Iran's Perspective on the Hormuz Crisis and Geopolitical Tensions

The air in Beijing felt thick today. Trump touching down, it was a huge deal, but for Iran, the real focus wasn't the landing itself. It was the shadow cast by the Hormuz crisis , and whether Xi Jinping would actually move anything.

Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Dr. Kazem Gharibabadi, spoke to CNN-News18 about it. He laid out a perspective that felt deeply rooted, almost resigned. He suggested that since China was also caught in the mess—suffering from that US naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz—then a solution was simply in everyone's interest. It wasn't just an Iranian concern; it was a shared problem, a miserable reality unfolding in the Middle East.

“All countries,” he said, gesturing vaguely, “including China, are suffering because of the aggression from the US and this whole situation in the Strait of Hormuz. We don’t need to tell China anything directly.” There was a pause there, a heavy, unspoken acknowledgment of the deep ties, the long-standing relationship Iran shares with Beijing. It’s more than just trade deals; it’s history, a kind of shared, complicated space.

He was asked what Iran expected from the upcoming Xi-Trump summit. The answer wasn’t a grand diplomatic plea. It was more practical, bleaker.

“Iran is only charging for the services that are being provided,” Gharibabadi clarified. He made it clear that the fuel price hikes, the real pain of the Hormuz crisis, were the result of the US actions, not some arbitrary Iranian choice. But the consequence remained. Iran isn't sitting idly by.

He then brought up the toll. Iran will keep charging for ships crossing Hormuz. It’s a stubborn position, refusing to simply capitulate to the pressure.

“Iran does not have any international obligation since it is not a signatory to maritime conventions,” he noted. Yet, he insisted they won’t cross lines. They won’t go beyond international law. But the real sticking point, the necessary condition for anything to change, was simple: peace. “There will be more safety and security,” he said, the tone shifting, a subtle urgency creeping in, “but only if peace is restored.” It’s that simple, and yet it feels impossible right now.

Meanwhile, there was the whole story of the ships waiting. Eleven Indian ships, stuck, waiting for passage through Hormuz. The hope, the fragile hope, was that the good relations between India and Iran might somehow smooth this path. Gharibabadi expressed this hope, a genuine yearning for movement. “Countries which sided with the aggressor will find it difficult to let their ships pass,” he observed. It’s a statement about power dynamics, about who controls the routes, and how that translates into real-world logistics.

This hope extended to the larger group, BRICS . The Deputy FM was visiting India for the Foreign Minister meet. He gave India’s leadership a huge thumbs up. It felt supportive. He pointed out how India, as the chair, was showing this impartiality. It’s a tricky balance, isn’t it?

He was asked about the language used in the joint statement regarding Israel. He touched on the sensitivity. “If most members advocate an idea, even if India’s own view may be slightly different, it is not blocking,” he admitted. It’s a messy game of balancing alliances and personal views.

But the real tension, the thing that kept him awake, was the perception of division. He spoke about the BRICS grouping. “We want a good meeting,” he insisted. “BRICS should not give the message to the world that we are divided.” He brought up the UAE, a neighboring country. It wants to condemn Iran, even though, in his view, Iran was the victim. He stressed that Iran hadn't introduced any language in the declaration to condemn the GCC countries. It’s about narrative control, isn't it? Trying to manage how the world sees the situation, especially when the pressures are so intense.

And then there was the nuclear shadow. It always comes back. Iran was open to negotiation on everything—all issues, including the nuclear weapons talk. But the US approach, he made it clear, was unilateral. Unacceptable. That line, that single point, separates the hope from the fear.

It’s a constant juggling act. Hope for a smooth transit, hope for a ceasefire, hope for a shared solution. But underneath it all, there’s the grinding reality of the blockade, the economic pain, and the political maneuvering that defines this whole region. It’s not neat. It’s just happening. And everyone is trying to figure out where the next step is going.