According to reports from Iranian media on the 4th, a senior official from Iran's armed forces' Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters recently issued a warning in Tehran that is sufficient to stir waves in the shipping lanes: any foreign armed forces, especially the "aggressive American military" that he mentioned, will be struck if they intend to approach or enter the Strait of Hormuz. The speaker is affiliated with Iran's core agency responsible for national air defense and strategic defense, making these words not merely an emotional outburst, but an official deterrent signal with a clear target, aimed directly at the long-contested chokepoint between Iran and the United States and its allies.

Almost simultaneously, another echo came from Paris. In response to Washington's new round of "Hormuz Plan," French President Macron publicly stated that France would not participate in the new American plan. As the U.S. attempts to reorganize allied forces and frame the security of Hormuz under its design, France chooses to remain outside, sharply contrasting with Washington's expectations. Consequently, the scene on this globally crucial oil transport route became both clear and bizarre: on one side, Tehran raised its voice, pushing American military presence away, while on the other side, a rare public rift appeared within the Western camp. Iran's tough warning combined with France's diplomatic "exit" indicates that U.S. pressure on Iran is facing resistance, and the fissures within the West are magnified in the context of the Hormuz route—what gets rewritten next may not only include the script of U.S.-Iran confrontation but also the entire regional security landscape.

Iran's Ultimatum: Hormuz is a Red Line

This time, Tehran left no ambiguity. A senior official from Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters issued a warning recently in a tone almost resembling wartime mobilization: any foreign armed forces, especially the "aggressive American military" he specifically named, will be struck if they intend to approach or enter the Strait of Hormuz. It is not a "may" or "reserve the right," but rather pushes the causal chain to its extreme—approaching means a threat, and approaching will result in being struck. This expression elevates Hormuz from an international waterway to Iran's version of a frontline trench, where any crossers will be regarded as enemy forces.

The key lies in the fact that these words are not coming from some hardline street politician or militia leader but from high-ranking members of the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, which oversees air defense and strategic defense. This agency is responsible for the national air defense network and the safety of key strategic targets, making it one of the core pillars of Iran's defense system. Their statement signifies that this is not a "political stance" but an official position backed by radar, missiles, and command chains. In other words, Tehran has inscribed this warning into its defense logic: if American or other foreign armed forces strengthen their presence nearby relying on the so-called "Hormuz Plan," it equates to pressing into Iran's core security zone, and military response is preemptively declared as a "mandatory option."

In Iran's narrative, Hormuz has never been merely a strait but a convergence point of national sovereignty and security. Tehran has long claimed security control over the waters surrounding this area, viewing it as the country's vital lifeline: one end connects its energy exports and financial lifeline, while the other connects domestic political stability and regional influence. If control over the safety of this passage were to slip away and the U.S. or its allies were to form a "permanent presence" here, it would be akin to "having someone choke you." Therefore, when Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters made "approaching equals striking" a clear statement, it was essentially delineating a unequivocal red line to the outside world—Hormuz is not a negotiable buffer zone, but a life-and-death line as determined by Iran.

The U.S. Revives the Hormuz Plan but Faces Allies' Indifference

Iran brought the red line of "approaching equals striking" to the forefront, and the U.S. quickly placed familiar chips back on the table—reviving the "Hormuz Plan." From public statements and past practices, the general direction of this new plan is not hard to guess: rallying allied naval forces around the strait to create a persistent armed presence, exerting visible pressure and constraints on Iran under the pretext of "ensuring navigational safety." Media has begun to mention this version of the "new plan," but as of now, no authoritative channels have provided a checklist-style explanation regarding military deployments, operational rhythm, or command structure. What the outside world can do is merely deduce based on usual logic—possibly including joint patrols, intelligence sharing, escort formations, etc.—yet it remains deliberately shrouded in tactical ambiguity regarding how far Washington actually intends to push the envelope this time.

However, with the plan still remaining at the level of paper and rhetoric, its "resonance" among allies has already appeared lukewarm. Washington hopes to sound the alarm of "common threats" again through Iran's hardline stance, aiming to draw Europe, particularly traditional maritime powers, back into alignment over Hormuz, yet the response has been tepid. French President Macron publicly stated that France would not participate in the U.S.'s new "Hormuz Plan," pouring cold water on this still-undeveloped joint combat concept. Externally, this presents a straightforward display of the internal rift within the West; internally, it echoes France's repeated emphasis that "Europe needs to achieve greater strategic autonomy." At least in the current narrative landscape, while the U.S. attempts to exert pressure on Iran concerning Hormuz, the "unified front" behind it seems loose and disjointed, an incongruence that inevitably undermines the deterrence of the new plan, revealing to Iran that the dispute between the U.S. and France over who shapes maritime security rules in the Middle East has stepped into the open.

Macron Turns Around: France No Longer Unconditionally Follows the U.S.

As Iran displays its deterrent posture in the Strait of Hormuz and the U.S. attempts to reorganize its allied front with a new "Hormuz Plan," the unexpected dissenting voice comes from French President who should be standing shoulder to shoulder with them. Macron clearly stated in public that France would not participate in the U.S.'s new plan, abruptly hitting the pause button on the existing allied script. This is not simply a technical disagreement but framed within the larger context of Franco-American relations and Europe’s pursuit of "strategic autonomy": while the U.S. hopes to pressure Iran with allied consensus, Paris opts to maintain distance on crucial topics, making the narrative of a "unified Western front" sound discordant on the issue of Hormuz.

It is worth noting that the research briefing itself also admits that the specific reasons for France's refusal to participate have not been disclosed; the outside world can only speculate possible considerations based on existing contexts: perhaps stemming from fatigue over long-term military involvement in the Middle East, or an intention to maintain some balance between energy and economic interests, or an unwillingness to be entirely locked into a U.S.-led regional security framework. None of these can be taken as established facts, but in a context where several European countries have repeatedly found themselves at odds with the U.S. on Middle Eastern issues, and France has continuously emphasized the need for greater strategic autonomy, Macron's public refusal, regardless of motives, objectively reveals an internal division within the West regarding "who and how will guarantee security" in sensitive waterways like the Strait of Hormuz. The specific details of the U.S.'s new plan have not yet been made public, but Iran's hardline statement is already present, while France's departure from the line makes what should have been a security drama directed by Washington turn into the beginning of a renegotiation of roles and powers among allies.

Oil Prices Tense: How Canal Risks Spill Over into Markets

While Paris and Washington are still debating "who will guard the strait," traders' eyes have long crossed the podium, focusing on the narrow route through the Strait of Hormuz. This is a natural "valve" on the global energy map; a large amount of Middle Eastern crude oil must squeeze through this watergate to be transported to Asia and Europe and America. Iran has long asserted security control over this body of water, while the U.S. and its allies are trying to intervene in the safety arrangements of the waterway through various plans. The focal point of the contest between both sides, in essence, is who is qualified and in what way can control the “switch” of this energy artery. Under such circumstances, as long as one side releases a hard signal, the market instinctively interprets it as a prelude to "potential action."

Historical experience is inscribed in oil price curves: whenever geopolitical conflicts in the Middle East escalate, even if the gunfire remains at the verbal level, the oil market often raises the "risk premium" in advance, and the trading and volatility of safe-haven assets like gold amplify as well, with some phases seeing cryptocurrency treated as a hedging tool by part of the capital, betting on the macro narrative. After the core agency responsible for air defense and strategic defense in the Iranian armed forces issued the warning of "approaching equals striking," the oil market and the broader world of risk assets will certainly not act as if they haven't heard—however, current public information does not indicate any large-scale blockade or complete disruption of traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, nor is there authoritative data confirming significant interference with the shipping lane. Regarding prices, what is being amplified at this moment are the hypothetical scenarios of "what if something truly happened in the strait," rather than an already occurred collapse of supply. The fluctuations in oil prices, safe-haven assets, and even cryptocurrencies feel more like pre-pricing for a script yet to be staged: the strait remains open, but as long as everyone knows that this "valve" handle is gripped simultaneously by opposing camps, it’s challenging for market nerves to truly relax.

If Gunfire Approaches the Strait, How Will Global Assets Save Themselves?

With Iran's Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters throwing out the deterrent message of "approaching equals striking," while France publicly refused to join the U.S.'s new "Hormuz Plan," these two clues transform Hormuz from a one-time incident into a potentially prolonged game of tug-of-war: one side emphasizes control over the safety of the strait, while the U.S. seeks to reorganize allied pressure, and France, by maintaining distance, signals European strategic autonomy. Current information does not prove that conflict is inevitable; it is more of a high-intensity psychological and posturing battle. However, amid high-density military presence and confrontational rhetoric, if either side misreads radar signals or misjudges the other's intentions, local friction could quickly be magnified by the market into a "loss of control in the strait" script—triggering a surge in oil prices and exacerbating policy discrepancies among energy-importing countries, pushing forward the contradictions within the West regarding the intensity of pressure on Iran.

For global assets, "self-rescue" is not about predicting when fire might start but learning to read the strength of signals in this tug-of-war. For investors and industry participants, several coordinates are particularly critical: firstly, the trajectory of dialogue on Middle Eastern security issues between the U.S. and Europe, especially whether core European nations like France will lean toward the U.S. position under pressure or maintain their own rhythm; secondly, Iran's subsequent official statements and actual military dynamics—frequency of drills and changes in warning language around the strait will directly affect the risk premium; thirdly, slight changes in the choices of shipping routes, insurance rates, and associated costs, which often provide answers on "tension levels" in pricing before the news. Energy prices themselves are a concentrated voting result of these signals: when U.S.-European coordination smoothens, Iran's tone notably cools, and shipping and insurance costs stabilize, the market will gradually lower the probability of "gunfire approaching"; once any link suddenly tightens, asset prices will violently fluctuate, reminding everyone that this is not just a breeze, but a potential geopolitical pressure test that may repeat.

Join our community to discuss together and grow stronger!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefit Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefit Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。