Its declared objective is straightforward - protect freedom
of navigation, maritime routes and strategic straits through a coordinated
multinational defensive framework.
But here lies the paradox. If freedom of navigation is the
objective, why is the Strait of Hormuz not at the center of the discussion?
I do not subscribe to the narrative that Iran alone is
responsible for the disruption of navigation through Hormuz. The present crisis
followed the US-Israeli attack on Iran on February 28, while negotiations were
reportedly underway. Since then, a cycle of military action and retaliation has
continued, with attacks on strategic assets and shipping followed by Iranian
responses.
The consequences extend well beyond Iran. The disruption is
also hurting the oil-producing Arab economies of the Gulf, whose exports depend
heavily on secure maritime routes. Hundreds of ships and thousands of seafarers
have reportedly remained unable to sail safely through the strait for months.
This creates an uncomfortable contradiction. A coalition
established in the name of maritime freedom cannot effectively address the
problem by treating only one side of the conflict as responsible.
The immediate requirement is therefore not another layer of
military coordination. It is de-escalation and restoration of freedom of
navigation.
The United States should remove restrictions affecting
Iranian shipping and work with all relevant parties to restore safe and
unhindered passage through the Strait of Hormuz, including for Iranian-owned
and Iranian-operated vessels.
Freedom of navigation cannot be selective. If it is
genuinely a shared international interest, it must apply to everyone—or the
principle itself is undermined.
