The Strait of Hormuz, a critical artery for global capital's oil, gas, fertilizer, and other petroleum products, remains effectively closed by Iran, while the U.S. continues its economic coercion through a blockade of Iranian ports and military actions. These actions persist even as U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio reported “slight progress” in talks with Iran, a claim he cautioned against exaggerating. U.S. Central Command confirmed the redirection of 94 commercial vessels and the disabling of four others since about 1 month ago, directly impacting global trade flows and the movement of commodities.
Who Profits from the Blockade and Conflict?
The ongoing conflict over the Strait of Hormuz directly impacts the global flow of commodities vital for industrial capital worldwide. Secretary Rubio, speaking ahead of a NATO foreign ministers' meeting in Helsingborg, Sweden, discussed reopening the strait, emphasizing the need for a “plan B” if Washington and Tehran fail to reach a deal. Rubio stated, “Someone’s going to have to do something about it, OK?” insisting Iran would not “voluntarily reopen” the strait. The NATO military alliance, at the same meeting, discussed its potential role in policing the Strait of Hormuz once the war concludes, signaling its function in securing global trade routes and resource access for member states' corporations. This military-economic strategy aims to ensure the uninterrupted flow of resources essential for capital accumulation.
The State's Role in Imperial Projection
U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly used the prospect of “serious negotiations” as a pretext to hold off on military strikes against the Islamic Republic, only to launch attacks or threaten them again. Trump ordered strikes in late February, about 3 months ago, shortly after indicating he would let talks play out, demonstrating the state's readiness to deploy military force regardless of diplomatic efforts. This week, Trump stated he called off attacks on Iran at the request of allies in the Middle East, yet his administration maintains a blockade on Iranian ports. The American military continues to search for explosive mines in the Strait of Hormuz, despite a U.S. official confirming no ships have been struck or damaged by mines and no evidence of mine-laying by Iranians since the conflict began. U.S. officials have previously claimed they targeted and destroyed Iran's mine-laying capability as part of airstrikes across the country, making the continued search a questionable justification for military presence and resource control.
Pakistan's Field Marshal Asim Munir arrived in Tehran this Friday for talks with Iranian leaders, following his facilitation of face-to-face talks between Iran and the U.S. in Islamabad about 1 month ago. Pakistan's interior minister, who had already met with Iranian leaders twice this week, joined Munir. Qatar also sent a delegation to Tehran, working in coordination with other countries including Egypt, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, indicating a regional effort to manage the conflict's economic and political fallout for their respective ruling classes. These diplomatic maneuvers, while presented as peace efforts, occur amidst ongoing military and economic pressure, failing to address the underlying structural contradictions.
Allies as Imperial Garrisons
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) separately launched multiple attacks on Iran and Iranian-backed Shiite militias in Iraq during the war, as confirmed by two regional officials and a Western diplomat. An Israeli military officer also confirmed the UAE proactively struck Iran at least once, highlighting the coordinated military actions of regional powers in service of broader imperial interests. Saudi Arabia's strikes targeted military facilities in Iran and hideouts of Iraqi militias, particularly Kataib Hezbollah, after assessing drone attacks on Saudi Arabia originated from Iraq. The UAE, which referred to a statement from 6 days ago claiming “all measures undertaken by the UAE have been within the framework of defensive actions aimed at protecting its sovereignty, civilians, and vital infrastructure,” had pushed for a collective military response from Gulf Arab countries since the war's onset. Trump's decision to allow more peace talks sparked tension with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with an official describing a “dramatic” phone conversation between the two leaders. Trump publicly asserted that Netanyahu “will do whatever I want him to do,” revealing the hierarchical nature of alliances within the imperial bloc and the limits of independent action for client states.