Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqir Qalibaf warned of a possible return to military escalation against Iran on April 22, 2026 [1].

These statements come as the U.S. maintains a naval blockade of Iranian ports, creating a volatile standoff over one of the world's most critical oil transit chokepoints. The timing coincides with the arrival of U.S. representatives in Islamabad to conduct negotiations.

Qalibaf said that the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz is not possible as long as the U.S. blockade of the sea continues [1]. He said that Iran would close the strait if the blockade persists [2]. The speaker said that a final peace remains distant, and the risk of renewed military action against the country cannot be ignored [3].

According to the Iranian official, Tehran is currently studying a proposal from the U.S. before providing a response through Pakistan [1]. This diplomatic channel suggests a preference for indirect communication to manage the current tensions.

Despite the ongoing study of the U.S. proposal, Qalibaf said, "Final peace is far, and we cannot overlook the danger of the return of military escalation against Iran" [3]. The speaker's remarks reflect a strategy of leveraging the Strait of Hormuz as a primary point of pressure against international sanctions and naval restrictions.

Tehran has not yet provided a formal timeline for its response to the U.S. offer. The negotiations in Pakistan are seen as a critical step in determining whether the two nations can reach an agreement to lift the naval blockade without triggering a direct military confrontation.

“Reopening the Strait of Hormuz is not possible in light of the continued US blockade of the sea.”

The Iranian leadership is utilizing the Strait of Hormuz as a strategic deterrent to force the U.S. to end its naval blockade. By linking the accessibility of the waterway to the removal of sanctions and military pressure, Tehran is signaling that it is willing to risk global energy market instability to secure its own maritime sovereignty. The use of Pakistan as a diplomatic intermediary indicates a high level of mistrust, where both parties seek to negotiate without the political risk of direct high-level engagement.