Oman: Next Phase of Washington’s Strategy

After failing to secure a decisive strategic victory against Iran despite months of escalation and military pressure, Washington appears determined to restore its geopolitical credibility elsewhere in the Gulf. In this evolving power contest, Oman may increasingly find itself exposed to external pressure disguised as regional “security management.”

For decades, Oman has maintained a delicate diplomatic balance. Unlike many regional actors, Muscat preferred mediation over confrontation and dialogue over military adventurism. Yet geography has transformed the Sultanate into one of the most strategically valuable locations in the region.

The Port of Duqm and surrounding naval infrastructure are dangerously close to the Strait of Hormuz — the world’s most critical oil transit corridor. At the same time, the location places Oman within immediate strategic proximity of Iran’s Chabahar Port and Pakistan’s Gwadar Port, two emerging nodes in regional trade and connectivity. This triangle alone explains why global powers increasingly view Oman not merely as a Gulf state, but as a geopolitical gateway.

Washington’s expanding military footprint across the Gulf is often presented as a mechanism for maintaining stability and protecting maritime trade. However, history suggests that foreign military presence rarely remains temporary. Strategic access gradually evolves into political leverage, while security dependency slowly weakens national sovereignty.

Donald Trump’s confrontational posture toward Iran reflects more than ideological hostility. It also represents an attempt to demonstrate American dominance after Tehran resisted enormous economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and military intimidation. Direct confrontation with Iran carries enormous risks, but smaller Gulf states may appear easier arenas where Washington can project strength without triggering full-scale regional war.

This should concern every Arab emirate. The Gulf monarchies must recognize that fragmented security policies only increase dependence on outside powers. No state, regardless of wealth, can indefinitely preserve sovereignty while outsourcing its strategic defense architecture to foreign military forces.

Today the pressure may revolve around Oman and the Strait of Hormuz. Tomorrow the same logic could be applied elsewhere in the Gulf under another security pretext.

The lesson is becoming impossible to ignore - Arab states must either develop a collective regional security framework based on mutual defense and strategic independence, or continue watching external powers shape the future of the Gulf according to their own geopolitical interests.

Pushing Iran to Edge a Dangerous Gamble

The recent US strikes on Iran during Eid ul Adha have intensified a growing perception across the Muslim world that Washington is no longer merely seeking deterrence, but is steadily pushing Tehran toward a position where unconditional surrender becomes the only acceptable outcome. Rightly or wrongly, this perception is gaining traction because of the open and silent backing extended by several regional allies, particularly some Arab states that view Iran primarily through the lens of strategic rivalry.

However, history shows that when powerful nations attempt to corner adversaries without offering a credible political exit, the consequences often become unpredictable and dangerous. States under extreme pressure rarely capitulate quietly. More often, they resort to asymmetric retaliation before losing the capability to respond altogether.

Iran’s leadership is fully aware that its strategic infrastructure, military facilities, energy assets, and regional influence networks remain under increasing pressure. If Tehran reaches the conclusion that its long-term survival is at stake, it may decide that escalation carries fewer risks than submission. That is the point where the entire region could enter a far more dangerous phase.

The uncomfortable reality is that the United States, because of geography, may remain relatively insulated from direct retaliation. The immediate exposure instead lies with neighboring Gulf countries hosting American military bases, intelligence facilities, naval deployments, and logistical infrastructure. In any expanded confrontation, these locations could rapidly transform into frontline targets.

Such a development would not only threaten regional security but could also severely disrupt global energy markets, maritime trade routes, and already fragile economies across the Middle East. Investors, energy importers, and governments around the world would all pay the price for a conflict that may initially appear limited but could spiral beyond control.

This is reason the present trajectory demands urgent diplomatic intervention rather than continued escalation. Strategic pressure may weaken an adversary temporarily, but humiliation-driven conflict rarely produces lasting stability. The Middle East has already witnessed enough wars born from miscalculation, proxy rivalries, and excessive military confidence.

The world must recognize the danger before events move beyond diplomacy. Pushing Iran to the edge may not produce surrender; it may instead trigger a retaliatory spiral whose consequences no regional actor can fully contain.

Crucial week ahead for tanker market

Tanker owners were mulling their options as more contradictions came from the United States and Iranian peace negotiations updates over the weekend. 

On the one hand, President Trump declared on Saturday night that a deal with Iran had been ‘largely negotiated’ and the Strait of Hormuz would be included in a potential deal. On the other, Iran’s semi-official news agency, Tasnim, said on Sunday that under draft terms of the US-Iran negotiations, the Strait ‘will not return’ to pre-war status, but added more uncertainty by stating that ship traffic would return to previous levels.

Whatever happens in the next few days, the tanker market will take months to return to some semblance of normality. If there is a deal, London-based shipbroker, Gibson, expects some residual hesitancy in transiting the Strait, with only higher-risk owner ready to commit. The voyages are likely to follow tried and tested post-war routes close to the Iranian or Omani coastlines, the broker said, especially as uncertainty remains over the location of possible mines. 

Gibson said that of the 157 mainstream tankers of more than 25,000 dwt lying in the Gulf at the time of its report, 123 were laden and ‘will attempt to exit swiftly’. 

Meanwhile there are 150 ballasters above that deadweight promptly positioned in the Gulf of Oman and ready to be fixed for export cargoes in short order. Freight rates will be high and volatile, the broker predicted, until the risks and hazards are deemed to be low. 

Port congestion is likely, loading schedules will have to re-established, export infrastructure and port operations remain uncertain. But all parties in the supply chain will be keen to get cargoes moving again as quickly as possible. 

However, Gibson also points out that there are further challenges in the longer term. It could take months for tanker positioning to return to normal. 

Significantly more tankers are now positioned in the West largely because of record volumes of both crude and product exports out of the US Gulf. 

Ballasters are unlikely to react immediately and Western-located tankers are weeks away from the Gulf. Their owners will be unlikely to commit to a pricy ballast haul without a paying cargo to cover the eastbound leg, Gibson said. 

Overall, the shipbroker’s analysis is cautiously optimistic. But some on the ground in the Gulf are less so.

ADNOC CEO, Sultan Al Jaber, attending an Atlantic Council event last Wednesday, said: “Even if this conflict ends tomorrow, it will take at least four months to get back to 80 per cent of pre-conflict flows, and full flows will not return before the first or even second quarter of 2027”.

Analysts said that this was among the most pessimistic of views from top industry executives. However, it underscored the severity of what the International Energy Agency has called the largest-ever energy crisis because of the almost total closure of the Strait.

Courtesy: Seatrade Maritime New

 

Trump’s Mirage of Iranian Surrender

The recent US military strikes in southern Iran—executed precisely as Iranian diplomats converged on Doha for peace talks—expose a calculated strategy that goes far beyond traditional non-proliferation.

While Washington publicly frames its objectives around Iran’s nuclear stockpile and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the true epicenter of American foreign policy has shifted.

Under the current US administration, the conflict is no longer just about disarming Tehran; it is about leveraging military pressure to enforce a fundamental geopolitical restructuring of the Middle East.

This strategy became clear when President Donald Trump explicitly linked an Iranian ceasefire to a "mandatory" expansion of the Abraham Accords. By demanding that heavyweight Muslim nations like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey immediately normalize ties with Israel, Washington is using the Gaza and Iran conflicts as diplomatic leverage. The underlying ambition is not a balanced regional equilibrium, but rather the creation of a US-backed, Israel-centric architecture that permanently sidelines Palestinian statehood and curtails sovereign dissent.

The "Great Deal" being offered to Tehran begins to resemble a demand for unconditional surrender. By weaponizing sanctions, frozen funds, and periodic airstrikes, the US is signaling that any relief for Iran is contingent on its capitulation to a new regional order.

However, attempting to fuse an Iran peace deal with a mandatory expansion of the Abraham Accords is a dangerous gamble. As regional analysts note, trading the fantasy of total Iranian capitulation for the illusion that a fragile ceasefire can anchor a brand-new Middle East order is highly unstable. Regional powers like Pakistan have already signaled that these issues cannot be artificially interlinked.

If Washington continues to condition maritime security and nuclear diplomacy on an ideological restructuring of the Muslim world, it will achieve neither peace nor stability. Instead of a "Great Deal," this heavy-handed approach risks collapsing ongoing diplomacy, leaving behind a more volatile, fractured, and deeply polarized Middle East.

Blockade of Strait of Hormuz: A Symptom, Not the Disease

The rising tension surrounding the Strait of Hormuz is once again dominating global headlines. Yet portraying the crisis merely as a maritime security dispute risks missing the broader geopolitical picture. The threat of disruption in one of the world's most critical energy corridors is not an isolated event; it reflects deeper and long-standing strategic tensions in the Middle East. Military posturing at sea may be the visible manifestation of the crisis, but the roots extend far beyond naval deployments.

At the center of the dispute lies the decades-long confrontation between the United States and Iran, shaped by disagreements over Tehran's nuclear ambitions, missile capabilities, regional influence, and economic sanctions. Successive rounds of sanctions have sought to pressure Iran into altering its strategic behavior, while Iran has argued that these measures amount to economic coercion intended to weaken its sovereignty and limit its regional role.

Supporters of sanctions maintain that economic pressure remains an important instrument for preventing nuclear proliferation and deterring regional escalation.

Critics, however, argue that prolonged sanctions have often generated unintended consequences, hardening positions rather than creating space for sustainable diplomacy. This divergence reflects one of the most enduring debates in international relations - whether coercive pressure changes behavior or merely deepens confrontation.

Questions regarding global non-proliferation policies have further complicated the debate. Critics often point to perceived inconsistencies in the international system, particularly concerning different approaches toward regional nuclear capabilities. Such perceptions, whether fully justified or not, contribute to mistrust and reinforce narratives of unequal treatment.

The Strait of Hormuz therefore should not be viewed solely through the narrow lens of maritime access or freedom of navigation. Any temporary reduction in tensions at sea may provide immediate relief to energy markets, but lasting stability is unlikely to emerge without addressing the wider political and economic disputes that continue to fuel confrontation.

The lesson is straightforward - blockades and naval tensions are symptoms of deeper geopolitical fractures. Addressing the symptom may calm markets for a time, but durable stability requires resolution of the underlying political disputes that continue to shape the region's strategic landscape.

Washington’s Flawed Energy Geopolitics

The persistent volatility in global energy markets is less a reflection of physical supply deficits and more a testament to weaponized energy supply. A cold analysis of data confirms there is no genuine global oil shortage. Instead, what the world is witnessing is a meticulously manufactured crisis, orchestrated by Washington in a desperate bid to dominate global oil production and its critical logistical chokepoints.

The centerpiece of this strategy relies heavily on calculated disruptions, particularly around the highly sensitive Strait of Hormuz. Yet, the Trump administration’s aggressive maneuvers have failed to achieve their ultimate economic target - driving crude prices up to US$200 per barrel mark. While the market remained resilient against these artificial supply shocks, the underlying motives of American interventionism have become glaringly obvious.

Through this manufactured instability, Washington has attempted to kill two birds with one stone. First, by keeping the market in perpetual anxiety without letting prices completely boil over to catastrophic levels, it successfully squeezed and manipulated the oil revenues of traditional Arab exporting nations, altering their fiscal leverage. Second, and perhaps more critically, the engineered friction along maritime routes are aimed at containing and throttling the steady flow of vital energy supplies to China’s industrial engine.

For developing economies, this artificial premium adds an unnecessary layer of import-led inflation. Global stakeholders must recognize that the current energy narrative is driven by geopolitical chess rather than the fundamentals of demand and supply. The international community must push for transparent, unhindered maritime logistics to insulate the global economy from unilateral hegemonic control.

Washington Must Admit Defeat in Iran

When the joint US-Israel military campaign against Iran commenced on February 28, the White House projected absolute, unyielding confidence. "Operation Epic Fury" was sold to the public as a swift, high-impact initiative designed to permanently dismantle Tehran’s regional influence and force absolute nuclear concessions. Today, nearly three months later, the comforting illusions have shattered. Washington may have dominated the initial tactical battles, but let us be entirely clear - the United States has fundamentally lost this war.

The primary miscalculation lies in a fatal, outdated belief that modern asymmetric warfare can be won purely through kinetic superiority. While waves of airstrikes successfully degraded conventional military infrastructure, they completely failed to account for Iran’s ultimate economic equalizer: its chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz. By throttling one-fifth of the world’s energy supplies, Tehran triggered devastating geoeconomic shocks that rapidly rippled across global markets—sending international oil prices soaring and destabilizing regional financial hubs like the Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX).

Instead of isolating Iran, the conflict has backfired spectacularly on the domestic front. Skyrocketing gasoline prices and dipping approval ratings ahead of the crucial mid-term elections have severely compromised the Trump administration’s political leverage. Tehran, acutely aware of this vulnerability, recognizes that it does not need to achieve military parity; it merely needs to survive the onslaught to outlast the political timeline of its adversary.

Now, more than six weeks into an uneasy ceasefire, the sudden diplomatic push from Washington reveals an act of political desperation, not a pursuit of peace. The intensifying pressure to force Tehran into a ceasefire under Trump’s strict, maximalist conditions is a classic "ceasefire trap." It is a calculated, coercive maneuver designed to retroactively manufacture a paper victory out of a stalemated conflict on the ground.

As noted by regional analysts and highlighted in recent reporting by Reuters, a war designed to be a short-term romp has evolved into a long-term strategic failure. Forced capitulation on paper cannot mask the reality that Iran's core command structures, proxy networks, and buried uranium stockpiles remain entirely intact.

Rather than doubling down on a broken strategy or masking defeat with coercive diplomacy, it is time for the United States to mend its severe strategic mistake. Overwhelming military power is no longer enough to dictate the terms of global order, and continuing this entanglement will only deepen the damage to American credibility abroad.