Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group characterised six weeks of war in a single sentence: "In the attempt to prevent Iran from developing a weapon of mass destruction, the US handed Iran a weapon of mass disruption" 1. Vaez is one of the few named analysts to have called both the initial Hormuz closure and the toll system's permanence in advance, which gives the framing weight beyond the soundbite. The structural inversion he is describing is concrete: the leverage Washington went to war to remove has instead been codified into Iranian domestic law and projected outwards through a working customs system. The weapon Vaez names is the one Tehran is now asking the US to legally ratify .
7APR
Vaez: a weapon of mass disruption
1 min read
10:19UTC
Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group summarised six weeks of war in a single sentence: in trying to deny Iran a weapon of mass destruction, the US handed it a weapon of mass disruption.
ConflictDeveloping
Key takeaway
The leverage the US went to war to remove has been codified into Iranian law and projected outwards.
Deep Analysis
In plain English
Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group , one of the few analysts who correctly called the Hormuz closure and the toll system's permanence , summarised the war in a single sentence: the US went to war to stop Iran building a weapon of mass destruction, and in doing so handed Iran a weapon of mass disruption. The weapon he means is the Hormuz toll system: a working customs authority over the world's most important oil chokepoint, codified into Iranian domestic law, already collecting revenue from French and Japanese ships. The leverage the US meant to remove has instead been legally embedded. That is what Iran is now asking Washington to ratify.
What could happen next?
- Meaning
Vaez's framing captures the structural inversion that has occurred: the war's stated objective , removing Iran's leverage , has instead produced the codification of a new and durable form of leverage that will outlast any ceasefire arrangement not explicitly structured to dismantle it.
First Reported In
Update #61 · Carriers retreat; Iran codifies Hormuz
Forces News· 7 Apr 2026
Read original →Different Perspectives
Golden Global Yatirim Bankasi
Golden Global told Turkey's KAP on 4 September that the parties OFAC named are not its customers and it had no dealings with them. It plans to contest the designation.
CENTCOM (US Central Command)
CENTCOM says its ships evaded the IRGC's 5 September missiles unharmed, then disabled two Iranian tankers and destroyed a third within hours. Admiral Cooper named that three-for-two ratio himself.
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps
The IRGC Navy claimed strikes on six vessels, three tankers and three US-linked ships, on 5 and 6 September, naming none of them. It conceded its own tankers were hit.
China's foreign ministry
Spokesman Lin Jian rejected Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's 25 August warning that Iranian oil buyers face an "economic D-Day", saying sanctions do not help and that Beijing would safeguard its own rights and interests. China's Iranian crude imports had already halved for unrelated reasons.
Iraq's government and Erbil authorities
Erbil authorities said 10 explosive-laden drones were shot down over the city on 1-2 September with no casualties. Iraq's government condemned the attacks without naming Iran as their source, and neither Washington nor Baghdad confirmed the IRGC's claim to have hit US bases there.
Bahrain Defence Force
The General Command said air defences intercepted several Iranian missiles and drones on 1-2 September and called the use of such weapons against civilians and private property a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law.