<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is now 46 days since the war between US\/Israel and Iran began in the Middle East on February 28, throwing the entire world into a fit, in what gradually matured into a war of civilizations, a gory theatre of bloodshed, death and destruction, a mesh of cultural difference, regional tension and melodramatic assault on diplomacy and global peace. When on April 7, a two-week ceasefire was announced, the reprieve was immediately felt in the markets: spot prices of the benchmark Brent Crude and the US Western Texas Intermediate (WTI) moderated to below $100 per barrel, Japan\u2019s Nikkei 225 as well as South Korea\u2019s Kospi and the major indexes in the US all gained, infusing the market and investors with a large dose of optimism. Reports that both the US and Iran had agreed to send delegations for negotiations brokered by Pakistan in Islamabad further raised hopes. War is never a good deal for anybody, and others suffer unanticipated damages as we have seen in the war of attrition in the Middle East. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
But over this last weekend, the talks in Islamabad failed badly, with the Americans led by Vice President JD Vance walking away, and the Iranian delegation led by their Parliament Speaker, Mohammed Ghalibaf insisting that Tehran will not \u201csurrender under threats\u201d. Thus, what was projected as a quick Operation Fury (US) or Operation Rising Lion (Israel) – a shock and awe military expedition – is emerging as a long, costly trip on all sides. It is easy to start a war, but no one can accurately predict when or how it will end. The talks in Islamabad were bound to fail: there was no trust among the warring parties, there were very little areas of agreement between the 15-point plan proposed by the Americans and the 10-point plan proposed by Iran, and the talks took place for 21 hours against the background of the Israelis raining bombs on the Hezbollah in Lebanon, an upsurge of hostilities across the region, and an absolute lack of good faith. The parties were supposed to be having a conversation while they pointed bombs, drones and guns at each other\u2019s heads. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
What manner of conversation? The Iranians accused the United States of \u201cmaximalism, shifting goalposts, and threat of blockade.\u201d US President Trump said the peace talks failed because \u201cTehran would not give up its nuclear ambitions.\u201d By Sunday evening, threats were already flying across the Atlantic. President Trump threatened to block the entire Strait of Hormuz, and the coastline of Iran, to stop any vessels entering or exiting by 10:00 ET (14.00 GMT, 15:00 BST) on Monday. Yesterday, that order was carried out at the appointed time by the US Central Command with a clear directive that vessels that enter without authorization are \u201csubject to interception, diversion, and capture\u201d and the order will be enforced \u201cimpartially\u201d. The USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier has been positioned at the edge of the Gulf of Oman, supported by two destroyers the USS Frank E Petersen Jr and USS Michael Murphy. The war has entered a new phase. Iran\u2019s Parliament speaker says \u201cif they fight, we will fight.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps says it will destroy any military vessel that approaches the Strait of Hormuz. The rest of the world is asking for \u201cthe freedom of navigation\u201d because the main concern is the supply of crude oil, and how the closure of the Strait would translate into another shock for the global economy. There are no easy answers. There is greater uncertainty. What happens hereafter will depend on whether the blockade is effective, and for how long, whether the disruption of shipping escalates, and whether diplomacy resumes. On the last point, the Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, a peace broker in this conflict, has said that efforts are being made to resolve outstanding issues. But will diplomacy make any difference anytime soon? The Iranians insist on their sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz. Trump says they must stop collecting tolls along the waterway, stop extorting money, and that looks like Trump\u2019s strategy of blocking Tehran\u2019s ready source of revenue, and force its leaders back to the table. However, Trump says \u201cI don\u2019t care if they come back or not.\u201d It is in Trump\u2019s interest to care, and not shut the door to diplomacy. He is losing popularity at home. He faces a test of popularity during midterm elections in November which may prove crucial. He is using the same gunboat tactics that worked in Venezuela and the Pacific but which appears weak in the face of Tehran\u2019s defiance. He is also losing popularity abroad. Countries in Asia and the EU as well as the UK have opposed the blockade. They do not support it. The risks are higher. Will the US attack, destroy or impound Chinese-owned vessels for example? Or ships belonging to Russia? Or India and Pakistan? The world watches with bated breath. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
More voices of reason will be needed in the room. Pakistan has tried and it intends to keep trying. Pope Leo XIV has been perhaps the strongest voice of reason in the matter but he got whacked by President Trump. Not even Hitler or the Italian fascist, Mussolini was that rude to the Pope. The closest we have on record of a dictator taking on the Pope more directly was Joseph Stalin, the Russian dictator, who in 1935, reportedly said about Pope Pius XII who was defending the rights of Catholics in Russia: \u201cThe Pope? How many divisions has he got?\u201d, Stalin asked. Stalin had a reputation for his rude use of language. But in 2026, US President Donald Trump is proving to be worse than Stalin. Pope Leo XIV is the first American Pontiff. He has been very vocal since Easter in calling for peace, and calling on those who want to kill off a whole civilisation, like Trump, to desist from \u201cthe madness of war.\u201d Trump has since fired back. He has asked the Pope \u201cto focus on being a Great Pope, not a politician.\u201d He told Pope Leo to be \u201cthankful\u201d reminding him that he, Trump, helped him to become the Pope. \u201cIf I wasn\u2019t in the White House, Leo wouldn\u2019t be in the Vatican\u201d. He further accused the Pope of being \u201cweak on crime, weak on nuclear weapons, terrible for foreign policy\u2026 I don\u2019t want a Pope who thinks it is okay for Iran to have a nuclear weapon\u2026Leo should get his act together as Pope\u201d Pope Leo, who has embarked on a major African tour of 11 cities in four African countries \u2013 Algeria, Cameroon Angola and Equatorial Guinea says he is not ready to engage President Trump in a debate. Italian PM Giorgia Meloni, like Catholics across the world, defends the Pope: \u201cI find President Trump\u2019s words toward the Holy father unacceptable. The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church, and it is right and proper that he calls for peace and condemns all forms of war.\u201d One quick lesson that President Trump may have learnt in the last 24 hours is that the Pope is not the Secretary-General of the United Nations to whom he can speak condescendingly. He cannot withdraw the Pope\u2019s citizenship either. And he cannot invade the Vatican. This is also not NATO, which Trump considers a \u201cpaper tiger\u201d which he can bully at will. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Pope has a global, divine authority that transcends secular, military power. But Trump seems not to know his limits. In his grand intimations of messianic heft, perhaps delusion, Trump and his handlers posted on Truth Social yesterday, an AI-generated image depicting him as a Christ-like figure, light flowing from his hands, aglow, saving a man in a hospital bed. The post was roundly condemned, even by members of Trump\u2019s traditional constituency, the Conservative far-right. Trump imagining himself as the Jesus Christ of our time explains his disrespect for the person and authority of the Pope and the global influence of the Catholic Church. The blasphemous image has since been removed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Last month, March 19, earlier this month, April 2, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the formation of a coalition of between 35 and 40 nations coming together to discuss the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The group is led by the UK and France, with the objective of securing safe passage for global trade and shipping through the Strait. Other countries in that coalition include Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Canada, Somalia, Albania, Montenegro, Portugal, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand, Greece and others. Nigeria is also a member. It is important that Nigeria is in the room when important conversations are on the table around the world. The initial statement by the Keir Starmer-led coalition read: \u201c\u2026We express our deep concern about the escalating conflict. We call on Iran to cease, immediately, its threats, laying of mines, drone and missile attacks and other attempts to block the Strait to commercial shipping, and to comply with UN Security Council Resolution 2817\u2026 Freedom of navigation is a fundamental principle of international law, including under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea\u2026 The effects of Iran\u2019s actions will be felt by people in all parts of the world, especially the most vulnerable.\u201d This statement focused mainly on \u201cIran\u2019s actions.\u201d The time has now come for the same \u201ccoalition of the willing\u201d to issue another statement to condemn the United States and Israel, its ally. Iran may have used the Strait of Hormuz as leverage in the war, but now Trump, the same Trump, who previously called on countries who depend on Oil from the Middle East to get the waterway reopened, is now the same person who has vowed to shut it down completely at both ends, thus blocking maritime traffic. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Is this legal? The United States is not a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOSS), but under international customary law, states are required as an obligation to respect the rules about freedom of navigation. Article 3 (c ) of the UN General Assembly\u2019s definition of aggression in Resolution 3314 (XXIX) (1974) regards a naval blockade of a state\u2019s coasts or ports by the armed forces of another state as an act of armed aggression. No state has the right to block the high seas unilaterally even during armed conflict. The Strait of Hormuz in particular is governed by the right of transit passage. About 20% of the world\u2019s total energy needs (oil, fertilizer, liquified natural gas, trade items etc.) pass through that narrow waterway, 33km wide, and a shipping lane of just 3km wide in either direction. The Strait is said to be a minefield, but the explosion of those, literally and figuratively, is already impacting the entire region and the whole world. Everyone is involved in this: insurance premiums have gone up in the shipping industry, international transportation is compromised, cost of crude oil has risen by over 7% in the last two days, fertilizer, household budgets have skyrocketed. In March, US inflation jumped, the highest level in two years. The future is uncertain as the global economy shrinks, the threat of inflation is real, loss of jobs, and a looming global recession which may last longer than expected is becoming the new normal. The fabric of international relations is in tatters as diplomacy increasingly appears treacherous and nations are seeking narrow, sovereign interests before and above all else. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is the morning after the blockade. There are no clear answers. The world is adrift. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
It is now 46 days since the war between US\/Israel and Iran began in the Middle East on February 28, throwing the entire world into a fit, in what gradually matured into a war of civilizations, a gory theatre of bloodshed, death and destruction, a mesh of cultural difference, regional tension and melodramatic assault on<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":7440,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[4179,4166],"class_list":["post-16023","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-foreign-policy-diplomacy","tag-features-writer","tag-reuben-abati"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/modusoperandum.ng\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16023","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/modusoperandum.ng\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/modusoperandum.ng\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/modusoperandum.ng\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/modusoperandum.ng\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=16023"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/modusoperandum.ng\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16023\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16026,"href":"https:\/\/modusoperandum.ng\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16023\/revisions\/16026"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/modusoperandum.ng\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/7440"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/modusoperandum.ng\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16023"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/modusoperandum.ng\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16023"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/modusoperandum.ng\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16023"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}