The contrast between the US and Iran and its implications

The Iranian reaction to Trump's threats could be to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which 90% of the oil in the region passes and, therefore, about 20% of global crude; the consequences would be an increase in the prices of the energy sector, with a heavy impact on the global economy. However, the threat of Tehran, which would then be the direct response to a possible US embargo on Iranian oil, seems difficult to implement, due to the strong presence of the American armed forces in the Persian Gulf and, also, for the lack of convenience that they would have the same Iranians block the main route to export their oil. On the other hand, even for the US, imposing the embargo on Teheran crude could have important effects: current Iran is not isolated because it can enjoy trade agreements with China and Russia and also the European will not to adhere to the provisions of Trump. The situation of tension between the two countries is due to the change in the White House, with the new tenant who took a direction opposite to that of Obama, also because of a greater proximity to the Saudi kingdoms, of Sunni religion, and with Israel , which considers Iran to be its most dangerous enemy. The direct question of the dispute between Washington and Teheran is the Iranian nuclear deal, which the current US administration sees as too favorable to Iran and also potentially able to allow it to develop the atomic weapon. Trump pushes for a more stringent review of the agreement, which would penalize the Iranians, but the American president is isolated among the signatories of the agreement: in fact it is not followed by the other treaty underwriters, who declared themselves in favor of maintaining the signed and as a result they will not follow the US on sanctions against Iran. Washington remains so alone, to be against Iran, within the most important diplomatic scene. One of the Americans' objectives for Tehran is to overthrow the regime under the command of the country, but this purpose clashes with the current state of Iranian society. If in 2009 the citizens of Iran protested to obtain more rights, they are currently going down in the streets to protest against an increasingly difficult economic situation, due, in part to the ever more extensive corruption, that to the great incompetence of the central and peripheral governors: it is passed, that is, from protests on the principles to disputes on more practical and objective reasons. This does not facilitate those who want to overthrow a regime, because it is easier to foment revolts for denied rights than maladministration. The American administration also seemed to be aware of this. It ruled against the Iranian political class, which, because of its corruption, makes the life of the people of Iran difficult. Therefore being responsible for an embargo under these conditions can only worsen the perception of the United States, which would become guilty of further worsening the conditions of Iranian citizens. Paradoxically, it would be easier to favor a change of regime in a better economic situation, where the issues of rights could be central again in a possible popular protest. Even a distrust of the current Iranian president, Rohani, could accelerate the migration of a substantial consensus, towards more traditionalist and less moderate sectors, whose main interest remains that of concentrating the national interest towards the values ​​of the Khomeinist revolution and then aggregating the population against the great Satan, as the United States is still defined in radical circles. This could also be a tactic of the White House strategists, favoring, even indirectly, the return to power of the most conservative part of the Iranian country, to have tangible reasons for presenting the Iranian country through the worst possible perception. It could be a repetition of the scheme adopted with Kim Jong-un: provoke the maximum counterpart to achieve the purpose intended by Trump, but Iran is not North Korea if that were true, it would be an almost suicidal tactic, because, if it does not achieve its intended purpose, it would have negative effects on the economy, on international relations and would force the United States to open a new international front on which to focus, an eventuality, if it occurred, would signal yet another mistake evaluation by the American president and his staff.