Hormuz Strait crisis: peace remains distant, says political risk consultant Frédéric Encel

Since the conflict began on February 28 between Iran, the United States, and Israel over the Middle East and the Strait of Hormuz, scenarios of escalation and de-escalation have dominated the debate. Frédéric Encel, a political risk consultant and professor of international relations, analyzes what this war reveals about regional power balances. He discusses the power dynamic between Washington and Tehran, the centrality of the nuclear issue, Hormuz's strategic vulnerability, and remaining negotiation margins. Encel believes that a lasting peace is unlikely due to political obstacles, including Iran's refusal to adhere to the 1968 nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the absence of diplomatic relations between Tehran and Washington since 1979, Iran's non-recognition of Israel, and persistent tensions in Lebanon. He states that the impediments are not only military but also political, diplomatic, and doctrinal. Instead of a negotiated peace, he foresees a minimal stabilization dictated by power dynamics, aiming to contain the conflict's effects rather than resolve it. Encel suggests a prolonged ceasefire is a more plausible outcome, albeit an imperfect and fragile one, susceptible to incidents and violations. He notes that some ceasefires have lasted decades despite repeated breaches. While Iran retains some leverage, such as missiles and drones, its overall capacity for harm is limited compared to the United States. Encel highlights the significant weakening of Iran's regional p