Parisa Nasrabadi

Perhaps the most important passage in the remarks by U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on August 24, 2026—and one that received relatively little attention—was this:

“To the ordinary soldiers who support this regime: As the number of months in which you do not receive your salaries, or they are supposedly delayed, increases, ask yourselves: Are your leaders leading your country toward victory and greatness, or toward destruction? And remember that the Berlin Wall fell when ordinary soldiers decided not to fire on their own people!

And to those who enable Tehran to continue along this path: Do not underestimate the cost of testing Washington’s resolve!”

These remarks can be regarded as a call for deliberate action, concealed behind a historical reference, and they merit attention from several angles:

1️⃣. Within the context of escalating pressure based on the strategic logic of “Operation Economic Outcast” and “zero-leakage” sanctions, and taking into account the cumulative impact of these pressures, Washington intends to impose severe economic hardship on different segments of the Iranian population. Personnel serving in the armed forces are among the most important groups being targeted.

The U.S. administration deliberately seeks to turn institutional economic deprivation within the armed forces into a political tool.

2️⃣ Washington is not relying solely on analyses coming from Tel Aviv. It is operating according to a clear strategic vision developed against Tehran, viewing the outbreak of widespread protests resulting from deep economic turmoil in Iran as an inevitable possibility.

Accordingly, through “structural pressure escalation,” Washington seeks to create conditions in which any spark could develop into a full-scale crisis.

4️⃣ Decisive defections within the hierarchy of Iran’s armed forces represent another objective for Washington: from the emergence of disagreements and divisions at command levels—particularly at the mid-level operational level—to divisions among cadres and ordinary soldiers.

Washington and Tel Aviv seek to produce a scenario in which, alongside the erosion of internal cohesion within the armed forces, existing fault lines at sensitive border points are activated, chaos and insecurity spread from the coastlines into the cities, and multiple fronts are opened by adversaries and their proxy forces.

The resulting effect would be surprise, loss of focus, and the weakening of Iran’s combat structure.

The simultaneous combination of

“opening multiple fronts”

with

“surprise and loss of focus”

reflects the logic of hybrid warfare, and the United States and Israel are attempting to pursue this logic with precision.

4️⃣ The ultimate objective of the United States in escalating and sustaining threats and pressure as part of the ongoing hybrid war is to bring about fundamental changes in Iran’s political structure.

Achieving this objective—whether through a form of

“maximum incapacitation”

involving lower risks and costs, or through classical regime change, which carries substantially higher risks and costs—is acceptable to Washington and consistent with its vision of the emerging security architecture of the region.

In U.S. strategic literature,

“maximum incapacitation”

essentially means

“behavioral change,” “altering security calculations,” and the “deep restriction”

of the adversary’s offensive capabilities—in this case, Iran’s—rather than necessarily seeking complete institutional collapse.

Regime change, by contrast, carries greater regional risks and would very likely trigger broad reactions from Iran’s regional allies, energy instability, and intervention by extra-regional powers.

Therefore, even if “regime change” appears in policy documents as an available option, Washington’s operational preference is likely to be the path involving lower direct military costs and fewer risks of regional repercussions.

🇴🇲🇮🇷🇺🇸

oman’s Hormuz Pivot: Muscat Draws a Line in the Strait

A sudden shift in Gulf maritime security could reshape the balance around the Strait of Hormuz.

⚓ THE MOVE

Oman has reportedly decided to halt coordination with the United States over the facilitation and safe passage of U.S.-escorted oil tankers transiting the southern corridors of the Strait of Hormuz.

If confirmed, the decision would represent a significant adjustment in Muscat’s maritime posture—and a clear signal that Oman does not want its territorial waters incorporated into a U.S.-Iran military confrontation.

Why did Muscat Make the Move?

1️⃣ Preserving Strategic Neutrality

Oman has traditionally avoided aligning itself with Western military initiatives in high-tension regional conflicts.

Allowing active U.S. naval escorts through Omani-controlled waters risks undermining Muscat’s carefully cultivated position as a non-aligned regional mediator.

2️⃣ Avoiding Direct Friction with Iran

Tehran has consistently opposed an expanded Western military presence around the Strait.

Muscat therefore has a strong incentive to prevent its territorial waters from becoming a potential flashpoint between U.S. naval forces and Iranian assets.

3️⃣ Protecting Sovereign Leverage

For Oman, control over its maritime space is also diplomatic leverage.

By limiting foreign military involvement in its waters, Muscat can preserve its role as a trusted intermediary between Iran, the United States and other regional powers.

What Could This Mean?

Maritime Security:

Tankers dependent on U.S. naval protection could face greater uncertainty when navigating alternative routes or corridors.

Shipping & Insurance Costs:

Any increase in perceived risk could push up war-risk insurance premiums, freight rates and energy transportation costs.

🇺🇸 U.S. Operational Constraints:

Reduced access to Omani maritime space could complicate U.S. naval logistics and freedom of movement around one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints.

Geopolitical Implications:

The move would potentially serve Tehran’s objective of limiting the expansion of Western military activity around the Strait, while simultaneously strengthening Oman’s position as the local maritime gatekeeper.

The Bigger Picture

The Strait of Hormuz is not simply a shipping route.

It is a strategic bargaining arena where Iran, Oman, the United States and global energy markets intersect.

If Muscat is deliberately distancing itself from U.S.-escorted shipping operations, the message is unmistakable:

Oman does not want its waters turned into the next front in the U.S.-Iran confrontation.

And that could significantly alter the maritime calculus around Hormuz.