رضا ثابتی

The Portuguese Empire used the Cartaz system in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries to regulate ships and trade across the Indian Ocean, including the Strait of Hormuz. Ships were required to obtain permits detailing their vessels, routes and cargoes, and those violating the terms could be stopped or seized. Hormuz already had an established system of customs duties and tribute before the Portuguese arrived, so Portugal did not invent maritime taxation in the region. After capturing Hormuz in 1515, Portugal combined local administrative structures with forts, warships and customs controls to dominate trade, though smaller vessels, local resistance and Ottoman competition limited enforcement. Safavid forces, supported by the English East India Company, recaptured Hormuz in 1622, ending Portuguese dominance while leaving elements of the permit and customs system in place. The historical example is presented as relevant to current debates about control and possible charges on shipping through the strategically important strait.

The cartaz was a Portuguese maritime permit used from the early sixteenth century to regulate shipping across the Indian Ocean, including the Strait of Hormuz. It recorded details about a vessel, its cargo, route and crew, and allowed ships to travel under Portuguese protection; vessels without one risked seizure. Historians distinguish the cartaz from a direct transit toll: Hormuz already collected customs duties, tribute and security payments before the Portuguese arrived. After conquering Hormuz, Portugal combined the permit system with forts, naval power and control of customs to redirect trade through ports it dominated. The system was imperfect because rival powers, local merchants and lightly monitored routes limited enforcement. Safavid and English forces captured Hormuz in 1622, shifting regional trade to Gambrun, later Bandar Abbas, although the Portuguese continued issuing cartazes elsewhere. The historical example highlights how control of strategic maritime chokepoints can convert geography into political and economic leverage.

Iran has reportedly sought hundreds of Chinese and Russian man-portable air-defense systems, although Beijing and Pakistan deny involvement in one reported Chinese weapons deal. These lightweight, infrared-guided missiles can be deployed and relocated by small teams without large radar systems, posing a significant threat to helicopters, drones, transport aircraft and low-flying jets, particularly below about 15,000 feet. Iran’s Mithaq systems are officially presented as domestically produced, but experts say they closely resemble Chinese QW-1 and QW-18 weapons and may largely be assembled from imported components. Their capabilities remain limited compared with medium- and long-range air defenses, and they are less effective against low-heat electric drones. The main concern is not only Iran’s own air-defense capacity but the possible transfer of new systems to allied armed groups in Yemen, Gaza, Iraq and Lebanon, which could increase proliferation risks and threaten military and potentially civilian aircraft.

During a roughly one-month period of temporarily eased U.S. restrictions, Iran moved about 73 million barrels of oil out of the vulnerable Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman area, potentially worth around $6 billion before transport, intermediary and sanctions-related costs. Kpler data indicates that Iran sharply increased loading rates and transferred much of its floating storage toward waters near Malaysia, Singapore and the route to China, using ship-to-ship transfers that obscure the cargoes’ origins. The relocation was driven less by strong demand than by fear that the blockade would quickly return. Chinese independent refineries remained the main prospective buyers, but Chinese unloading rates fell substantially because of high inventories, weak fuel demand, lower refining profitability and the growth of electric and hybrid vehicles. Much of the oil therefore remained at sea and may take four to five months to absorb, with further discounts potentially required. The estimated $6 billion represents potential gross value rather than money already received; after costs, Iran’s net proceeds per barrel would be considerably lower and payments could be delayed by one to two months.

Iran claims the United States targeted the Darkhovin nuclear power plant site, though US Central Command has not confirmed striking that location. The facility, intended for electricity generation rather than uranium enrichment, remains in early construction stages with no nuclear material present. Decades of delays, redesigns, and halted partnerships have left the project far from completion. International bodies, including the IAEA and the World Nuclear Association, indicate that no official reactor construction has begun despite Iranian announcements. The attack’s significance lies in its potential to further delay a long‑stalled and symbolically important project, though independent assessments of the damage remain unavailable.

US attention has turned to Iran’s underground Kuh-e-Kalang complex near Natanz, which American officials consider a potential target due to its depth, unclear purpose, and possible future role in Iran’s nuclear program. Satellite imagery shows extensive construction since the 2020 Natanz sabotage, including multiple tunnel entrances and strengthened security. Analysts suggest the site could support centrifuge assembly, storage of sensitive equipment, or future enrichment activities, though no proof confirms advanced nuclear work or movement of Iran’s 60 percent enriched uranium there. Limited access for inspectors and deep fortification complicate assessments of its capabilities. While the facility is still under construction, US officials worry about its long-term strategic value, and experts note that even advanced US bunker busters may struggle to destroy deeply buried sections, making any potential strike dependent on targeting entrances and support infrastructure rather than the core underground chambers.

Kuh-e Kalang, a deep underground complex near Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility, has drawn attention after Donald Trump warned it could be targeted in a major strike. Satellite imagery indicates extensive tunneling whose depth and size suggest potential uses beyond Iran’s declared purpose of centrifuge assembly. Analysts highlight its possible future role in enrichment, storage of sensitive equipment or material, and protection of nuclear infrastructure, though no evidence confirms the presence of 60% enriched uranium. Limited access for the International Atomic Energy Agency has fueled uncertainty. The facility’s depth and unknown internal layout make a successful U.S. strike difficult, prompting strategic debate over its vulnerability and significance in Iran’s evolving nuclear program.