “Who is suffering from missile and proxy wars? It’s Israel, especially the Gulf states. For us, a truly good deal must address missiles, proxies, and the Strait of Hormuz simultaneously, but it seems the negotiating parties don’t care about these.”
Analysts generally believe that this development reflects a shift in the Middle East security landscape from a fixed system of international rules to a more power-based, realistic arrangement. The core of the Strait of Hormuz dispute is no longer simply about who controls the strait, but about who has the right to set the rules of passage. While this shift may temporarily ease the direct confrontation between the US and Iran, it sows the seeds of long-term instability in the region. Gulf states fear that prioritizing global economic interests will ultimately cost them the most.
In conclusion, while the US-Iran negotiations over the Strait of Hormuz may bring about a short-term diplomatic breakthrough, the marginalization of security concerns among Gulf states has become the most alarming signal in the current Middle East situation. This event not only tests the bottom line of all parties in complex power struggles but also foreshadows a profound tension between global energy security and regional stability. The future trajectory depends on all parties seeking a more balanced solution in subsequent negotiations to avoid building temporary peace on long-term hidden dangers.
Q1: Why does Iran refer to the Strait of Hormuz as a "golden asset" and a "sword drawn from its sheath"?
A: The Strait of Hormuz is a crucial waterway connecting the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, through which nearly 20% of global oil shipments rely. Iran views it as a geographical lever in its long-term strategic preparations, stemming from its natural geographical location, which is difficult for any external force to completely deprive it of. Iranian officials emphasize that this strait, after years of planning, has become a powerful deterrent tool that can exert significant influence without crossing the nuclear threshold. It can enhance Iran's negotiating leverage by threatening shipping safety, and its "golden" value lies in its ability to influence the global energy market and provide Iran with a core advantage in countering external pressure.
Q2: Why did the priority of the US-Iran negotiations shift from missiles and proxies to control of the Strait of Hormuz?
A: The current focus of negotiations has shifted to uranium enrichment limits and how to manage Iran's control over the Strait of Hormuz, rather than completely dismantling Iran's missile program or proxy network. This is because the Strait of Hormuz is directly related to global economic stability, and both the US and Iran prefer to reach a ceasefire agreement by "managing leverage" rather than eliminating it. This shift reflects the practical consideration of prioritizing the protection of energy supply chains, but it also means that the original core security issues have been temporarily shelved, and the negotiation agenda has shifted from comprehensive containment to focusing on the most sensitive geographical leverage.
Q3: What specific concerns do the Gulf Arab states have about this shift in negotiations?
A: The Gulf states' biggest concern is the marginalization of their security interests. They believe that if negotiations only focus on managing the Strait of Hormuz without addressing Iranian missile, drone, and proxy attacks, it will solidify Iran's control over the Middle East's energy sector. The Gulf states, bearing the most direct energy and security consequences, are excluded from decision-making, leading to a severe imbalance between rule-makers and actual victims. A Gulf source pointed out that the "red line" has shifted from missile threats to Strait control, leaving regional countries that have long suffered real threats feeling neglected.
Q4: What role did Medvedev's remarks play in the incident?
A: In a post on April 8th, Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council, likened the Strait of Hormuz to a nuclear weapon that Iran had successfully "tested," emphasizing its inexhaustible potential. This public warning directly exposed the Strait's status as a core bargaining chip in negotiations, further amplifying the concerns of Gulf states. It not only strengthened Iran's ability to increase the cost of its actions without crossing the nuclear threshold, but also made it clear to the international community that the greatest achievement of US-Iran reconciliation might be limited to reopening the Strait, rather than achieving broader regional de-escalation.
Q5: What long-term impact does this negotiation development have on the overall security landscape of the Middle East?
A: This incident highlights that Middle Eastern security is shifting from fixed international rules to power-based arrangements. At the heart of the Hormuz dispute lies the power to set rules, which could lead to sustainable conflict rather than genuine reconciliation. Gulf states emphasize that a "good deal" must simultaneously address missile, proxy, and Strait issues; otherwise, global economic stability will be built on regional insecurity. Experts like Ebtesam Al-Ketbi warn that this is not a historic reconciliation, but rather a deliberately orchestrated long-term tension that could ultimately exacerbate energy supply risks and regional confrontation.
The Strait of Hormuz: Iran's Long-Cultivated "Geographical Gold Asset"
Iranian security officials have made it clear in private exchanges that the Strait of Hormuz is not a temporary tool, but a strategic deterrent measure that has been systematically planned over many years. A senior Iranian security source pointed out that Tehran has long been prepared for the possibility of closing the strait, regarding it as a "priceless asset of gold" derived from its geographical location and which no external force can take away.
Another source close to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard further described the Strait of Hormuz as a "sword drawn from its sheath," its very existence constituting a powerful regional deterrent. It significantly increases the cost of action for external powers without crossing the nuclear threshold, and gives Iran the initiative in setting the rules. Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council, went even further on April 8th, comparing the Strait of Hormuz to a nuclear weapon that Iran has successfully "tested," emphasizing its inexhaustible potential. This positioning breaks long-standing taboos surrounding shipping through the strait, making it a viable bargaining chip for the first time at the negotiating table.
The surprising shift in focus and priority adjustment of US-Iran negotiations
According to informed officials and analysts, the upcoming round of talks in Islamabad will no longer focus on Iran's missile program or regional proxy activities, but will instead concentrate on limits on uranium enrichment levels and how to properly handle Iran's control of the Strait of Hormuz. Although the uranium enrichment issue remains deadlocked—Iran refuses to reduce its uranium enrichment to zero or ship its stockpiles abroad—the priorities of the negotiating agenda have shifted significantly.
Sources in the Gulf indicate that US-Iran diplomacy currently leans more towards managing rather than dismantling Iran's leverage, prioritizing the stability of the global economy and energy supply. While this approach may facilitate a ceasefire to some extent, it also means that the missile threat and proxy conflicts that are of greatest concern to the Gulf states are temporarily shelved.
Deep concerns and rule imbalances among Gulf states
Officials in the Gulf Arab states have expressed strong unease about this shift. They warn that merely managing Iran's control of the Strait of Hormuz, rather than completely eliminating its leverage, will ultimately consolidate Iran's dominance in Middle Eastern energy supplies. The countries that will bear the most severe energy and security consequences are being excluded from formal decision-making.
A source close to the Gulf government stated bluntly: "Ultimately, the Strait of Hormuz has become an insurmountable red line. This wasn't an issue before, but now it's the core issue; the goalpost has been moved."
Ebtesam Al-Ketbi, Chairperson of the UAE Policy Centre, further pointed out that this negotiation model exposes a serious imbalance between rule-makers and those who actually bear the consequences. She emphasized that what has emerged is not a historic reconciliation, but a deliberate orchestration of a sustainable conflict: “Who is suffering from missile and proxy wars? It’s Israel, especially the Gulf states. For us, a truly good deal must address missiles, proxies, and the Strait of Hormuz simultaneously, but it seems the negotiating parties don’t care about these.”
Potential risks and long-term impacts of the global energy landscape
Analysts generally believe that this development reflects a shift in the Middle East security landscape from a fixed system of international rules to a more power-based, realistic arrangement. The core of the Strait of Hormuz dispute is no longer simply about who controls the strait, but about who has the right to set the rules of passage. While this shift may temporarily ease the direct confrontation between the US and Iran, it sows the seeds of long-term instability in the region. Gulf states fear that prioritizing global economic interests will ultimately cost them the most.
In conclusion, while the US-Iran negotiations over the Strait of Hormuz may bring about a short-term diplomatic breakthrough, the marginalization of security concerns among Gulf states has become the most alarming signal in the current Middle East situation. This event not only tests the bottom line of all parties in complex power struggles but also foreshadows a profound tension between global energy security and regional stability. The future trajectory depends on all parties seeking a more balanced solution in subsequent negotiations to avoid building temporary peace on long-term hidden dangers.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1: Why does Iran refer to the Strait of Hormuz as a "golden asset" and a "sword drawn from its sheath"?
A: The Strait of Hormuz is a crucial waterway connecting the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, through which nearly 20% of global oil shipments rely. Iran views it as a geographical lever in its long-term strategic preparations, stemming from its natural geographical location, which is difficult for any external force to completely deprive it of. Iranian officials emphasize that this strait, after years of planning, has become a powerful deterrent tool that can exert significant influence without crossing the nuclear threshold. It can enhance Iran's negotiating leverage by threatening shipping safety, and its "golden" value lies in its ability to influence the global energy market and provide Iran with a core advantage in countering external pressure.
Q2: Why did the priority of the US-Iran negotiations shift from missiles and proxies to control of the Strait of Hormuz?
A: The current focus of negotiations has shifted to uranium enrichment limits and how to manage Iran's control over the Strait of Hormuz, rather than completely dismantling Iran's missile program or proxy network. This is because the Strait of Hormuz is directly related to global economic stability, and both the US and Iran prefer to reach a ceasefire agreement by "managing leverage" rather than eliminating it. This shift reflects the practical consideration of prioritizing the protection of energy supply chains, but it also means that the original core security issues have been temporarily shelved, and the negotiation agenda has shifted from comprehensive containment to focusing on the most sensitive geographical leverage.
Q3: What specific concerns do the Gulf Arab states have about this shift in negotiations?
A: The Gulf states' biggest concern is the marginalization of their security interests. They believe that if negotiations only focus on managing the Strait of Hormuz without addressing Iranian missile, drone, and proxy attacks, it will solidify Iran's control over the Middle East's energy sector. The Gulf states, bearing the most direct energy and security consequences, are excluded from decision-making, leading to a severe imbalance between rule-makers and actual victims. A Gulf source pointed out that the "red line" has shifted from missile threats to Strait control, leaving regional countries that have long suffered real threats feeling neglected.
Q4: What role did Medvedev's remarks play in the incident?
A: In a post on April 8th, Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council, likened the Strait of Hormuz to a nuclear weapon that Iran had successfully "tested," emphasizing its inexhaustible potential. This public warning directly exposed the Strait's status as a core bargaining chip in negotiations, further amplifying the concerns of Gulf states. It not only strengthened Iran's ability to increase the cost of its actions without crossing the nuclear threshold, but also made it clear to the international community that the greatest achievement of US-Iran reconciliation might be limited to reopening the Strait, rather than achieving broader regional de-escalation.
Q5: What long-term impact does this negotiation development have on the overall security landscape of the Middle East?
A: This incident highlights that Middle Eastern security is shifting from fixed international rules to power-based arrangements. At the heart of the Hormuz dispute lies the power to set rules, which could lead to sustainable conflict rather than genuine reconciliation. Gulf states emphasize that a "good deal" must simultaneously address missile, proxy, and Strait issues; otherwise, global economic stability will be built on regional insecurity. Experts like Ebtesam Al-Ketbi warn that this is not a historic reconciliation, but rather a deliberately orchestrated long-term tension that could ultimately exacerbate energy supply risks and regional confrontation.
- Risk Warning and Disclaimer
- The market involves risk, and trading may not be suitable for all investors. This article is for reference only and does not constitute personal investment advice, nor does it take into account certain users’ specific investment objectives, financial situation, or other needs. Any investment decisions made based on this information are at your own risk.
