Responding to renewed U.S. military strikes, Iran launches a powerful counterattack, confronting U.S.-Israel military pressure head-on
Firing warning shots, blockading the strait, releasing a list of revenge targets
Iran announces the closure of the Strait of Hormuz until the U.S. halts its regional military interventions; the Revolutionary Guard has already fired warning shots at a merchant vessel violating navigation rules.
Releasing a list of revenge targets—leaders of the U.S., Israel, and certain Western countries are all on it.
Iran’s "combination punch" is not merely an impulsive move, but a meticulously calculated strategy of "asymmetric retaliation." It can be interpreted through several core dimensions:
Iran's declaration to close the strait and intercept vessels violating navigation rules essentially lays bare its most potent "asymmetric strike" card. The previous ceasefire memorandum between the U.S. and Iran had fundamental disagreements over strait control and passage rules. Iran’s action aims to use absolute physical blockade to force the U.S. to recognize Iran’s jurisdiction over the strait during negotiations. Iran’s logic is clear: if the U.S. can impose sanctions and blockades through military superiority, Iran can leverage geographic advantage to sever global energy supply chains, making the entire world bear the cost—thereby compelling the U.S. to cease military intervention.
The new Supreme Leader, Morteza Mokhtari, has just assumed office, and the state funeral for the late Supreme Leader Khamenei has only recently concluded. During this extremely sensitive political transition period, the new leadership faces dual tasks: consolidating internal authority and blocking any U.S. hopes of dividing Iran. Mokhtari’s high-profile "revenge" statement is not only a direct response to the U.S. threat of ending the ceasefire, but also a demonstration to Iran’s hardliners and the public of its determination to defend national sovereignty. By identifying external enemies (U.S. and Israel) and vowing revenge, Iran’s new leadership successfully transforms internal pressures into unified national solidarity, completely shattering the U.S. expectation that the new Iranian government would turn pragmatic and compromise under internal pressure.
The “list of revenge” and previously disclosed target lists reveal Iran’s strategic shift from “passive defense” to “offensive deterrence.”
Recent U.S. military strikes and sanctions are essentially attempts to coerce Iran back to the negotiating table through force, but Iran’s firm counterresponse directly exposes the U.S. illusion that military superiority automatically translates into negotiation leverage. Iran explicitly refuses to make any commitments without reciprocal measures—even outright rejecting U.S. overtures for talks. Meanwhile, Iran’s blockade actions have placed the U.S. in a difficult position: constrained by domestic electoral politics, the U.S. lacks the willingness to launch a full-scale war. Iran has precisely identified this weakness in the U.S.—its tendency to “fight and talk”—and leverages maximum pressure to seize initiative in the confrontation.
In general, Iran’s series of responses send a clear message to the U.S. and Israel: any attempt to force Iran to submit through military means will face unacceptably high costs. Currently, the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz has become a tool for mutual pressure between the U.S. and Iran. Although diplomatic channels remain open, as long as core issues—strait control and security guarantees—remain unresolved, this high-risk status quo of “using war to push for talks, alternating between fighting and talking” will become the new normal in the Middle East situation.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1870470344728588/
Disclaimer: This article represents the personal views of the author