In the volatile calculus of Middle Eastern geopolitics, the Strait of Hormuz has long been Iran’s favorite rhetorical weapon, a narrow maritime chokehold that Tehran threatens to shut whenever tensions spike. But how credible is that threat today? Following the devastating precision of Operation Midnight Hammer, Iran’s strategic bluff appears more exposed than ever. In this exclusive Q&A, geopolitical analyst Iqbal Latif dismantles the myth of Iranian deterrence, exposing the stark gap between Iran’s saber-rattling and its actual military and economic capabilities. From failed missile barrages to eroded naval leverage, Latif lays bare a critical truth: Iran’s power lies more in perception than projection.
Q: Iran may retaliate by blocking the Strait of Hormuz. Is that credible?
Iqbal Latif:
No. The most immediate constraint lies in Iran’s degraded missile and air defense capability. Following Operation Midnight Hammer, Iran’s air defenses were virtually nonexistent during the attack—and there’s no indication Iran can now control significant sea lanes protected by U.S. carriers and allies. Any blockade would be both militarily futile and economically suicidal.
Q: Iran supposedly fired 30,000 missiles—none effective, claims say?
Iqbal Latif:
Indeed. Iran’s deterrence myth has been shattered. Reports indicate that 97% of Iran’s incoming missiles were intercepted or fell short, with none striking critical targets. That dismantles any notion of credible deterrence or battlefield readiness.
Q: Could Iran launch another successful salvo?
Iqbal Latif:
Unlikely. With its missile network swiped clean—80% degraded or destroyed—it’s unclear what remains functional. Surviving launchers are now high-value targets. Iran lacks both hardware and coordination capability for sustained retaliation.
Q: What practical means does Iran have to disrupt global trade routes?
Iqbal Latif:
Little to none. The Strait of Hormuz is heavily patrolled. Any Iranian attempt at naval disruption risks a full-scale naval response. This isn’t a symbolic threat—it’s a direct military confrontation with global consequences.
Q: So why threaten the Strait?
Iqbal Latif:
Rhetoric is cheap. Iran has a history of proxy bluster—arming Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, etc.—but failing when it counts. Now, Tehran is using threats to mask strategic weakness, not strength. History—from Saddam to Assad—shows that unresolved aggression leads to ruin.
Q: What did Operation Midnight Hammer reveal about Iran’s strategic posture?
Iqbal Latif:
It revealed a hollow core—claims of deterrence, proxy power, nuclear clandestinity—all collapsed by a single precision strike. Iran isn’t an impenetrable fortress; it’s a fragile power wrapped in borrowed strength.
Q: What lessons should Iran learn now?
Iqbal Latif:
Lesson One: Old-school proxy and bluff tactics don’t deter modern precision warfare.
Lesson Two: Economic resilience and diplomatic flexibility matter more than missile stockpiles.
Lesson Three: Escalation—like closing global chokepoints—provokes collective defense, not solidarity.
Bottom Line:
“Theocracy, terror, and threats aren’t a shield—they’re an invitation to annihilation. With its military posture shattered, Iran no longer holds strategic leverage. The Strait threat is posturing, not power.”