{"id":6644,"date":"2026-06-20T16:50:49","date_gmt":"2026-06-20T14:50:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mezghena.org\/index.php\/2026\/06\/20\/iran-hormuz-israel-le-retour-brutal-de-la-geographie-en\/"},"modified":"2026-06-20T16:50:49","modified_gmt":"2026-06-20T14:50:49","slug":"iran-hormuz-israel-le-retour-brutal-de-la-geographie-en","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mezghena.org\/index.php\/en\/2026\/06\/20\/iran-hormuz-israel-le-retour-brutal-de-la-geographie-en\/","title":{"rendered":"Iran, Hormuz, Israel: the brutal return of geography"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The announced arrangement between Washington and Tehran, threats around the Strait of Hormuz, escalation between Israel and Hezbollah and the continuing disaster in Gaza all recall a simple truth: in the Middle East, diplomacy never floats above maps, straits, weapons and martyred peoples.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Middle East has the cruelty of permanently refuting diplomatic illusions. An agreement can be signed, praised and announced as a way out of crisis, then immediately crash into geography, military apparatuses, power calculations and accumulated anger. The sequence opened around the Washington-Tehran arrangement gives a dry demonstration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Available elements indicate that a memorandum between the United States and Iran aims to halt a wider regional war and stabilize the question of the Strait of Hormuz. But the solidity of the device remains uncertain. Talks have reportedly been postponed, Washington has maintained temporal pressure on Tehran, Iran is considering new financial or insurance controls over ships transiting the strait, and escalation in Lebanon has shown that the Iranian file cannot be isolated from the Israeli-Lebanese front.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hormuz is the material reminder of what chancelleries sometimes prefer to forget. This strait is not an abstraction on a map. It is a global energy throat. It concentrates flows, risks, insurance premiums, maritime sovereignties, passage rights, military threats and shipowners\u2019 interests. When Iran considers charging security or insurance-related fees after a period of suspension, it is not a simple administrative gesture. It says sovereignty can also be monetized in mandatory passages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This prospect collides with maritime powers and actors of world trade. It raises a real legal question: how far can a coastal state charge for security services without turning passage into a political toll? It raises an even larger strategic question: what is the value of the international maritime order if a regional war can make every route vulnerable, every cargo negotiable, every strait militarizable?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Israel, for its part, appears more isolated than it claims. American support remains central, but even Washington shows irritation when Tel Aviv\u2019s calculations threaten the de-escalation sought with Tehran. Tensions between American officials and Israeli ministers do not amount to a strategic break. It would be naive to announce one. They reveal a mismatch: the Israeli state pursues its logic of maximum force, while Washington tries to preserve its regional architecture, energy routes and negotiating capacity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Lebanon, the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hezbollah, obtained after deadly escalation, shows the fragility of the whole. One strike, one retaliation, one incendiary declaration, and the Iranian-American arrangement can wobble. In this region there are no separate files. Gaza, Lebanon, Iran, Hormuz, settlements, sanctions, maritime routes and American bases belong to the same architecture of domination and response.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gaza remains the moral centre of the crisis. Reports of children killed since the ceasefire remind us that diplomacy can move forward while destruction continues. A ceasefire that lets civilians die is not peace. A negotiation that forgets bodies is merely management of power relations. International law has meaning only if it protects the most vulnerable, not if it merely frames the interests of the powerful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Norwegian move to cut trade with illegal Israeli settlements signals another trend: occupation is becoming more politically costly for Israel\u2019s allies. Here too, one must distinguish trend from rupture. Targeted sanctions, trade restrictions, European criticism or UN anger will not change the field if they do not become binding. But they crack the narrative of impunity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Algerian reading should be clear. It is not enough to denounce the order of the strongest. One must also defend coherence: peoples\u2019 rights, rejection of occupation, state sovereignty, freedom of navigation framed by law, protection of civilians and rejection of double standards. Algeria has historically had a voice on these issues. It still must deploy it with method, alliances, active diplomacy and internal credibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Geography has returned. The straits speak. Energy routes speak. Gaza\u2019s ruins speak. Lebanon\u2019s borders speak. The regional order will not be settled by smooth communiqu\u00e9s. It will be played out between law and force, sovereignty and trade, occupation and resistance, imperial calculation and the demand for justice. The rest is chancery language placed on burning ground.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nadir Amrouche<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n

Sources utilis\u00e9es<\/h2>\n\n\n