Iran’s Hormuz reversal shows why regime deals won’t hold up, op-ed says

The Iranian regime has told us everything we need to know.

In a matter of days, Tehran went from signaling that the Strait of Hormuz would remain open to threatening to close it. This reversal is a reminder that the regime cannot be trusted to uphold any agreement it signs because its strategy is based on constant threats and destabilizing the world.

It’s not about what they say. He is the one who is really responsible.

The Iranian regime does not operate like a normal state. Leaders often signal calm to relieve pressure or buy time. However, the real authority is in the hands of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards. The IRGC controls missiles, proxy networks, and the ability to disrupt global shipping. They decide when it matters.

Pakistani General Says Iranian Diplomacy Still Alive Despite US Blockade and Failed Talks

And they are taking advantage of the instability.

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the regime’s most effective tools of pressure. One fifth of the world’s oil flows from here. Iran does not need to shut down to create a crisis. He just needs to make the threat credible. Even mentioning the outage could shake markets and increase energy prices.

This is exactly what we are seeing right now. Tehran signals restraint, then returns to escalation. It is not intended to create confusion. This means taking advantage.

STEVE FORBES: No more misconceptions; America needs to finish the job in Iran

This poses a serious problem for anyone still hoping that a new deal with the Iranian regime will bring lasting stability.

Agreements are based on consistency. The Iranian system was built for the exact opposite.

For years, U.S. and European officials had been negotiating as if Iran’s on-paper commitments would translate into predictable behavior. However, the regime’s most powerful actors are not ready to fulfill these commitments. This regime is not designed to be restricted, reformed or tamed. The IRGC’s influence depends on sanctions evasion, regional militias, and the constant threat of escalation.

Morning Glory: US-IRAN NEGOTIATIONS IN ISLAMABAD BECAME REYKJAVÍK 2.0

If Washington’s imperative is ‘no nuclear weapons for Tehran’, then it must recognize that this regime was established not only to pursue lethal weapons but also to use every tool to leverage its own dangerous agenda.

During the demonstration, a protester holds banners saying ‘Stop executions in Iran’ and ‘Liberate Iran’. Demonstrators gathered outside Downing Street to protest executions in Iran and support Iran’s freedom. (Vuk Valcic/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

The change in Hormuz clearly reveals this fact. When the regime has to choose between appearing cooperative and maintaining influence, it chooses influence.

This has direct consequences for US policy.

ROBERT MAGINNIS: WHY WERE THE ISLAMABAD MEETINGS ALWAYS DOMINATED TO FAIL?

Washington cannot afford to treat diplomacy as an end in itself. An agreement that is not backed by real sanctions, credible military deterrence, and a clear understanding of who holds power in Tehran will not be valid. Once the regime decides it can get away with this, it will be tested, expanded, and eventually broken.

A regime that turns a vital energy bottleneck into an instrument of repression is not a responsible partner. Quite the opposite. The back-and-forth over Hormuz is a harsh reminder that Tehran’s core strategy is to coerce through threats, not cooperation.

As long as the system operates this way, any agreement with this regime will be inherently unstable. Why let the regime decide what to do next?

IRGC intelligence chief Majid Khademi also killed a Quds force commander in an Israeli precision strike early Monday morning. (POOL via WANA/Reuters, AP Images)

This should also tell us where US policy should go. Washington should stop pretending that this regime can be “managed” with better communiqués and slightly tougher clauses. The problem is not the text of the agreement. The problem lies in the nature of the regime that signed it. And no matter how many top leaders are killed, the regime is still the same.

CLICK TO DOWNLOAD FOX NEWS APPLICATION

Negotiations should therefore be seen not as a way to stabilize this leadership, but as a temporary means while tightening the pressure for its eventual replacement. Any new agreement with the current rulers in Tehran would follow the same scenario of brief restraint when it suits them, followed by a new round of ‘diplomacy’ whenever they need the pressure. A serious strategy would focus on weakening the regime’s grip on the country, targeting its security apparatus and economic lifelines, and openly supporting the Iranian people who continue to risk their lives to challenge it.

The Hormuz fight is a reminder of how this regime will treat every agreement it signs until the day that agreement ceases to exist.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM LISA DAFTARI