Iran's options against foreign aggression include closing Strait of Hormuz, lawmaker says
Iran could shut the Strait of Hormuz as a way of hitting back against its enemies, a senior lawmaker said on Thursday, though a second member of parliament said this would only happen if Tehran's vital interests were endangered.
Iran has in the past threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz to traffic in retaliation for Western pressure, and shipping sources said on Wednesday that commercial ships were avoiding Iran's waters around the strait.
"Iran has numerous options to respond to its enemies and uses such options based on what the situation is," the semi-official Mehr news agency quoted Behnam Saeedi, a member of the parliament's National Security Committee presidium as saying.
"Closing the Strait of Hormuz is one of the potential options for Iran," he said.
Mehr later quoted another lawmaker, Ali Yazdikhah, as saying Iran would continue to allow free shipping in the Strait and in the Gulf so long as its vital national interests were not at risk.
"If the United States officially and operationally enters the war in support of the Zionists (Israel), it is the legitimate right of Iran in view of pressuring the U.S. and Western countries to disrupt their oil trade's ease of transit," Yazdikhah said.
President Donald Trump is keeping the world guessing about whether the United States will join Israel's bombardment of Iranian nuclear sites.
Tehran has so far refrained from closing the Strait because all regional states and many other countries benefit from it, Yazdikhah added.
"It is better than no country supports Israel to confront Iran. Iran's enemies know well that we have tens of ways to make the Strait of Hormuz unsafe and this option is feasible for us," the parliamentarian said.
The Strait of Hormuz lies between Oman and Iran and is the primary export route for Gulf producers such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, and Kuwait.
About 20% of the world's daily oil consumption — around 18 million barrels — passes through the Strait of Hormuz, which is only about 33 km (21 miles) wide at its narrowest point.
(Reporting by Dubai Newsroom; Editing by Alison Williams and Gareth Jones)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Khaleej Times
3 hours ago
- Khaleej Times
What are the nuclear contamination risks from Israel's attacks on Iran?
E[Editor's Note: Follow the KT live blog for live updates on the Israel-Iran conflict. ] Israel says it is determined to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities in its military campaign, but that it also wants to avoid any nuclear disaster in a region that is home to tens of millions of people and produces much of the world's oil. Fears of catastrophe rippled through the Gulf on Thursday when the Israeli military said it had struck a site in Bushehr on the Gulf coast — home to Iran's only nuclear power station — only to later say the announcement was a mistake. Below are details on the damage caused so far by Israel's attacks, and what experts are saying about the risks of contamination and other disasters. What has Israel hit so far? Israel has announced attacks on nuclear sites in Natanz, Isfahan, Arak and Tehran itself. Israel says it aims to stop Iran building an atom bomb. Iran denies ever seeking one. The international nuclear watchdog IAEA has reported damage to the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, to the nuclear complex at Isfahan, including the Uranium Conversion Facility, and to centrifuge production facilities in Karaj and Tehran. Israel said on Wednesday it had targeted Arak, also known as Khondab, the location of a partially built heavy-water research reactor, a type that can easily produce plutonium which, like enriched uranium, can be used to make the core of an atom bomb. The IAEA said it had information that the Khondab heavy water research reactor had been hit, but that it was not operational and reported no radiological effects. What fallout risks do these strikes pose? Peter Bryant, a professor at the University of Liverpool in England who specialises in radiation protection science and nuclear energy policy, said he is not too concerned about fallout risks from the strikes so far. He noted that the Arak site was not operational while the Natanz facility was underground and no release of radiation was reported. "The issue is controlling what has happened inside that facility, but nuclear facilities are designed for that," he said. "Uranium is only dangerous if it gets physically inhaled or ingested or gets into the body at low enrichments," he said. Darya Dolzikova, a senior research fellow at London think tank RUSI, said attacks on facilities at the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle - the stages where uranium is prepared for use in a reactor - pose primarily chemical, not radiological risks. At enrichment facilities, UF6, or uranium hexafluoride, is the concern. "When UF6 interacts with water vapour in the air, it produces harmful chemicals," she said. The extent to which any material is dispersed would depend on factors including weather conditions, she added. "In low winds, much of the material can be expected to settle in the vicinity of the facility; in high winds, the material will travel farther, but is also likely to disperse more widely." The risk of dispersal is lower for underground facilities. What about nuclear reactors? The major concern would be a strike on Iran's nuclear reactor at Bushehr. Richard Wakeford, Honorary Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Manchester, said that while contamination from attacks on enrichment facilities would be "mainly a chemical problem" for the surrounding areas, extensive damage to large power reactors "is a different story". Radioactive elements would be released either through a plume of volatile materials or into the sea, he added. James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said an attack on Bushehr "could cause an absolute radiological catastrophe", but that attacks on enrichment facilities were "unlikely to cause significant off-site consequences". Before uranium goes into a nuclear reactor it is barely radioactive, he said. "The chemical form uranium hexafluoride is toxic ... but it actually doesn't tend to travel large distances and it's barely radioactive. So far the radiological consequences of Israel's attacks have been virtually nil," he added, while stating his opposition to Israel's campaign. Why are Gulf states especially worried? For Gulf states, the impact of any strike on Bushehr would be worsened by the potential contamination of Gulf waters, jeopardising a critical source of desalinated potable water. In the UAE, desalinated water accounts for more than 80% of drinking water, while Bahrain became fully reliant on desalinated water in 2016, with 100% of groundwater reserved for contingency plans, according to authorities. Qatar is 100% dependent on desalinated water. In Saudi Arabia, a much larger nation with a greater reserve of natural groundwater, about 50% of the water supply came from desalinated water as of 2023, according to the General Authority for Statistics. While some Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, Oman and the UAE have access to more than one sea to draw water from, countries like Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait are crowded along the shoreline of the Gulf with no other coastline. "If a natural disaster, oil spill, or even a targeted attack were to disrupt a desalination plant, hundreds of thousands could lose access to freshwater almost instantly," said Nidal Hilal, Professor of Engineering and Director of New York University Abu Dhabi's Water Research Center. "Coastal desalination plants are especially vulnerable to regional hazards like oil spills and potential nuclear contamination," he said.
Middle East Eye
3 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Trump resumes visa applications for international students, but with increased vetting
The State Department announced on Wednesday that it is ending the pause on visa applications for foreign students. However, the process, which has been suspended since May, will include intensive online vetting, including requiring applicants to set all of their social media privacy settings to 'public'. The State Department said it needed to 'ensure that those applying for admission into the United States do not intend to harm Americans and our national interests'. The announcement also asserted that applicants needed to prove that they would 'engage in activities consistent with the terms for their admission', which is being seen as an attempt to deter students from participating in pro-Palestine activism on university campuses in the US. On 25 March, the Trump administration arrested Tufts graduate Rumeysa Ozturk after her profile was posted on a pro-Israel doxxing website. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Ozturk had been targeted for writing an opinion article in a student newspaper the year before, criticising Tufts University's response to a pro-divestment vote from the student senate. Ozturk was released from detention in May, but her detention set a precedent for a larger crackdown by the Trump administration on foreign students. In April, the visas of thousands of international students were revoked seemingly indiscriminately. Several students went into hiding or self-deported over fears that they would be arrested. The Trump administration abruptly backtracked on the decision to revoke visas weeks later. Wednesday's move to review the social media accounts of foreign students is also not the first time the Trump administration has used social media vetting to monitor international students. On 9 April, the Trump administration announced that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would be screening the social media accounts of international students at universities affiliated with 'antisemitic activity'. The State Department also reportedly told consulates to prioritise applicants hoping to attend a college where less than 15 percent of the student body were international students. On 28 May, US President Donald Trump asserted that Harvard University should cap international enrollment at 15 percent. Chinese international students Chinese international students have come under particular scrutiny from the Trump administration in recent months. The 270,000 Chinese international students studying in the US make up around a quarter of the 1.1 million international students in the country. On 28 May, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the DHS would be working closely with the State Department to 'aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students'. Rubio's statement singled out students 'with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields'. It reflects accusations from the Trump administration that Chinese international students pose a national security risk. On 11 June, Trump backtracked on the plan to revoke visas for Chinese students. He posted that the presence of Chinese international students 'has always been good with me'.
Khaleej Times
3 hours ago
- Khaleej Times
Trump to decide whether to attack Iran 'within the next two weeks'
[Editor's Note: Follow the KT live blog for live updates on the Israel-Iran conflict. ] US President Donald Trump said Thursday he will decide whether to attack Iran within the next two weeks due to a "substantial" chance of negotiations, as Israel and its regional rival traded fire for a seventh day. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt read out a message from Trump at a briefing, saying there had been "a lot of speculation" about whether the United States would be "directly involved." "Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks," Trump said in the statement. Stay up to date with the latest news. Follow KT on WhatsApp Channels. Leavitt would not give details of what had led Trump to believe that negotiations with Iran were possible. Trump had said on Wednesday that Iran had asked to send officials to the White House to negotiate a deal on its nuclear programme and end the conflict with Israel. Iran denied it would do so. Leavitt said that "correspondence has continued" between the United States and Iran when asked about reports that Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff had been in touch with Iran's foreign minister. But she said she was "not tracking" that Witkoff would go to Geneva for talks with Iran. Trump held his third meeting in three days in the White House's highly secured Situation Room on Thursday as he continued to mull whether to join Israel's bombing campaign. The US President had said on Wednesday that "I may do it, I may not do it" when asked if he would take military action against Iran.
