It’s not whether Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz.The war already answered that.
The real question is whether Washington can live with the new reality.
Parsi points out that the U.S. has always pursued two goals in Hormuz: keep global commerce flowing freely, and stop any rival from dominating the chokepoint. The conflict, he argues, proved those two objectives are no longer compatible.
Iran showed it can disrupt shipping whenever it wants. That ability was already there; the fighting simply made it impossible to ignore.
That’s why Parsi believes a compromise is now on the table. Instead of fighting over pure “control,” talks are reportedly moving toward a co-managed arrangement with Oman.
Commercial traffic would continue, while Iran keeps the leverage it sees as essential for deterrence. Even charging fees for commercial vessels, he notes, isn’t unusual under international law if they’re linked to actual services rather than mere passage.
But he warns this wouldn’t settle the crisis.
Hormuz is only one piece. A lasting peace also requires fixing southern Lebanon, locking in a region-wide ceasefire, and reaching a new nuclear deal. Leave any of those hanging and the road back to war stays wide open.
The biggest barrier, Parsi argues, may now be trust.
Trump’s pattern of sudden reversals, temporary sanctions relief, and constantly shifting positions has, in his view, badly damaged American credibility. Even if Washington puts a deal on the table, Tehran may no longer believe it will hold long enough to be worth signing.
Parsi’s bottom line is blunt:
The military phase may be ending. The diplomatic phase could be far harder.
@tparsi
