Atmosphere in Iran remains highly charged after Ayatollah’s funeral and escalation of grievances with US | US-Israel war on Iran

Before the State Department’s press briefing at the Grand Hotel Tehran, the assembled reporters were asked to stand for the national anthem, which duly blared from blurry speakers.

Speaking at the podium, ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei claimed that the world was witnessing a turning point in the history of Shiite Islam. He claimed that a century from now, the assassinated Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will be revered as the second Imam Hussein, the martyred grandson of the prophet Muhammad. Donald Trump, meanwhile, will be seen as a latter-day Yazid, the tyrannical caliph of the 7th century.

Baghaei, normally one of the state department’s most level-headed diplomats, portrayed Iran as the victim of a groundbreaking struggle to preserve its independence.

Although the streets outside returned to some semblance of normalcy after Khamenei’s funeral, the wave of deep religiosity and patriotism he unleashed did not subside, only carrying over to Najaf in Iraq, where the religious leader’s coffin was taken to the mausoleum of Imam Ali. The atmosphere in Iran could not be more intense.

That’s why a cranky Donald Trump chose a particularly sensitive moment at the NATO summit in Türkiye to describe Iranians as “trash,” “cancer,” “evil” and “scum.” He said further talks with Iran were a waste of time.

It is tempting to view the latest military flare-up, including Tuesday’s clash in the Strait of Hormuz, as the product of an unfortunate combination. Trump, disturbed by Europe’s so-called free-riding towards NATO, generally reacted harshly; Persia, gripped by grief and religious fervor, asserted itself as “a brave and resilient nation, unafraid of threats or clamor.”

On this basis, optimists can hope that the current mood will dissipate like a dark cloud. Ultimately, Trump left the door open for further talks and talked about Israel’s separation from Lebanon, a key demand of Iran.

Unfortunately, this optimism may be misplaced. Since all supposed confidence-building measures have failed, it seems equally likely that it is Iran’s military, not its diplomats, who are now calling the shots.

There may be no circuit breaker to end the cycle of Iranian attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, U.S. attacks on the southern Iranian coastline, and Iranian counterattacks on U.S. military bases in Bahrain and Kuwait.

Former US national security advisor Eric Brewer said Trump may face the consequences of what he sows. “Concerned about the economic consequences of continuing the war and doubtful that further bombing would bring great success, he agreed to a vague agreement that postponed many issues to the future,” Brewer said.

Vali Nasr, author of Iran’s Grand Strategy, warned that current tensions could easily lead to the end of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) designed to lead to major peace talks. “Iran believes that the United States wants to use it to take control of the strait from Tehran, and if that is the case, Iran should be ready to go to war on this issue,” Nasr said.

Ellie Geranmayeh, middle east analyst at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said the problem was partly about sequencing: “Iran does not want to give up its influence over the strait before a broader agreement on US economic aid is reached.” [But] “For Trump, reopening the strait is the heart of the Memorandum of Understanding, and without it he will be under tremendous pressure from Republican hawks to restart the war with Iran.”

Baghaei emphasized that the MoU clearly refers to Iran maintaining control over the strait for at least 60 days, and argued that the latest US-Omani attempt to establish a new southern route through the strait (the shipping route that Iran attacked three times on Tuesday) is incompatible with the agreement.

“The problem here is that the United States is interfering in Iran’s affairs,” he said.

Iranian diplomats know the articles of the Memorandum of Understanding by heart; Because the agreement was designed by Iran to postpone the discussion of the nuclear issue until Iran achieved concrete gains such as sanctions relief.

According to them, any attempt to reopen the strait through demining and permits would be seen as disabling the strait’s main weapon.

The recent influx of ships on the southern route and the resulting drop in oil prices was alarming and premature. Iran had to take back control or risk losing influence to get sanctions relief and a ceasefire in Lebanon.

In response, the United States says the main goal agreed in the MoU was to reopen the strait and that Iran vetoing the route was never part of the agreement.

To further exacerbate the crisis, the United States on Tuesday revoked a sanctions exemption for Iran’s oil exports, just 17 days after it was implemented. The waiver was the only tangible benefit Iran received from the deal.

Those close to the crisis aim to create a common notification system for ships passing through the strait, in which both Iran and the Gulf Cooperation Council members will have a say. Such a move would mean loosening Iranian sovereignty, but it would not mean giving up.

But there is a bigger problem behind this diplomacy: Iranian diplomats insist that all ships passing through the strait in the future will have to pay a security fee; This proposal is universally rejected, but Iran still does not seem willing to give up.

For now, the only constraint on a full return to war is that it has been tried and failed.