Commentary on the current developments in the Strait of Hormuz and the future trajectory of the Middle East
Date of publication: April 15, 2026
On April 14, 2026, Filip Sommer, Director of the Prague Center for Middle East Relations (PCMR) at CEVRO University, commented for TV Markíza on the current developments in the Strait of Hormuz and the ongoing ceasefire between the United States and Iran. You can listen to the full interview here.
Transcript of the Slovak–Czech interview below
What is actually happening in the Strait at the moment, at sea?
At present, a U.S. blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has been underway since Sunday. This involves efforts to control all vessels attempting to enter and exit the Persian Gulf, particularly those traveling to and from Iran. The blockade is intended to exert pressure on Iran; however, in my view, this strategy may not prove successful. If Iran were willing to make concessions, it likely would have already done so. At the same time, ships attempting to pass through have chosen routes close to the Iranian coastline, as the central part of the strait remains mined. One of the U.S. objectives is also to clear this area of mines.
Until now, we have seen the strait mainly threatened by Iran, with discussions focused on keeping it open—how should we interpret the situation now, when, after a brief calm, it is the U.S. imposing the blockade?
This blockade comes as a direct response to unsuccessful negotiations between the U.S. and Iran held over the weekend in Islamabad, Pakistan.
The United States and Iran have fundamentally different visions of the region’s post-war order. Both sides are trying to present the current situation as a victory and perceive themselves as having the upper hand, which may significantly complicate further negotiations. Moreover, their demands currently appear difficult to reconcile, particularly when comparing the U.S. 15-point plan with Iran’s 10-point plan.
While the U.S. demands a halt to Iran’s uranium enrichment, no nuclear weapons, the dismantling of the so-called Axis of Resistance, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and the cessation of Iran’s ballistic missile program, Iran calls for the lifting of all primary and secondary sanctions, recognition of its control over the Strait of Hormuz, an end to attacks against Iran, and the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from the Middle East.
As for a potential agreement, it is worth noting that it took the Obama administration approximately two years to negotiate the nuclear deal with Iran.
Washington claims it is primarily targeting Iran—does the rest of global trade continue to function, or are we already seeing serious impacts?
The effects on the global economy have been present since the beginning of the war, although they have emerged gradually across regions. Initially, Asian markets were affected, followed by European and American markets. It has also been confirmed that the threat of closing the Strait of Hormuz remains a significant tool of pressure on the U.S. and its allies, particularly due to its potential impact on oil, gas, and other commodity prices.
Donald Trump has significantly escalated the situation with this move—what is his main objective at this stage of the conflict?
In my view, the objective is to force Iran to concede to the U.S. demands mentioned earlier. However, I remain highly skeptical that Iran will make concessions under the current circumstances.
How severely could such a blockade impact the Iranian economy?
It certainly can have a significant impact. Oil exports are a key sector sustaining Iran’s economy. Therefore, the effects will be felt, although not necessarily immediately. The war between the U.S./Israel and Iran has already affected Iranian industry, with estimates suggesting impacts on up to one million jobs (including around 200,000 in the petrochemical and steel sectors). Oil exports remain essential for keeping the Iranian economy afloat, so the consequences are inevitable, even if delayed.
Iran has reacted sharply and calls this a provocation—what concrete steps could it take?
Tehran has long indirectly indicated that if it is unable to export its oil, it will attempt to prevent other countries in the Arabian Peninsula and the Middle East from doing so. While Saudi Arabia currently uses the East-West pipeline to transport oil to Red Sea ports, and the United Arab Emirates utilizes the Fujairah pipeline to bypass the Strait of Hormuz, Iran could activate parts of its proxy network, particularly the Houthis in Yemen. Their activities could disrupt the Bab al-Mandab Strait or target Saudi ports. Attacks on energy infrastructure in these countries could also continue.
There is also talk of asymmetric attacks at sea—what risk does this pose to U.S. forces and maritime traffic?
The risk is considerable. Iran continues to possess a range of small attack vessels and submarines, which could inflict significant losses on U.S. forces. Asymmetry is evident throughout the conflict, with Iran relying on cheaper technologies, geography, proxy operations, and pressure on the global community.
Oil—could prices continue to rise under such circumstances?
Undoubtedly, yes. The conflict could last for weeks, months, or even years in some scenarios. However, I believe that a prolonged conflict is politically unpopular for U.S. President Donald Trump, who will likely try to avoid becoming entangled in a long-term escalation.
Looking ahead—is escalation more likely, or could this pressure bring the parties back to negotiations, even though the last talks involving JD Vance failed?
It is important to note that the 14-day ceasefire remains in effect. However, a return to conflict is still possible. Iran perceives U.S. actions as hasty, reflecting a degree of strategic frustration on the part of Donald Trump, who likely expected the conflict to be shorter. It is not possible to say definitively whether the situation will escalate or whether both sides will return to negotiations. If talks resume, both sides will need to reassess their positions and demands.
Moreover, the ceasefire does not apply to Lebanon, despite being presented that way in some official circles. Clashes between the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Hezbollah continue, along with Israeli airstrikes on Beirut and parts of the Bekaa Valley. Developments in Lebanon could influence the fragile ceasefire and potentially lead to its collapse. Hezbollah representatives have also indicated that they will not respect any potential agreement between Israel and Lebanon currently under discussion in the United States.
For these reasons, the ceasefire may represent more of a temporary pause for regrouping and rearmament rather than a genuine step toward de-escalation. The conflict may therefore continue in recurring cycles of “escalation – ceasefire – negotiations – escalation.”
Finally, the situation is also influenced by criticism from Pope Leo XIV toward Donald Trump, with Trump labeling the Pope as too liberal for his anti-war statements. What is your view on this dispute? Is Trump, in a way, clashing with his own camp?
Recent developments suggest that Trump is distancing himself from some of his former supporters, such as Tucker Carlson. At the same time, this may also serve as a tactic to divert attention away from the war in Iran.