Category: News

The Catholicos of Cilicia Aram I of the Great House, the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, the Eastern Diocese of the Armenian Church of America criticized and condemned the trial against the Catholicos of All Armenians and high-ranking clergymen.

Catholicos of the Great House of Cilicia Aram I called it “unacceptable and reprehensible” to call Garegin II to the court, who noted that he suggested Garegin II not to appear in court and to send his representative.

“We expressed our deep protest to Garegin Vehapar and even suggested not to appear in court and to send his representative. We appeal to the state officials, as we have often done, to show respect towards our church and His Holiness and to examine the issues within the limits of mutual understanding and propriety, respecting the laws of the state and the internal order and rule of the church,” said the statement of the Catholicos of Cilicia Aram I of the Great House.

The Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem condemned “the ongoing legal prosecutions against the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church, its highest authority and high-ranking clergy”. The Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem considered today’s court session “a deeply disturbing and unacceptable event in national-ecclesiastical history.”

“The intervention of the state bodies in the internal canonical, administrative and disciplinary matters of the Church contradicts the principle of the autonomy of the Church and creates a dangerous precedent in the state-Church relations,” said the statement released by the Patriarchate.

The Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem demanded to stop the prosecution against the Catholicos of All Armenians and the members of the Supreme Spiritual Council.

“The authorities of Armenia are obliged to realize that their attitude towards the Catholicos of All Armenians is not only an internal political issue. We appeal to the relevant bodies of Armenia to respect the religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia, the autonomy of the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church, its internal canonical order and the dignity of the republic, and to refrain from such steps that could deepen the national division and cause irreparable damage to the relations between the Armenian Church and the state in Jerusalem. in the statement.

The Eastern Diocese of the Armenian Church of America has also stated that the issues related to church management, discipline and leadership belong to the church’s own canonical order.

The Catholicos of All Armenians will stand before the court today as an accused. The criminal case against him and six bishops and archbishops is in the Armavir court. The Catholicos is accused of obstructing the execution of a judicial act, in a case in which six high-ranking clerics of the church were also accused.

This case concerns Reverend Gevorg, one of the 10 bishops who joined the Prime Minister’s anti-Catholic campaign. The Catholicos deposed him, and the court obliged to restore the clergyman to his post. The Mother See, however, did not restore and excommunicated him, declaring that these matters are not within the domain of the court, this is an interference with the autonomy of the church. The investigator considered this to be obstruction of justice.

—

Today will take place the Catholicos of All Armenians H.S.O.T. The first court hearings in the criminal case against Garegin B. Nersisyan and six bishops (archbishops), this case was transferred to the Court of First Instance of Armavir Region and assigned to Judge Hakob Manukyan.

The Catholicos of All Armenians is accused of the act that he, being also the president of the Supreme Spiritual Council, using his official powers, allegedly obstructed the execution of the decision of the Court of General Jurisdiction of Armavir Region (Judge Edgar Hovhannisyan) regarding another judicial act that entered into legal force:

Former director of Yeghishe Charents Literature and Art Museum, writer, literary critic Karo Vardanyan according to the assessment, what is happening is the shame of the Armenian nation.

“Under this government, not only His Holiness, but all of us are already in that “sinner” status. The whole country is guilty that these people are in power, and we accepted them, it’s not enough, they go and elect them for the 3rd time, so how is the guilt? This is already the malignant type of that sin, which is incurable.

We have no excuse, I can imagine the worst of them. The rest is already ahead, long and intense court hearings, to which, I am afraid, this will accustom us, he will start talking about looting and taming his crowd more energetically.” of 168.am Karo Vardanyan said in a conversation with

According to our interlocutor, it should not be expected that the followers of the Apostolic Church should flood the court yard today, because what they were going to do, they should have done months ago, when the government started targeting the Saint.

“There should be not 1,000 or 2,000 people in the courtyard of the court, but a whole nation, as is the case during the organized cases of some figures. Today, Nikol Pashinyan is dragging our faith to the dirty court, our religion is being judged today, this is not the question of His Holiness, this is the question of all of us,” added Karo Vardanyan.

According to him, he is often asked where Armenia is going, especially from the regions, especially the young people who still have to live in this country.

“In Yerevan, we don’t know many people, we don’t know who is standing in front of us in the market or in public transport, but in the regions we almost all know each other. It is ten times harder for conscious people there, they know who they should beware of, who they should stay away from, so as not to betray them.

I always have an answer: find people like you, let’s comfort each other. One day, the end of these will come, I don’t know what ruins will be left of our country, in the end we need a handful of Armenians to be repaired. Today, a conscious Armenian should not succumb to their current and say: what happened, everyone is like that, I will be like that too. This is the worst mentality, I repeat, in the end we need at least a pure-blooded Armenian,” emphasized Karo Vardanyan.

—

The court session in the “case” of the Catholicos and 6 bishops lasted about 30 minutes.

“Judge Hakob Manukyan recused himself,” lawyer Marine Farmanyan informed in the court yard.

—

On August 7, at 4:00 p.m., H.E. The first session of the preliminary hearings of the criminal case against Catholicos of All Armenians Karekin II and six bishops who are members of the Supreme Spiritual Council.

Opposition political forces are in the court yard.

Member of the Executive Body of the Republican Party of Armenia (RPA), former deputy of the National Assembly Hayk Mamijanyan told reporters that our national shame is happening at this moment.

“The RA court is trying to judge His Holiness. The Catholicos of our Armenian Apostolic Church is in court, what else is there to comment on? Such a thing happened once in history. they strangled the Catholicos during the time of the Soviet authorities. Is Pashinyan preparing for that? There is no politics here, it is national values, national identity. I am sure that there is no Armenian in the world who is at peace with the idea that His Holiness was summoned to court,” he continued, adding that the government hopes to destroy the Armenian Apostolic Church, but it has endured much greater persecution than a group of Nicolaitans and marginals.

“Why is this being done, because the church was the last ditch of our defense and preservation of our identity, when there was not even statehood. And now there are enough parallels, the authorities do not protect and represent the interests of Armenia and want to eliminate the institution that would protect and promote our interests,” Mamijanyan stressed, offering to fight with all non-prohibited means, even if Pashinyan’s government has managed to form the National Assembly.

“In my opinion, this is not going without a street fight,” the RPA figure emphasized.

Details in the video

—

United prayer and Catholicos of All Armenians
the patriarchal message in the Miatsnaej Cathedral

On August 7, H.E. After the first court session in the criminal case of Karekin the Second Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians and six bishops who are members of the Supreme Spiritual Council, the Congregation of the Mother See and the faithful people present at the Miatsnaej Cathedral participated in the evening service, at the end of which His Holiness the Patriarch sent his blessing and message to those present.

H.E. GAREGIN B. THE MOST ARMENIAN CATHOLIC

THE SPEECH TO THE FELLOWS GATHERED IN THE MOTHER TEMPLE

Dear believing children of Ours,

Patriarchal We bring our love, blessing and appreciation to you, that after expressing your protest against the unacceptable processes against the Armenian Church in the siege of the court, now, united in the Mother Cathedral, we raised a united prayer to God for our Holy Church and people.

The Armenian Church is the spiritual cradle and sanctity of every Armenian. Our Holy Church is the unshakable fortress of our people’s faith, the guide to God and salvation, and the steadfast guardian of Armenian identity and national-spiritual heritage.

Nowadays, the authorities and government structures are taking steps to damage the authority of the Church, to limit the autonomy and to subjugate the Church to their will, as well as to change the perception of national identity, cherished and sacred symbols and memories in front of temporary political expedients. Indeed, the autonomy of the Church has always been one of the important guarantees of the welfare of the nation and the strengthening of the state.

We regret that our Holy Church and clergy are being persecuted by the authorities. In illegal and fabricated criminal cases, arrests and restrictions of freedom were applied to a number of churchmen, national benefactors and other people who loved the nation and the church. A little while ago, we returned from the first session of the trial initiated against two archbishops and four bishops, members of the Supreme Spiritual Council, with baseless and criminal accusations, which did not take place due to the judge’s resignation.
We are full of faith and determination, dear ones, to protect our just rights guaranteed both by the constitution of our state and the fundamental principles of international law.

With this awareness and responsibility, with love for the nation and our homeland, we will continue our mission, against all difficulties and obstacles, because, as the psalmist says, “God is our hope and strength, and our helper in the severe troubles that have come to us” (Psalm 45:2). Antarakuys, Our trust is in God, and Our service is for our pious world wide people and dear country.

Dear faithful Armenians, in this moment of prayer gathering, with Fatherly love, we bring our appreciation to you and all our church-loving children in Armenia and in the Diaspora, to national and non-governmental organizations, lawyers, scientific, educational, cultural, and political figures, who support the Mother Church and its mission for the benefit of the nation with perseverance and zeal in the current difficult conditions. We must be indomitable and make persistent and long-lasting efforts to stop the injustices in our country, discrimination and intolerance, the spread of hate speech and hatred. We must make persistent and long-lasting efforts so that our homeland and national peace is renewed with brotherhood and solidarity, and truth, legality and justice prevail in our lives, and the centuries-old teachings of the Church are respected. orders and traditions, so as not to offend the pious feelings of believers.

My Patriarch urges all of you to be sober and prudent, not to give in to provocations, insidious schemes, to remain firm in faith and hope, because God brings out good things for his Holy Church and the believing people from all malicious realities and trials. Our faith is also strengthened in tribulations, our constant dedication to God, motherland and the Church, unbroken loyalty to our sacred national-spiritual values ​​is demonstrated. In the face of external and internal threats, let’s strengthen our national unity, make our process fruitful with patriotic and national-interesting deeds and according to the message of the apostle, let’s be strengthened by the Lord and the power of His power (Eph. 6.10):
We believe that our Holy Church, with the mercy of God and the unconditional dedication and love of our people, will overcome these hardships as well and establish new successes on the way of its mission, for the benefit and brightness of the life of all Armenians.
Our gaze is directed to God and Our efforts to the construction of the motherland and the service of our people. May God bless the Armenian state, keep our people calm and peaceful in our homeland and in the diaspora today and always and forever.

Grace, love and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you and with everyone. every

—

The Holy Armenian Apostolic Church is not just some organization operating in Armenia, but the soul of the nation. Today, Archbishop Nathan Hovhannisyan, director of the department of foreign relations and protocol of the Mother See, joked in a conversation with journalists in the courtyard of the Mother See.

“It is neither the National Health Service nor “Multi Wellness” that they can crush, seize, nationalize, and appoint their manager in a Bolshevik manner. The church is the soul of our nation. The body is the state, the body is the people, the soul is the church,” said the reverend.

Is it possible for the relations between the church and the authorities to be regulated? the reverend does not consider it impossible, if there is repentance on the part of the authorities.

Is the Patriarch ready to forgive after all this? Reverend Nathan noted: the greatest mission of a Christian is to forgive, but forgiveness happens where there is repentance.
“If there is repentance, it is impossible that there is no forgiveness,” said the reverend.

Reverend Nathan also mentioned that none of the bishops who joined the so-called “Reformation Movement” tried to meet with His Holiness during this time. According to him, the clergy who are members of the Supreme Spiritual Council also received invitations to participate in the council sessions, but the invitations remained unanswered. He mentioned that Arman Saroyan (former leader of Masyatsotn Diocese, Bishop Gevorg, ed.) continues to use the accounts of the Mother See.

And how do they feel in the Mother See that Patriarch of Constantinople Sahak Mashalyan did not react in any way to the start of the trial in the “case” of His Holiness and 6 bishops?

“I hope the letter hasn’t arrived yet. “Maybe the mail is not working well,” joked the reverend.

He also responded to the journalist’s question about rumors that the Patriarch of Constantinople is claiming the throne of Catholicos.

“I don’t know what they are claiming when the Catholicos, thank God, is alive and well, and may God give him a long life,” said Reverend Nathan.

—

RPA GM member Eduard Sharmazanov writes on his Facebook page: “Let’s see if any Russian official will comment on the warm meeting between Zelensky and Bayramov, or is it taboo to criticize Azerbaijanis?”

Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan Bayramov met with President Zelensky in Kyiv.

The latter thanked Azerbaijan for its assistance.

Let me remind you that in February 2022, just a few days before the start of the CSTO, Russia and Azerbaijan signed a declaration of strategic alliance.

During these years, Azerbaijan has openly provided political and other support to the Zelensky regime, the enemy of its ally Russia.

Let’s see tomorrow whether the ambassador of Azerbaijan will be invited to the Russian Foreign Ministry to hand over a note of protest, or whether the Azerbaijanis are allowed to have warm contacts with Zelenak.

What did I say?

Yes, I criticize and criticize the uncalculated and harmful steps of the RA rulers against the Armenian-Russian alliance, but Aliyev’s regime behaves a thousand times worse with the Russian Federation, ceremoniously warming relations with the Kiev regime.

It is obvious that in case of such steps by official Yerevan, official Moscow would at least severely criticize it.

Should we now expect severe criticism from Moscow regarding official Baku’s anti-Russian actions? Or is the old Greek rule still valid here: “What is done to Zeus, not to the ox”?

—

Iran’s strategic calculation and the new geopolitical significance of the strait

Introduction:

Middle power states and regional powers are rarely able to compete with superpowers in terms of military, economic or technological potential. For this reason, they strive to turn their comparative advantages – geographical location, political influence, economic opportunities or other strategic resources – into geopolitical influence.

Geopolitical experience shows that influence over a strategic area is not always determined by legal or military superiority over it. In most cases, it is more important to occupy such a position, without which it is difficult to imagine the stable and predictable activity of the given strategic area.

The Strait of Hormuz has become one of the clearest examples of this logic in recent decades. It continues to be one of the most important strategic sea hubs of the global energy system. According to various estimates, about one-fifth of the oil transported by sea routes passes through this strait.

However, its importance has long gone beyond the borders of the economy. Hormuz is simultaneously a key factor of strategic deterrence, regional power balance and international political influence, where the geopolitical interests of regional and international power centers intersect.

However, recent developments around Hormuz raise a more fundamental question. Much of the international discussion focuses on whether or not it will be possible to restore the shipping regime that existed before the Iran-US/Israel war. Underlying this approach is the assumption that restoring the status quo that worked before the war is in the interests of all major actors, including Iran. But is it really so? It is this assumption that requires re-evaluation.

The last war changed not only the balance of power in the region, but also Tehran’s strategic calculation. If in the past Hormuz was mainly considered as a platform of pressure used in crisis situations, after the war it began to be perceived as a platform of long-term strategic influence. Under these conditions, Iran’s strategic goal is not to close the strait, but to become such an actor in its security system, ignoring its decisive role and interests, it will be difficult to ensure the safety of international shipping.

This change changes the logic of evaluating the results of the war. The question is no longer whether Iran can disrupt shipping or not. It is more important to understand whether Tehran seeks to create such a security environment in which stable navigation in Hormuz will be difficult to imagine without its direct participation and taking into account its interests.

This approach leads to three interrelated questions: what is the place of Hormuz in Iran’s strategic thinking, what did the last war change, and what are the implications of that change for regional security and international shipping.

This logic changes the starting point for evaluating the developments around Hormuz. They are no longer limited to the framework of another regional crisis, but reflect the strategy of turning geographical advantage into long-term geopolitical influence. Therefore, the main question of the post-war period is no longer whether it will be possible to restore the shipping regime that existed before the war, but under what political conditions, in what power balance and with whose participation will the new security reality of Hormuz be formed.

The strategic importance of Hormuz for Iran

The strategic importance of Hormuz is usually evaluated from the point of view of global energy markets. At the center of the discussions are the volumes of oil and liquefied natural gas transported through the strait, the risks of supply disruptions and their impact on the global economy. Although these assessments are valid, they do not formulate the entire strategic logic, which is why Hormuz occupies a key place in Iran’s strategic thinking.

The strategic importance of Hormuz for Tehran is primarily due to its geographical location. Iran controls the northern coast of the strait, occupying a geographical position that cannot be replaced either by military power, economic resources, or technological advantage. In this sense, geography is not just a matter of favorable position for Iran, but the strategic advantage on which its national security and geopolitical influence are built.

It is this geographical advantage that formed the main logic of Iran’s naval strategy. Realizing that it cannot compete with the United States and its partners with classic naval capabilities, Tehran has developed an asymmetric naval strategy for many years. The purpose of that strategy is to create an environment where any regional or extra-regional actor would have to take into account Iran’s possible response in their political, military and economic calculations.

In this sense, Hormuz performs three interrelated functions in Tehran’s strategic calculations.

First, it is a tool of restraint. The geographical features of the strait allow to significantly increase the risk and price of any external intervention, even in the conditions of disproportionate military capabilities. The goal is not to defeat the enemy militarily, but to increase the value and risks of his strategic decisions.

Second, Hormuz is a source of political and economic influence. Developments around Hormuz have shown that even limited security incidents can affect not only shipping, but also insurance markets, energy prices and the international political agenda. For this reason, the importance of the strait has long gone beyond the boundaries of the purely military sphere.

Thirdly, Tehran considers Hormuz as a key component of the Persian Gulf security system. For this reason, he consistently claims that the long-term security of the region cannot be built without the participation of the main regional actors, first of all, his own participation. This approach has become one of the fundamental principles of Iran’s foreign and security policy in recent decades.

Together, these three functions form the strategic logic within which Hormuz is considered not only as a geographical advantage, but also as a structural basis of geopolitical influence. For Iran, its value is determined not so much by direct control over the strait, but by the fact that its geographical position gives an opportunity to influence the strategic calculations of other actors.

In fact, this geographical advantage has existed for a long time. Therefore, it is necessary to understand why it acquired a new political significance after the last war. The answer should be sought not so much in the military results of the war, but in the strategic conclusions reached by Tehran.

The impact of the war on Iran’s strategic calculations

The strategic importance of wars is not always determined by military success or territorial changes. Often, their most important result is not the immediate change in the balance of power, but the strategic conclusions reached by the participants in the conflict after the end of the war. In strategic thinking, war is not only the use of force, but also a process of strategic re-evaluation.

From this point of view, the last war became the test stone on which Tehran practically tested its long-term strategic calculations regarding Hormuz.

The war showed that the global maritime trade system is extremely sensitive to even limited security disruptions. The problem was not only the safety of the ships. No less important were the indirect consequences: the increase in insurance premiums, the redirection of transportation, the change in market expectations and the reassessment of business risks. All this proved that the vulnerability of world trade is caused not only by actual military operations, but also by the influence of uncertainty.

If even limited security disruptions in Hormuz are sufficient to change the behavior of international markets, the strategic impact can be ensured not by the complete closure of the strait, but by the maintenance of constant security uncertainty around the strait. In such conditions, the normal activity of shipping is no longer perceived as completely stable and predictable. In these conditions, the logic of exerting influence also changes.

A complete closure of the strait is an extreme measure that will almost inevitably lead to widespread international opposition and reduce Tehran’s strategic flexibility. Therefore, the main instrument of influence becomes not the interruption of communications, but the maintenance of such controlled security uncertainty around Hormuz, which forces other actors to constantly take into account Iran’s possible reaction in their political, military and economic calculations.

Thus, the main strategic result of the war was not the formation of a new balance of forces, but the reassessment of the geopolitical value of the geographical advantage. What changed was not Iran’s geographical advantage, but the strategic understanding of how to use this advantage more effectively.

The decisive factor is no longer whether the previous shipping system will be restored, but what strategic conditions the new system will be formed under.

It follows from this logic that even with the continuation of navigation and the unchanged preservation of the legal status of the Strait of Hormuz, the strategic reality of Hormuz may change qualitatively, if international actors always take into account the possible reaction of Iran in their political, military and economic calculations.

Thus, the most important consequence of the war is not only the transformation of the military balance, but also the reinterpretation of the geopolitical role of Hormuz. The strait is no longer considered exclusively as a potential source of crisis, but as a platform for long-term geopolitical influence. It is this new strategic logic that creates the basis for understanding what kind of strategy can be formed under the conditions of such a calculation.

The transformation of Iran’s strategy towards Hormuz

After the war, the reassessment of the possibilities of Iran’s influence around Hormuz naturally raises one fundamental question. what is the strategic purpose of that influence? If even limited security influence is sufficient to change the behavior of international actors, the problem is not the fact of that influence, but the strategic purpose it serves. The answer to this requires a clear distinction between the means and the goal of Iran’s naval strategy.

Over the past three decades, Tehran has consistently built and developed a disproportionate array of naval capabilities: fast attack boats, coastal anti-ship missiles, sea mines, drone systems, electronic warfare, and selective pressure tactics against commercial shipping. This entire system was created for one main purpose: to increase the price of any foreign intervention and limit the freedom of action of other regional and extra-regional actors.

In this sense, the war did not require the transformation of either Iran’s military capabilities or the tools for their use. Their strategic function was transformed. what was once seen as a deterrent turned into a tool of long-term geopolitical influence after the war.

If in the past these capabilities mainly served the purpose of exerting pressure in crisis situations, after the war they became a tool of long-term geopolitical influence strategy. The goal of that strategy is no longer periodic pressure, but the formation of such a strategic dependence, under the conditions of which the security and stability of Hormuz become practically inseparable from the role and decisions of Iran.

This is where the main difference of the new strategic logic is manifested. Under these conditions, the source of influence is not the possibility of closing the strait, but the fact that even under the conditions of its normal operation, the Iranian factor turns into a permanent variable in the strategic calculations of international actors. Therefore, the strategic goal is not the disruption of shipping, but the formation of such a position where a stable security system in Hormuz is practically impossible to imagine without the role of Iran and taking into account its strategic interests.

This strategic logic has wider geopolitical significance. Influence in modern international relations is often determined not so much by the use of force as by strategic irreplaceability. An actor whose participation is perceived as a necessary condition for stability achieves a structural influence that is often more lasting and durable than dominance based on the direct use of force.

Creating such a strategic environment allows Iran to expand its geopolitical influence without a new legal status, additional military presence, or revision of international treaties. Legal regulations may remain unchanged, while the strategic reality around them and the behavior of actors may be significantly transformed.

This strategic logic also changes the perception of the post-war status quo. Since the strategic goal is not to close the strait, but to maintain influence over security, the complete restoration of the previous navigation regime cannot be considered as a primary interest of Tehran. More likely is the formation of an equilibrium in which Hormuz continues to operate, but its security is no longer perceived as an automatically assured reality.

Thus, the main strategic result of the war is not the formation of a new military balance, but the establishment of a new logic of influence. If before the geographical advantage was mainly used as a means of pressure, after the war it turns into a structural basis of long-term geopolitical influence.

However, the viability of any strategy is determined not only by its goals, but also by their implementation mechanisms. Therefore, the next problem concerns the tools through which such a strategy can be turned into a practical policy.

The architecture of Iran’s new strategy

If the strategic goal of Iran is not the interruption of international maritime communications through the Strait of Hormuz, but the formation of the position of an irreplaceable actor in its security system, then the key question concerns the practical implementation of that strategy. It is about what kind of combination of political, security, economic and informational mechanisms can create such an environment where the normal activity of Hormuz will be practically impossible to imagine without the role of Iran and taking into account its strategic interests.

The answer to this question should be sought not in individual steps, but in a complete system of interconnected strategic components.

The first component is redesigning the security environment. For many years, Iran consistently claims that the stability of the Persian Gulf should be ensured by the states of the region, not extra-regional forces. After the war, this approach acquires a new strategic content. If before it was mainly a political position, now it turns into a practical demand, according to which the long-term security of Hormuz is impossible to imagine without taking into account the role of Iran and its strategic interests.

The second component is informational and operational engagement. Monitoring of ship movements, security communication mechanisms, regional coordination formats and maritime situational information exchange may at first glance have a purely technical meaning. In fact, they are gradually turning into important levers of political influence. An actor participating in the collection, processing and circulation of security information also becomes involved in the security decision-making process over time, expanding its political influence.

The third component is the formation of economic interdependencies. Geographical advantage reveals its full potential when it is transformed into practical services and infrastructural opportunities. The development of logistics, port and security services can turn Hormuz’s geographical position into not only political influence, but also a source of economic interdependence, strengthening Iran’s role in the international maritime communications system.

The fourth component is security uncertainty management. Recent military developments have shown that world markets react not only to actual military operations, but also to their probability. In those conditions, the main source of influence becomes not the direct use of force, but the controlled management of security uncertainty. In such a situation, even limited incidents or strong political impulses can change the behavior of states, shipowners, insurance companies, and energy markets without large-scale military escalation.

The fifth component is the systemic redesign of the security system. The ultimate goal of this strategy is not only to maintain actual influence. It is aimed at creating such a political reality around the security of Hormuz, under which Iran’s participation will no longer be considered as a political demand or situational necessity, but as a natural and necessary component of the regional security system. In that case, Iran’s influence will be based not only on the recognition of its systemic role.

Each of these components, taken separately, would have a limited effect. However, their combination forms the strategic system under which geographical advantage turns into long-term geopolitical influence. Here, the main source of influence is not military superiority, but the formation of such security, informational, economic and political interdependencies, under the conditions of which the normal activity of Hormuz gradually begins to be connected with the role of Iran.

Thus, the core of the new strategy is not only the complete control over the strait, but the formation of such a political reality around the security of Hormuz, under which international actors are constantly forced to take into account the role and strategic interests of Iran in their political, military and economic calculations.

Continued

Aram Shahnazaryan

Political analyst-expert on Iran issues

—