Takeaways

• The complexity of the ceasefire and negotiations in the Middle East

• The role of external powers and the economic impact of the conflict Complexity of Israeli-Lebanese Conflict

• Challenges of Negotiating with Iran

Chapters

• 00:00 The Remarkable Journey

• 07:05 Impact of Ceasefire on the Region

• 13:07 The Ceasefire and Negotiations

• 18:16 Pressure and Diplomacy

• 23:26 China and Russia's Role

• 29:13 Israeli Actions and Public Opinion

• 34:57 Ceasefire and Diplomatic Efforts

• 41:23 Iran Negotiations and Military Options

Takeaways

• Strategic Limitations

• Global Power Dynamics

Chapters

• 00:00 Strategic Changes in the War

• 09:52 The Gulf's Positioning and Vulnerabilities

• 17:08 The Role of China and Russia

• 25:16 Europe's Dilemma and Decision-Making

• 37:29 Shifts in US-GCC Relations

Takeaways

• Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) Operations

• Multi-Domain Warfare

Chapters

• 00:00 Introduction and Background

• 05:56 Aircraft Sorties and Conflict Dynamics

• 12:22 Extended Service Life of A-10 and Intelligence Operations

• 20:27 Harmony Between Political and Military Leadership

Guest: Matthew Bartlett

In Episode 3 of the Polistratics Podcast, Nawaf Al-Thani turns inward—into Washington, into the Republican Party, and into the strategic communication machinery shaping how the United States understands and frames the war.

Recorded during the third week of the U.S.–Israel–Iran war, this episode moves beyond battlefield dynamics to examine how narratives are built, how political messaging influences policy direction, and how different factions within the Republican Party interpret the conflict and its trajectory. 

Joining the conversation is Matthew Bartlett, a veteran strategic communicator and former political appointee at the U.S. State Department during the first Trump administration. With deep experience navigating Congress, messaging, and intra-party dynamics, Bartlett offers an insider’s perspective on how strategic communication shapes decision-making at the highest levels of government. 

The discussion explores a critical dimension of modern conflict: not just how wars are fought, but how they are explained, justified, and sustained politically. From competing voices within the Republican Party to the broader communication strategy of the administration, this episode unpacks the internal lenses through which the war is being viewed in Washington.

The episode also touches on PEPFAR—the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief—a global initiative that has saved millions of lives and remains a key part of Bartlett’s professional legacy, offering a reminder of how American policy operates across both conflict and humanitarian domains. 

This is a conversation about power, perception, and the role of strategic communication in shaping the course of war.

Episode 2 - Inside the Escalation

Episode guest: Dr. Andreas Krieg

Episode Description

In Episode 2 of the Polistratics Podcast, Nawaf Al-Thani sits down with Dr. Andreas Krieg in the third week of the U.S.–Israel–Iran war to examine how this conflict is escalating and where it may lead next.

Framed in part by the shadow of Lyndon B. Johnson’s escalation ladder in Vietnam, this conversation explores a familiar strategic danger: the slow, incremental slide from limited involvement into a wider war with no clear end state. What begins as calibrated pressure can, step by step, become entanglement.

Together, they unpack the escalation ladder in real time: how tactical moves can produce strategic consequences, how deterrence can blur into provocation, and how miscalculation can accelerate a conflict beyond anyone’s original intent. The discussion also looks at how regional actors, alliance commitments, and domestic political pressures are shaping choices in Washington, Tel Aviv, and Tehran.

At the center of the episode is a critical question: how can the United States avoid repeating the logic that trapped it in Vietnam? From signaling and force posture to political credibility and the risks of gradualism, this episode examines what restraint actually requires and what happens when leaders convince themselves they are still in control of events.

This is a strategic conversation about escalation, entrapment, and the dangers of entering a war one rung at a time.

On the first episode of this limited-run podcast series, we speak with Professor David Des Roches, Senior Non-Resident Fellow at the Council on International Mediation.

Professor Des Roches is also a professor at the Thayer Marshall Institute and a senior defense and security expert with more than three decades of experience spanning U.S. Army operations, Middle East and Gulf security policy, defense cooperation, and international affairs. His career combines operational experience in special operations and airborne command with senior roles in U.S. Department of Defense policy, academic research, and deep regional expertise across the Arabian Peninsula, the Levant, South Asia, and the Mediterranean littorals. He is widely recognized as an analyst, author, and educator on Gulf security, arms transfers, and stabilization issues.

We spoke with him on Day 15 of the U.S.–Israel–Iran war to take a deeper look inside the conflict: the strategies, the tactics, the decisions shaping the battlefield, and the possible outcomes. Most importantly, we ask the question everyone is now asking—how, and when, does this war end?

Introduction

The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the most strategically consequential waterways in the world. Situated between Iran and Oman at the entrance to the Arabian Gulf, this narrow maritime corridor connects the energy-rich Gulf region to global markets through the Gulf of Oman and the wider Indian Ocean. For decades the strait has been recognized as the most important energy chokepoint in the international system, and developments in early 2026 have once again placed it at the center of global geopolitical attention.

The ongoing conflict involving Iran has sharply elevated tensions in the region and revived long-standing concerns about the vulnerability of maritime traffic transiting the strait. In recent weeks commercial shipping has declined significantly, energy markets have reacted with volatility, and policymakers across multiple capitals have begun discussing potential maritime security measures designed to ensure continued access to the waterway.

Public discussion has frequently focused on the possibility of escorting commercial vessels through the strait under naval protection. While convoy operations have historical precedent, the operational environment of the twenty-first century differs substantially from earlier eras of maritime conflict. Advances in coastal missile systems, unmanned platforms, and mine warfare have reshaped the character of maritime warfare in confined waterways.

Understanding the evolving situation in the Strait of Hormuz therefore requires a broader examination of maritime geography, military doctrine, and the practical realities of operating in a contested chokepoint.

Strategic Significance of the Strait

The global importance of the Strait of Hormuz stems primarily from its central role in international energy markets. A substantial share of the world’s seaborne oil exports passes through the strait each day, along with significant quantities of liquefied natural gas and refined petroleum products. For many Gulf producers—including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar—the strait represents the principal maritime gateway for energy exports.

The geography of the strait further amplifies its strategic importance. At its narrowest point the waterway is approximately twenty-one nautical miles wide, and international shipping lanes are confined to even narrower corridors designed to regulate traffic moving in opposite directions. The concentration of vessels within these restricted lanes makes the strait particularly vulnerable to disruption.

Even limited interference with maritime traffic can produce immediate consequences for global energy markets. Temporary disruptions have historically triggered spikes in oil prices, insurance premiums for shipping, and broader economic uncertainty. For this reason the strait has long been regarded not merely as a regional maritime passage but as a critical component of the global economic system.

The 2026 Crisis

The current crisis in the Strait of Hormuz emerged against the backdrop of escalating hostilities involving Iran. Following military strikes and retaliatory actions across the region, Iranian officials warned that maritime traffic through the strait could be disrupted. Subsequent attacks on commercial vessels and threats directed at shipping companies produced an immediate decline in maritime traffic.

Shipping firms and insurers have reacted cautiously, and some operators have suspended transits through the strait pending improved security conditions. The reduction in commercial activity has been accompanied by significant fluctuations in global energy markets, reinforcing the perception that the strait remains a central pressure point in international politics.

At the same time several governments have begun discussing possible maritime security measures designed to restore confidence in the safety of commercial navigation. Among the most widely debated proposals has been the establishment of escorted transit corridors through the strait under the protection of naval forces.

Escort Operations in Historical Context

Escort operations have a long history in maritime warfare. During periods of heightened threat, naval forces have frequently accompanied merchant vessels in order to deter attacks and provide defensive capabilities against hostile action. The most widely cited precedent in the context of the Strait of Hormuz is the escort program conducted during the Iran–Iraq War in the late 1980s.

During that conflict a number of tankers operating in the Gulf were reflagged under the United States flag and escorted by U.S. Navy warships as part of a broader effort to maintain the flow of energy exports. The operation demonstrated that convoy systems could reduce certain risks associated with attacks on commercial vessels.

However, the maritime threat environment of the 2020s differs significantly from that of the 1980s. Technological developments have expanded the range and diversity of anti-ship capabilities available to coastal states. These include modern anti-ship cruise missiles, armed unmanned aerial vehicles, fast attack craft, and advanced naval mine systems.

Such capabilities enable states to project maritime power from coastal territory and to threaten shipping traffic across wide areas of water without deploying large conventional naval forces. As a result, the operational challenges associated with securing narrow waterways have increased substantially.

Geography and Littoral Warfare

The defining characteristic of the Strait of Hormuz is its geography. The northern coastline of the strait lies within Iranian territory, while the southern coastline is shared by Oman and the United Arab Emirates. Because the distance between these shorelines is relatively short, military forces positioned along the coast are capable of influencing the entire maritime corridor.

This geographic reality has led modern military doctrine to treat chokepoints such as Hormuz as littoral battlespaces. In such environments maritime operations cannot be separated from operations conducted on adjacent land and in the airspace above the water.

Control of a chokepoint therefore depends on a combination of maritime forces operating in the waterway, air assets capable of surveillance and interception, and the ability to influence or control coastal areas overlooking the shipping lanes. The integration of these domains forms the foundation of contemporary joint maritime operations.

In practical terms, this means that naval escorts operating within the strait remain exposed to threats originating from outside the immediate vicinity of the convoy. Missile systems positioned along nearby coastlines, for example, can target vessels transiting the waterway even if those vessels are accompanied by warships.

The Limits of Naval Escorts

While naval escorts can deter certain forms of harassment or limited attack, they cannot eliminate all risks associated with operating in a contested maritime chokepoint. Several factors complicate the effectiveness of escort operations in the Strait of Hormuz.

First, the volume of commercial shipping that normally passes through the strait makes continuous escort coverage difficult to sustain. Providing naval protection for each vessel would require significant military resources and coordination.

Second, many of the most serious threats to shipping originate from land-based systems rather than from hostile vessels operating at sea. Escorting warships cannot easily neutralize threats launched from outside the immediate area of the convoy.

Third, naval mines represent a particularly effective method of denying access to narrow waterways. Even a small number of mines placed in shipping lanes can halt commercial traffic until extensive mine-clearance operations are conducted.

For these reasons escort operations are best understood as one component of a broader maritime security strategy rather than as a comprehensive solution to the challenge of securing the strait.

Strategic Options and Future Developments

Several possible paths forward are currently being discussed in policy and defense circles.

One option involves the establishment of a multinational naval coalition tasked with escorting commercial vessels through designated transit corridors. Such an arrangement would require coordination among multiple naval powers and could potentially restore confidence among commercial shipping operators.

A second option involves expanding surveillance and defensive capabilities in the air domain. Air superiority and persistent reconnaissance could improve early warning of threats and enhance the protection of maritime traffic.

A third possibility involves increased emphasis on mine countermeasure operations designed to ensure that shipping lanes remain free of naval mines. Advances in unmanned systems have improved the ability of naval forces to detect and neutralize mines, though such operations remain time-consuming and technically demanding.

At the same time regional energy producers are exploring ways to reduce dependence on the strait by expanding alternative export routes. Pipelines connecting Gulf production fields to ports outside the Gulf have become an increasingly important component of regional energy infrastructure.

Despite these efforts, the Strait of Hormuz is likely to remain an indispensable artery of global energy trade for the foreseeable future.

Conclusion

The Strait of Hormuz continues to occupy a central place in global maritime strategy. The events of 2026 demonstrate how quickly geopolitical tensions can threaten one of the world’s most critical energy corridors and highlight the broader implications of maritime chokepoint security.

While naval escorts may play a role in protecting individual vessels, the security of the strait ultimately depends on a much wider strategic framework. Maritime control in such an environment requires the integration of naval forces, air power, and the ability to influence the surrounding littoral areas.

The challenge of securing the Strait of Hormuz is therefore not merely a naval problem but a multidimensional strategic issue that intersects with regional politics, global energy markets, and the evolving character of maritime warfare.

As tensions continue to unfold, the strait will remain a focal point of international attention and a reminder of the enduring relationship between geography and strategy in the maritime domain.

References

U.S. Energy Information Administration – World Oil Transit Chokepoints. https://www.eia.gov/international/analysis/special-topics/World_Oil_Transit_Chokepoints

International Energy Agency – Global Energy Supply and Maritime Chokepoints.

NATO Allied Joint Doctrine for the Conduct of Operations (AJP-3). https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6964e72799fbdc498faecce2/AJP_3_Ed_D_V1-O.pdf

NATO Allied Joint Doctrine for Maritime Operations (AJP-3.1).

Reuters – Coalition naval escort discussions in the Strait of Hormuz.

Atlantic Council – Strategic analysis of the Strait of Hormuz.

Center for Strategic and International Studies – Maritime security in the Gulf.

International Institute for Strategic Studies – Strategic Survey and Gulf security analysis.