WANA (Sep 05) – The continued U.S. attacks on parts of southern Iran and areas surrounding the Strait of Hormuz, even after the end of military hostilities and the emergence of an understanding between the two sides, raise a key question: What is Washington seeking to achieve by continuing these actions, and why does southern Iran remain a focus of U.S. military activity?

 

The end of a war does not necessarily mean the end of confrontation between Iran and the United States. Despite the emergence of an understanding, the United States has continued its pressure campaign, repeatedly targeting areas in southern Iran and locations around the Strait of Hormuz. These developments suggest that Washington continues to pursue part of its confrontation with the Islamic Republic through military and security measures.

 

The strategic importance of southern Iran cannot be separated from the region’s proximity to the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important energy transit routes. This has given the area a central role in the security and economic calculations of major international powers. Any military activity or insecurity in the region can therefore have consequences extending beyond the battlefield, potentially affecting energy markets and the broader economic calculations of the region.

 

The central question, however, is what Washington hopes to achieve by continuing these attacks. Analysts argue that the developments cannot be viewed solely through the lens of military operations. Creating insecurity, influencing public and market perceptions, and attempting to alter the security dynamics around the Strait of Hormuz may all be part of the broader objectives behind these actions.

 

Political analyst Morteza Simiyari said that after the war began, the United States sought to create insecurity around the Strait of Hormuz in an effort to project the impression that the waterway remained fully open and that oil shipments were continuing without disruption.

 

According to Simiyari, the United States sought to carry out a series of limited and controlled actions designed not only to create insecurity in the region but also to convey a particular picture of the situation in the Strait of Hormuz to the public and global markets. Such a narrative could influence perceptions of the security of energy routes and Iran’s ability to maintain control over the strategic waterway.

 

The political analyst also views the reported terrorist activity on Larak Island within the same framework. He argues that another possible objective was to create the impression that Iran’s surveillance and control centers around the Strait of Hormuz had been damaged and that Tehran’s ability to manage security in the waterway had been weakened.

 

Iran’s response, however, has not been limited to defensive measures. According to this analysis, Iran’s military responses have also been aimed at altering the cost-benefit calculations of the other side, signaling that any attempt to create insecurity in southern Iran or around the Strait of Hormuz would carry consequences for those responsible.

 

From this perspective, the developments in southern Iran can be seen as part of a broader, multidimensional confrontation in which military operations, terrorist activity and psychological warfare operate alongside one another. The objective of such an approach may extend beyond inflicting military damage to include weakening Iran’s deterrence capabilities, increasing psychological pressure, and influencing the security and economic calculations surrounding the Strait of Hormuz.

 

At the same time, the continuation of these actions comes as Iran continues to emphasize its ability to protect its territory and maintain effective control over the waters surrounding the Strait of Hormuz. This suggests that southern Iran remains one of the key arenas of strategic competition between Tehran and Washington.