The discussion centered on a number of highly topical issues, including the failed negotiations between the United States and Iran, Washington’s declared intention to block the Strait of Hormuz in response to similar steps taken by Tehran, and the reactions of third countries. The panel also addressed the future of NATO amid the current internal disagreements within the Alliance. No less relevant was the question of how sharply the importance of the Middle Corridor has grown in the context of the lack of security and stability along traditional trade routes.

Answering the host’s question about the prospects for negotiations between the conflicting parties, Nazarova observed that from the very beginning the likelihood of a successful outcome had been viewed with considerable skepticism due to the excessively high demands voiced by both sides. She also pointed out that Donald Trump’s plans to prevent any vessels from passing through the Strait of Hormuz and to search for and detain ships that had paid Iran for transit are causing serious concern among third countries that are already suffering from the blockade of the strait. The expert noted that, despite Trump’s statements that the United States would provide assistance to third countries, so far no one has taken up this initiative, preferring instead to remain on the sidelines and avoid direct involvement in the conflict. Meanwhile, even as the news cycle jumps from one major headline to the next, oil prices continue to rise rapidly.

Regarding the second question, Nazarova expressed the view that the internal divisions currently visible within NATO had already become clearly apparent at the time when the United States unveiled its new National Security Strategy. It was in that document that Washington openly told NATO member states that they would have to ensure their own security going forward and that the United States was no longer prepared to shoulder the entire burden of expenses. At present, in the context of a war involving the United States as the Alliance’s main though unofficial leading force, other NATO member countries are limiting themselves to statements and condemnations in an attempt to avoid being drawn into the Middle Eastern meat grinder, as the expert put it. Another important question that still has no clear answer is what will become of the Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately thirty percent of the world’s oil passes. Until now the main problem there had been Iran. Now it appears that the ambiguous position of the US will also have to be taken into account. It is noteworthy that the strait remains an international maritime corridor. Naturally, the involvement of yet another major actor obstructing the free movement of vessels is causing obvious concern among many countries. Moreover, as Nazarova emphasized, the question arises of what measures should now be taken to resolve the problem and with whom exactly dialogue should be conducted from this point onward.

The next topic discussed during the program was the sharply increased importance of the Middle Corridor, the key Euro-Asian multimodal route connecting China and the countries of Southeast Asia with Europe via Central Asia and the South Caucasus. Nazarova pointed out that what had once been regarded merely as an alternative to the northern routes has now firmly transformed into a necessary and, at the moment, the safest and most predictable route. The expert also reported that, according to unofficial data, since the beginning of military actions in Iran, demand for transport services in certain categories along this corridor has grown by 400–450 percent. It is noteworthy that the importance of this route is currently being highlighted by many international players, which in turn is attracting substantial investment. According to Nazarova, this is precisely the moment when the countries participating in the corridor should act together as never before and not miss the opportunities that are opening up amid both regional and global instability.