Iranian analysts clash over Strait of Hormuz strategy and diplomacy with US
Foad Izadi argues that increasing costs for Washington could force a policy change, while former diplomat Mohsen Baharvand warns that escalation could expose Iran to greater harm.
Foad Izadi and former diplomat Mohsen Baharvand debated Iran’s response to US pressure in an IRNA-published discussion. Izadi argued for increasing the economic and strategic costs of Washington’s policy, including potentially restricting oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz and targeting regional US infrastructure. Baharvand warned that escalation could lead to a stronger US response because of the disparity in military reach and economic capacity. He called for maintaining military readiness while preserving diplomacy and avoiding actions that could provide grounds for further attacks.
TEHRAN — Iranian academic Foad Izadi and former Foreign Ministry diplomat Mohsen Baharvand have offered sharply different assessments of how Iran should respond to US pressure and attacks, debating the role of diplomacy, deterrence and the Strait of Hormuz.
In the final section of a debate published by the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), Izadi argued that Iran should seek to change US policy by increasing the costs of Washington’s regional strategy. He said closing the Strait of Hormuz could create significant economic pressure if maintained for a limited period, and argued that Iran should consider targeting US infrastructure in the region if Washington’s policy did not change.
Izadi said the objective should not necessarily be military confrontation, but forcing the United States to conclude that its current policy was failing. He argued that the Strait’s importance to oil shipments meant that disruption could affect energy prices and place pressure on the US economy. He also said Iran should use a broader range of political, economic, intelligence and informational tools alongside military capabilities.
Izadi maintained that negotiations alone had failed to alter US behavior after more than two decades of engagement. He nevertheless said diplomacy should not be abandoned, describing it as one tool among several rather than an end in itself. He argued that negotiations would be more effective after the United States had concluded that continued pressure was unsuccessful.
Baharvand disputed that approach, warning that a sharp increase in tensions could produce a stronger response from the United States. Because the US mainland was outside Iran’s direct reach and Washington had greater military and economic capacity, he said, the United States could suffer less damage while escalating further.
“Any aggressive policy” could give Washington an opportunity to inflict additional damage on Iran, Baharvand argued. He said Iran should retain the ability to respond to an existential threat and maintain military preparedness, but should not remove diplomatic options or provide the other side with a pretext for further attacks.
Baharvand said recent developments indicated that military resistance had already influenced US calculations to some degree. He argued that the reported adjustment of US objectives and moves toward mediation suggested that Washington had recognized that a military solution would not easily achieve its aims. However, he cautioned that this did not mean US policy had fundamentally changed.
He advocated a cautious, phased approach that could include temporary or limited agreements while recognizing that the other side might not honor them. According to Baharvand, even an imperfect agreement could help control the conflict and protect Iranian infrastructure, whose destruction could take years to repair.
The two speakers also disagreed over whether the United States had concluded that Iran was too difficult to defeat. Baharvand said Iran had demonstrated resilience and was not an easy target, while Izadi argued that Washington still appeared to believe that continued military, economic and political pressure could ultimately weaken or overthrow the Iranian government.
Izadi warned that failure to change the current policy could lead to further attacks on Iranian infrastructure and raised the possibility that US President Donald Trump might eventually consider using nuclear weapons against Iran. Baharvand criticized this line of argument as a self-fulfilling prediction, saying that an escalation by Iran could itself increase the likelihood of a more damaging US response.
Both speakers acknowledged the significant disparity in military technology between Iran and the United States. Baharvand said Iran could defend itself but lacked the ability to directly threaten US territory and interests to the same extent. He urged Iranian policymakers to preserve military capabilities while continuing to test diplomatic channels.
The debate ended with Izadi reiterating that Iran should assess what measures could change US policy, while Baharvand argued that diplomacy and deterrence should be pursued simultaneously and that Iran should avoid closing off a possible diplomatic exit.