On: Middle East live: Iran announces closure of Strait of Hormuz after US attacks

The news from the Strait of Hormuz reaches my study like a discordant chord in a poorly tuned lute. Iran announces a closure; the Americans announce a strike. To the unlearned, this appears as a singular collision of wills, yet the Commentator must apply the jurisdiction test to see the layers of this tragedy.

The military commander speaks the language of the rhetorical audience - he uses the image of the closed gate to inspire fear and resolve among the masses. The economist, meanwhile, calculates the price of oil in the markets of the West, using demonstrative logic to prove that such a blockage is an impossibility for the global soul. These two authorities appear to conflict, but they are not answering the same question. The commander asks, “How do I assert sovereignty?” while the merchant asks, “How does the world breathe?” The conflict arises only when the commander believes his gate-closing is an economic solution, or when the merchant believes his spreadsheets can govern the pride of a nation.

I must return to the original text of the law of nations, buried under centuries of colonial and imperial commentary. The text of sovereignty grants a state the right to defend its waters, yet the text of the common good - the maslaha - dictates that the arteries of the world’s sustenance must remain open. When the US attacks, they claim the jurisdiction of the policeman; when Iran closes the strait, they claim the jurisdiction of the homeowner. Both have overstepped. The physician knows that to treat the heart, one does not choke the throat. By closing the strait, they do not punish their enemy; they starve the innocent who rely on the flow of commerce. This is a failure of harmony, where the passion of the dialectical theologians of war has silenced the demonstrative peace of the philosopher. I find no wisdom in this closure, only the dust of a library set ablaze.