Regarding Hormuz

[Prime Minister] Adolfo Suarez was right. Here there was a bit of derision, but he was not too far off. In January of 1980, the Spanish prime minister was invited to the United States by President Carter. It seemed that German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt had suggested to Carter that he hear Suarez out because he had useful ideas on some aspects of the international situation.

In the conversation that took place in Washington, Suarez spent some time on the Middle East. He went to bat for the Palestinians and went on to address the danger posed by the Soviet Union, who, having invaded Afghanistan, now found themselves 700 kilometers from the Strait of Hormuz. If the communist superpower or anyone else were able to block the strait through which a significant portion of the West’s petroleum passed, it would be a disaster.

Suarez’s attempts at geopolitics were ridiculed in this country, but they did not fall on deaf ears with Carter, who wrote in his diary of his “admiration for the Spanish prime minister’s knowledge on the Middle East and Latin America.”* And who knows if Suarez also had some influence on the book that Carter would publish many years later on the Palestinian tragedy, a work that has struck a nerve in Israel.

Ominously, Hormuz is in fashion these days. Iran, with a certain swagger, has threatened to close the strait in retaliation for the sanction — which the West will begin applying on July 1 of this year — of not buying Iranian oil. The U.S. has intimated that closing the strait would be an act of war. Battleships from the U.S. and Britain are on their way to the area.

Mounting a military attack on Iran, as advocated by Israeli hawks who fear that otherwise Tehran will have the atomic bomb in the near future, is rather audacious. Although the Saudis, who hate the Iranian ayatollahs, would release more crude oil in the market, the price of oil may rise, and Iran would mount covert operations against American targets.

Few sensible people advise an attack on Iran today; the situation is complicated by the lack of cooperation by Tehran in showing that it is not seeking a bomb. Its statements are not credible, and the United Nations nuclear agency continues to state that Iranian cover-up activities are worrying. Many Iranians are proud that their country is achieving a nuclear capability, and the ayatollahs know that — as with North Korea and Pakistan — once they have the bomb, they will be more respected for their much greater deterrent power.

Although Obama said in the State of the Union address that all the options are on the table, he does not seem to have the stomach for another intervention. On the other hand, this is an election year, and all bets may be off. The only foreign policy-related subject broadly discussed in the Republican primaries has been Iran, and the candidates have suggested that the president is a weakling. Let’s not forget that more than one poll suggests that Obama could lose to a Republican candidate.

The American administration does not want to let Tehran get the bomb. Nor do they want war. The intermediate solution is the one they are following, of applying commercial and banking sanctions. Although Tehran is beginning to feel the effects, they may be forced to lower the price of their petroleum and sell it to India and other clients, and it is not clear the sanctions will work. Russia says it will be counterproductive. We will soon see.

*Editor’s Note: This quote, accurately translated, could not be verified.