According to Riccardo Alcaro, head of the “Global Actors” programme at the Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI), the interview that Decode39 conducted with Iran’s ambassador in Rome reveals three conditions that appear largely unrealistic, yet it also hints at a potential role Italy could play alongside European allies and Gulf partners in pursuing de‑escalation in the Middle East.
The diplomatic context: Europe and the Strait of Hormuz. For two weeks now, the Israeli‑American war against Iran has shown no sign of slowing, and the international repercussions are already significant — both economically and in terms of geopolitical instability. For this reason as well, European governments are exploring diplomatic channels with Tehran as concerns grow that the conflict could further disrupt traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, the main choke point for global energy flows.
- Italian defence minister Guido Crosetto addressed the issue in an interview with Corriere della Sera: Italy intends to work to ensure that Europe speaks with one voice, and among the first steps would be “to formally request, as India and China have done, that ships from countries not involved in the war be allowed to pass through Hormuz.”
- Sources within the Italian government specify that reports circulated by the Financial Times suggesting that Italy had made such requests unilaterally are inaccurate, as the initiative would have to be collective.
Italy’s strategic interest: avoiding a prolonged war. For Rome, however, the issue is not only about managing the immediate crisis but also about the strategic risks of a prolonged conflict, Alcaro warns.
- “For Europe, and for Italy in particular, the risks are primarily economic and geopolitical. Rising energy prices, disruptions to commercial flows and higher insurance costs for maritime traffic could quickly translate into weaker growth prospects, while regional instability could persist even after the fighting ends.”
- For this reason, Alcaro notes, Italy — like most European countries — has no interest in a war whose outcomes are uncertain and whose economic costs could be extremely high.
- “This war, which is a war of aggression even if directed against an authoritarian and itself aggressive regime, risks generating costs so high and results so uncertain that it is necessary to start thinking immediately about what form of post‑conflict regional management could guarantee greater stability,” explains the IAI analyst.
Possible scenarios for Iran. “The most likely scenario is that of a weaker Islamic Republic that nevertheless remains intact, and potentially even more hostile and aggressive.”
- According to Alcaro’s analysis, the conflict could evolve along three main trajectories:
- a weakened but resilient Iranian regime;
- the far less likely scenario of a deep destabilisation of the Iranian state;
- or a situation in which Tehran’s resistance allows the leadership to secure at least part of the conditions it has put forward.
- Alcaro also stresses that, as the war drags on, the risk of indirect effects would increase, including potential migration pressures and new forms of regional instability.
- “In a scenario of severe weakening of the Iranian state, one could not even rule out the emergence of radicalisation dynamics or, more broadly, forms of terrorism.”
The diplomatic option: a coordinated European initiative. Any diplomatic initiative, he adds, should not focus solely on reopening the Strait of Hormuz but should instead be embedded in a broader framework aimed at stabilising regional relations in the post‑conflict period.
- According to Alcaro, an effort to prevent chaos from becoming systemic “would make sense primarily at the European level and in coordination with regional actors more open to dialogue, particularly Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Oman.”
- The goal would be to send parallel messages: “On the one hand pushing Washington to bring the conflict to a rapid close, on the other encouraging Tehran not to escalate further, while recognising that the conditions it has set are largely unworkable.”
- In this context, exploratory contacts with Iran could prove useful, provided they are embedded in a broader political strategy. Opening channels of communication can help convey political signals and test diplomatic space, Alcaro explains. However, he warns that a fragmented approach — or one driven exclusively by European economic concerns — could produce the opposite effect.
- If Tehran were to interpret a potential European initiative simply as a signal of fear about the economic impact of the crisis, the Iranian leadership might feel encouraged to raise the level of confrontation even further.
- The risk, the analyst concludes, is that Iran might come to believe that striking the global economy is enough to push Europeans to open negotiations quickly.
- “For this reason, any diplomatic initiative should present itself as part of a broader European front, ideally coordinated with the Gulf countries and with coherent messages directed both at Tehran and at Washington.”
- In this perspective, reopening the Strait of Hormuz would represent only a first step — but an important one: “a signal that a broader diplomatic process aimed at preventing new regional conflicts is still possible.”
Kharg Island and the logic of controlled escalation. Meanwhile, the war continues to unfold along a path of controlled escalation.
- U.S. strikes against military targets on Iran’s Kharg Island — the hub through which roughly 90% of the country’s oil exports pass — mark a delicate strategic moment. Washington targeted military infrastructure while avoiding oil terminals, pipelines and loading jetties, from which between 1.5 and 1.7 million barrels per day are shipped.
- The message appears to be one of calibrated pressure: striking without triggering an immediate shock to global energy markets. Yet the precedent has now been set. For decades Kharg had remained largely untouchable even during the most tense phases of regional crises. Today, that red line appears less solid.
