Iran launched a major series of live-fire naval drills titled “Smart Control of the Strait of Hormuz” on Monday, even as high-stakes nuclear negotiations with the United States resume in Geneva on Tuesday. The exercises, led by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) under its commander Major General Mohammad Pakpour, began just hours before Iranian and American negotiators returned to the table, in an act of diplomatic brinkmanship.
According to Iranian state media, the drills are defensive in nature, designed to assess the readiness of naval units to respond to “potential security and military threats”. Officials say the exercises involve reviewing maritime security plans and rehearsing scenarios for “reciprocal” action in the event of aggression. Intelligence analysts note that Tehran has deployed fast attack craft, naval drones and land-based anti-ship missile systems, showcasing capabilities intended to dominate a confined maritime theatre.
The choice of location is central to the message. The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow 170km passage linking the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea, is one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints. Roughly 20 per cent of global oil supplies transit the waterway. By conducting live-fire drills there, Iran is signalling that it retains the capacity to disrupt global energy flows if confronted militarily. The implicit warning is that any escalation could send oil prices soaring, rattling global markets and imposing costs far beyond the immediate theatre of conflict.
For latest news and analyses on Middle East, visit: Yello! Middle East
Tehran’s manoeuvres are widely seen as a response to what President Donald Trump has described as a “beautiful armada”—a significant US naval buildup in the region that includes the carrier strike groups centred on the USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS Gerald R. Ford. Iran’s Hormuz gambit is clearly an attempt to demonstrate that any use of force will have unwelcome consequences. But such high-visibility military posturing increases the danger of miscalculation in a crowded and volatile maritime environment.
By escalating rhetoric and military visibility on the eve of negotiations, Iran appears intent on strengthening its bargaining position. Meanwhile, the diplomatic track in Geneva is proceeding in an atmosphere of deep mistrust. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi arrived declaring that he carried “real ideas to achieve a fair and equitable deal”, while insisting that “submission before threats” was not an option. His remarks reflect a balancing act — signalling openness to negotiation while rejecting any appearance of capitulation under pressure.
The gap between the two sides remains wide. The Trump administration’s position is demanding zero uranium enrichment, the dismantling of Iran’s existing stockpile, stringent limits on ballistic missile development and an end to support for allied non-state actors across the region. For Tehran, several of these demands strike at core elements of national sovereignty and strategic doctrine. Iran has shown some willingness to enhance transparency and even potentially reduce enrichment levels if the US is ready to offer meaningful sanctions. Yet the missile programme is a red line, and so is the demand for zero enrichment on Iranian soil.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has expressed scepticism about the prospects for a breakthrough, highlighting what he describes as the ideological rigidity of Iran’s leadership. The rhetoric from Washington suggests limited confidence in a swift diplomatic resolution, even as talks continue.
Complicating matters further is the shadow of the brief but intense 12-day war of June last year, during which the US and Israel carried out strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. The International Atomic Energy Agency is now seeking access to damaged sites to inspect highly enriched uranium believed to be buried under rubble. But the hardliners in Tehran, who still have the edge in the corridors of power, are vehemently opposed to any such move.
Also read
Then there is the question of regime stability. Following the nationwide anti-government protests in Iran, met by a harsh crackdown that left thousands dead, Trump has openly spoken in favour of regime change, describing it as the “best thing that could happen” for Iran. Such statements deepen Tehran’s perception that negotiations are not merely about nuclear parameters but about the survival of the Islamic Republic itself.
The regime in Tehran issqueezed between external pressure and internal discontent. It has a population weary of sanctions, repression and economic hardship. And, if diplomacy falters, military action aimed at degrading Iran’s capabilities—or even destabilising the regime—could become increasingly likely.