Iran’s change in Hormuz highlights why agreements with the regime are unlikely to last, commentary suggests

The Iranian government has shown us a lot about its true nature. Just days ago, it seemed to indicate that the Strait of Hormuz would remain accessible, but it quickly shifted to threatening to close it. This flip-flop serves as a stark reminder that the regime’s word cannot be relied upon; its approach is rooted in threats and attempting to destabilize global norms.

But there’s a bigger question: who really holds the power there? The Iranian regime operates differently from a typical government. Leaders often project calmness to defuse tension or buy themselves time. Yet, real control lies with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), who manage missiles and proxy networks, wielding the ability to disrupt international shipping. It’s them, not the elected officials, who ultimately call the shots.

The IRGC thrives on chaos.

The Strait of Hormuz serves as a key leverage point for this regime; it’s where one-fifth of the world’s oil passes through. Iran doesn’t need to act on its threats to spark a crisis—just making those threats can unsettle markets and increase energy prices.

That’s what we’re currently witnessing. After previously signaling restraint, the Iranian government has escalated tensions again, likely with the goal of enhancing its influence, not creating confusion.

Such dynamics complicate hopes that a new agreement with Iran could lead to lasting stability. Consistency is crucial in trade, but Iran’s system is set up differently.

For years, U.S. and European officials have acted as if Iran’s commitments would translate into reliable actions. However, the regime’s most powerful players have no stake in honoring those promises. They’ve built their power on evading sanctions and using regional militias while perpetuating the threat of escalation.

If the U.S. aims to prevent nuclear weapons in Iran, it must understand that this regime is designed not just for weapon advancement but also for wielding power through aggressive policies.

Recent developments on Hormuz Island illustrate this point. When the regime is faced with a choice between appearing cooperative and consolidating power, it opts for the latter.

This has direct implications for U.S. policy. The U.S. cannot view diplomacy as an endpoint. Any agreements need to be enforced with credible military deterrents and a clear grasp of the power structure in Tehran. They’re often put to the test and can easily collapse when the administration believes it can sidestep accountability.

A regime that exploits a crucial energy route as leverage isn’t a trustworthy negotiating partner; it does the opposite. The fluctuating situation around Hormuz Island underscores that Iran’s fundamental strategy is based on exerting influence through threats.

As long as Iran’s system operates this way, agreements made with this regime will likely lack stability. Why allow the administration to dictate the next flip-flop?

This also indicates the future direction of U.S. policy. Washington should stop pretending that it can exert control over this regime through better communication or slightly tougher conditions. The crux of the issue lies in the very nature of the regime itself. Regardless of any leadership changes, the core remains unchanged.

Negotiations shouldn’t be viewed as a means to stabilize this leadership but rather as a temporary tactic while pushing for broader change. The existing agreements with Iran follow a predictable pattern of short-term restraint, only to be followed by renewed negotiations when the regime needs to assert its influence again. An effective strategy would focus on weakening the regime’s control over the country, targeting its security apparatus, and openly supporting the Iranians who bravely challenge the status quo.

The ongoing struggle for Hormuz Island serves as a constant reminder of how this regime will deal with every agreement until it eventually falls.