AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): Jennifer Kavanagh, an American expert, believes that Donald Trump's strategy of imposing a blockade on Iran will not achieve its intended objectives because, while a blockade can create economic pressure, it is a slow-acting tool and typically does not lead to rapid political results, as the U.S. administration expects.
Kavanagh explained in a commentary in the New York Times that Trump's decision regarding Iran reflects a recurring pattern in his military policy, with the blockade becoming one of his favored tools, as he has previously used it against Venezuela and Cuba.
In the case of Iran, the U.S. administration intends to strangle Iran's economy and force Tehran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and accept Washington's conditions. However, according to the author, this strategy suffers from a fundamental flaw and a gap between expectations and reality.
Kavanagh notes that the difference in the degree of importance and sensitivity of this war for the two sides is a decisive factor. For Iran, the war is an existential issue, and this makes it prepared to endure long-term suffering and pressure. But Trump is seeking a quick and decisive victory—something a blockade cannot provide.
She writes in this regard, "A blockade may impose costs on Iran's economy, but it will not achieve the decisive, quick blow the administration is seeking."
The author cites historical examples to prove her point. In the American Civil War (1861–1865), the blockade imposed by Abraham Lincoln severely weakened the Southern economy but did not end the war quickly, and the war continued for four years.
Also, in World War I (1914–1918), the British blockade of Germany caused severe suffering but did not force the country to surrender immediately.
She also points to contemporary examples, such as the U.S. blockade of Cuba, which led to a humanitarian crisis without yielding political concessions. Similarly, the blockade of Venezuela did not lead to regime change but instead resulted in a dangerous escalation of military tension.
Regarding Iran, Kavanagh believes Tehran has the capacity for long-term endurance because, despite reduced oil revenues, it still benefits from revenues from previous shipments and tankers that have successfully run the blockade. Furthermore, the global increase in oil prices also works in Iran's favor. Iran also has storage capacity and alternative trade routes that help it withstand pressures.
The author also criticizes the legal and practical aspects of the blockade, stating that this action does not have the conditions for effectiveness under international law because its geographical boundaries are unclear and its full implementation is unlikely.
In contrast, the costs of the blockade for the United States and the world are increasing, including rising energy and fertilizer prices, which affect the global economy and inflation rates within the United States.
Kavanagh concludes that the U.S. blockade may have a reverse effect, prolonging the war and increasing its costs without achieving its objectives. In a battle of wills, she believes Iran has the advantage due to its ability to endure and absorb damage, and this very fact makes this strategy highly risky for Washington.
**************
End/ 345E
