Categories Finance

Iran War: The Narrative Battle Over Hormuz, plus Meetings in NY, UAE, and Riyadh

  • 2026年10月2日
  • Estimated read time 15 min read
  • 0 comments

This week marks our fundraising campaign here at Naked Capitalism. So far, 978 generous donors have contributed to our mission of tackling corruption and predatory practices, especially within the financial sector. We invite you to join our cause by visiting our donation page, where you’ll find options for giving via check, credit card, debit card, PayPal, Clover, or Wise. You can also read about the purpose of our fundraiser, our achievements over the past year, and our current goal of providing bonuses for our outstanding writers.

The Trump 2.0 administration appears to be making strides in persuading oil markets that they’ve successfully navigated around the Iranian blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, allowing a substantial increase in crude oil flow.

Despite Iran’s previous claims of damaging nearly two dozen ships over the weekend, those reports have quieted. However, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has reached out to the American public with letters filled with threats.

Meanwhile, significant meetings have been held in locations such as New York, Abu Dhabi, Riyadh, and even London, while operations continue on the Yemeni front.

Let’s delve into the details.

Narrative Control Yielding Results for Team America

Kpler’s Amena Bakr, described by Will Schryver as “a market intel shaper” who presents an illusion of impartiality, highlighted the market’s positive response to recent developments:

Not all analysts share Kpler’s optimistic view, as Rory Johnston pointed out:

U.S. analysts are now claiming Iran is nearing a collapse and that a deal must be on the horizon:

This aligns with Scott Bessent’s assertion from the weekend that Iran only has around 15 million barrels left available for trade, making his statement quite credible given his past role as Treasury Secretary under Trump.

Furthermore, despite claiming to have attacked 19 ships over the weekend, Iran has remained silent about any subsequent incidents.

The U.S. Department of Energy is also stepping in, proposing to lend 40 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve:

HFI Research calls this “the final TACO” and suggests that “the timeline to push oil prices lower was the end of September into early October. In addition to the SPR release, the Trump team has attempted 3 consecutive VaR shock strategies at precisely 11:45 AM EST. While crude oil did move lower today, I think it is temporary,” and “I expect SPR flow to be 3-5 million bbls a week for the remainder of the 39.5 million bbls.

HFI also refers to remarks made by Jim Cramer, saying, “Rates aren’t responding correctly to the lower oil prices. I think oil will adjust…”

Despite lower oil prices, the Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday that “Middle East Oil Exports Rebound as Iran’s Chokehold on Hormuz Breaks Down.”

So far this month, crude exports from major Middle Eastern producers including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the U.A.E. and others—moving through Hormuz and alternative routes—have risen to almost 13 million barrels a day. That is the highest total since February, when the region exported nearly 19 million barrels a day, according to ship tracker Huax.

Israeli military analyst Danny Citrinowicz cautioned that claims of victory may be slightly premature:

The fact that Iran is losing some of its ability to control and disrupt the Strait of Hormuz does not mean that the United States has established full control over the waterway.

Ultimately, oil is a physical commodity: either enough of it reaches the global market or it does not. The fact that oil prices remain high suggests that Washington’s significant operational achievements in the Strait have not yet translated into the strategic and economic outcomes that are necessary.

There are simply too many variables. Insurance premiums remain extremely high, tanker availability is constrained, and commercial shipping continues to face significant risks. Additionally, sustaining a robust American military presence in the Gulf is a tremendous financial and operational burden.

…operational success should not be conflated with strategic victory.

…

At present, neither side holds complete control over the Strait. Iran’s leverage is significantly diminished, but the U.S. has not fully eradicated it. A strategy that relies indefinitely on an exceedingly costly American military presence in the Gulf cannot serve as a sustainable long-term solution.

The DOE’s SPR initiative marks the final segment of a deal established in March, which has seemingly benefited the U.S., as reported by Reuters:

Washington agreed in March to lend 172 million barrels of oil from the SPR as part of a wider agreement with approximately 30 countries in the International Energy Agency to release 400 million barrels from global reserves.

In June, the U.S. offered to loan 40 million barrels from this contract but later revealed that firms only agreed to borrow about 500,000 barrels.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright indicated that the U.S. and Japan have fulfilled their obligations under the deal, but noted that “many European member countries have only released a fraction of the crude oil and petroleum products they pledged.”
…
Reuters also cited reports of the White House urging the EU to draw down emergency diesel reserves in an effort to mitigate prices, though the EU has yet to disclose the total volumes released thus far. The IEA suggests that EU contributions will largely consist of refined products rather than crude oil.

As it stands, the amount of oil in the U.S. SPR has dwindled to less than 284 million barrels, marking the lowest level since 1982.

Global Security states there were 132 tanker transits in the past week compared to a pre-war rate of around 130 daily.

However, Iran is also suffering. According to Drop Site News:

Iran’s currency plummeted to a record low on Tuesday, with the dollar surpassing 2.5 million rials, down from about 1.7 million before the U.S.-Israeli conflict ignited in February. U.S.-Israeli assaults on the nation’s energy sector have led to the loss of approximately 230 million cubic meters of gas production capacity, according to Iranian government spokesperson Fatemeh Mohajerani. Efforts are underway to restore roughly 100 million cubic meters.

She stated that the damage has worsened an existing imbalance between energy supply and demand, warning that northern provinces may encounter shortages this winter. “Based on historical patterns, we will likely experience challenges in the northern provinces,” Mohajerani voiced.

DD Geopolitics reported that Turkish forces have seized an Iranian airliner in Istanbul with passengers onboard, further complicating the situation for Iran. Conversely, Iraq has resumed flights between Iran and the crucial Shia city of Najaf, as reported by Al Jazeera.

Anusar Farooqui, also known as Policy Tensor, argues that Iran won the initial conflict in March but is currently faltering, perhaps echoing Trump’s sentiment that this is a new type of war that does not require authorization from Congress:

The key distinction lies between the war Iran won and the one it is currently waging. The first conflict was resolved in March. The United States and Israel instigated a war of aggression aimed at disarming Iran to remove it from the regional balance of power, facilitating air dominance by Israel.

This offensive was thwarted as Iranian military capabilities proved robust and adaptable, far beyond what American and Israeli strategists had anticipated. Iran effectively demonstrated superiority in escalation—this decision is irreversible. The United States lacks the military capacity to disarm Iran.

The second conflict emerged after the ayatollah’s funeral, when Iran issued a challenge, signaling an end to the cat-and-mouse game over the Omani route and demanding that the United States recognize Iranian authority over transit in the Strait of Hormuz. This different war follows a distinct logic; the first was marked by survival against enemy aggression, while the second entails compelling the enemy to comply with demands.

Compellence is significantly more complex than deterrence, particularly for the weaker side. Successful compellence hinges on aligning the costs imposed with the demands made. By this standard, Iranian strategy has faltered.

So, how is the negotiation with Iran progressing?

Waiting for That Big Deal With Iran

Pakistan’s Dawn.com reported on ongoing discussions in New York:

In advance of a potential agreement regarding the Strait of Hormuz, both the U.S. and Iran have intensified their rhetoric. President Donald Trump has reiterated his confidence that the Middle Eastern conflict will conclude “very, very soon.”

Iran’s state media quoted Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, indicating the expectation of a formal response to Tehran’s proposal for reopening the strait.

These remarks come as reports surfaced of an “unknown projectile” hitting a ship in the Strait, resulting in a fire that was subsequently extinguished.

Qatari mediators have put forth ideas for consideration, expecting to relay them to the American side for a formal response, as stated by Araghchi during the UN General Assembly.

Al Jazeera adds:

Indirect negotiations between the United States and Iran, aimed at concluding the protracted conflict, continue primarily with Qatari mediation on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. However, fundamental disagreements persist regarding the agenda.

Despite Trump’s public rejection of Iran’s proposal for a seven-day ceasefire in exchange for lifting the naval blockade and sanctions, Araghchi stated he had yet to receive a formal response from Washington. U.S. media have suggested that Trump might be willing to ease sanctions and unfreeze Iranian assets, but the president has vehemently denied these claims.

U.S. officials have expressed a desire for a comprehensive deal that simultaneously resolves all outstanding issues, with a particular focus on Iran’s nuclear program, rather than opting for a gradual approach.

In summary, there remains no conclusive deal in sight; even Axios recognizes that U.S.-Iran negotiations are yielding minimal results, raising concerns about the likelihood of renewed conflict.

Adding to the tensions, note the recent letter from the IRGC addressed to the American people. The lengthy document, directed towards “the honorable people of the United States,” includes striking statements:

  • “Americans need to wake up. They need to wrest control back from corrupt politicians. Now is the time, as the American political system is at its weakest.”
  • On Trump: “not only an inveterate liar but is also an insanely avaricious man.” “Remove from power the evil, deceitful, and violent politicians who are responsible for America’s current state.”
  • Features a section titled “Why Is Iran the Victor?” and even invites Americans to visit Iran, “possibly even the Strait of Hormuz.”

However, Iran’s rhetoric isn’t exclusively cordial. According to Business Recorder:

Iranian chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf has issued new threats, warning that no infrastructure in the region would be deemed safe if Iran’s security is not assured.

“In a region where we cannot sell oil, no one else will sell oil either; or if our security is not guaranteed, no infrastructure will remain safe,” Ghalibaf conveyed in a video statement.

As a point of consideration, Ali Vaez discusses what he dubs “The New Forever War”:

The United States is incapable of toppling the Iranian regime, compelling it to relinquish its missile capabilities, or forcing it to abandon its nuclear ambitions, nor can it stop Iran from supporting its regional allies. However, Washington can continue to undermine Iran’s military and restrict its economy. Although Iran cannot expel the U.S. from the Middle East, it can persist in damaging American bases, striking U.S. allies, and disrupting international trade.

Both nations possess the resources required to sustain an ongoing conflict, and both believe they have no alternative but to utilize them.

Now, let’s turn our attention back to the meetings that warrant discussion.

More Meetings: Abu Dhabi, Riyadh, London

The Abraham Accords were active in Abu Dhabi, where Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gathered with key regional counterparts on Sunday, as reported by The Times of Israel:

During his impromptu visit to the United Arab Emirates, Prime Minister Netanyahu not only met with UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed but also engaged with senior officials from various Middle Eastern countries, including those without formal ties to Israel, according to state broadcasts.

Notably, planes from Libya, Morocco, Qatar, and an Emirati government aircraft arrived in Abu Dhabi simultaneously as Netanyahu’s visit, according to a report that passed Israeli military censorship.

Dr. Sayed Mohammad Marandi tweeted that Netanyahu reportedly held talks with representatives from Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Libya, Jordan, and Qatar, all coordinated by the Mossad following requests for assistance against Yemeni operations.

Meanwhile, significant dialogue has also been ongoing in Riyadh, with the Financial Times covering the meeting between the Saudi crown prince and a senior Emirati royal, aimed at mending rifts:

“Ali Shihabi, a Saudi commentator familiar with Riyadh’s perspective, remarked that Prince Khalid’s invitation to Sheikh Mansour was a notable gesture, indicating increased coordination, particularly concerning Yemen.”

Shihabi further commented, “I don’t believe they [the UAE] will re-engage in the war, but Riyadh desires their management to prevent southern factions from undermining the anti-Houthi front.”

Dr. Andreas Krieg also commented on the significance of this meeting:

The first official meeting between KbS—a key strategist in Riyadh—and UAE VP Mansour bin Zayed since bilateral relations soured in December indicates a level of urgency to rebuild the anti-Houthi coalition. Saudi defenses will also be reinforced with support from Turkey, the UK, France, and Pakistan.

Additionally, the Pakistani Prime Minister’s office announced a meeting that took place in London:

Furthermore, a British General has been busy engaging with leaders from Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan:

Now let’s shift our focus to Yemen to conclude our discussion.

A Dab of Bab El Mendab’ll Do Ya

Circling back to the British involvement in the region:

Nawaf Obaid, Senior Fellow at the War Studies Department at King’s College London, shared insights on the operational dynamics between Iranian and Russian intelligence:

Iran has facilitated operational cohesion between Russian-derived intelligence and Houthi tactical analysis, constructing an intricate understanding of operational dynamics. This coordination has exploited weaknesses along the western coastal front of Yemen.

The consequences of these operations manifest when command structures fail to function effectively, summoning confusion and inaccurate information dissemination among units.

Consequently, airpower has been restricted due to unreliability about the positioning of friendly forces, thus complicating military strategies across key regions.

Yemeni activists have a divergent perspective on recent Saudi airstrikes:

In addition, partisan dynamics continue, with statements made by Pakistani clerics at a Saudi conference condemning the Houthis’ religious legitimacy:

Recent reports also detail casualties among Saudi officers and soldiers as a result of Yemeni missile strikes targeting military camps:

Additional confirmations from Drop Site enhance the narrative:

That’s everything for today. Stay safe, everyone.

You can support my work at NatWilsonTurner.com

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

您的邮箱地址不会被公开。 必填项已用 * 标注

You May Also Like

Trump’s Administration: Scandals and Backstabbing Unveiled

Suffolk County Voters Support Write-In Candidate to Fight Corruption and Dysfunction

Europe’s Future: Insights from the ‘Years of Lead’