Iran’s weakened axis still bites as Houthis escalate against Saudi Arabia

The contradiction is hard to miss. A government that has demanded ideological conformity from Iranians appears willing to overlook Namjoo’s past transgressions at a time when the Islamic Republic is under extraordinary military, economic and domestic pressure and is openly seeking to encourage some prominent Iranians abroad to return.

Rather than a sign of moderation, his return may reveal how flexible the Islamic Republic can become when its own rules are no longer useful.

Siavash Rokni, an expert on Iranian popular culture, and historian Shahram Kholdi told Iran International’s Eye for Iran that the apparent opening serves several purposes. It can distract from executions and political prisoners, project an image of a more tolerant Iran and send a message to the diaspora that even former critics may be able to return — although the state still decides who gets through the door.

“Diversion. I’m going to make this quite simple,” Rokni said.

Kholdi questioned whether the rules were really changing at all.

“Are they bending their own rules and principles?” he asked. “Or are they temporarily deactivating them?”

Namjoo is an extraordinary figure around whom to test that question.

The Mashhad-born musician left Iran in 2007 and was later sentenced in absentia to five years in prison for “insulting sanctities” over his use of Quranic verses in his music. It remains unclear publicly what became of that sentence before his return. Outside the country, he continued to ridicule religious and political symbols, including former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

He has also faced multiple allegations of sexual misconduct and abuse, which he denies.

And yet he has been allowed home.

His return was also highlighted by Iranian state media, which praised what it described as his “patriotic” opposition to US and Israeli attacks. Namjoo himself said he had encountered considerable kindness since returning.

Who gets to break the rules?

The contrast is particularly stark when Namjoo’s treatment is compared with that of female musicians inside Iran.

Singer Parastoo Ahmadi drew international attention after performing without the compulsory hijab in an online concert in 2024. She was briefly detained after the performance. In June 2026, she and members of her production team were reported to have been sentenced to 74 lashes, along with two-year bans on travel and artistic activity.

Rokni also pointed to Hiva Seyfizadeh, another female singer who was arrested during a live performance in Tehran in 2025.

The juxtaposition gets to the heart of the controversy surrounding Namjoo. A male musician known for ridiculing symbols the Islamic Republic considers sacred — and who has faced sexual misconduct allegations abroad can return, while women continue to face state pressure over their clothing and their voices.

“Why are female singers not able to sing and an alleged sexual abuser is back, is invited back to the country?” Rokni asked. “What is this double standard happening in this country?”

Namjoo’s return has generated precisely the kind of attention such a contradiction might be expected to produce. Iranians have argued over his decision to return, his past and what his presence in Tehran means.

That noise may itself be useful.

Rokni described the use of popular culture as part of a sophisticated communications strategy capable of shifting attention away from far more damaging issues for the state — among them executions, political prisoners, economic hardship and the repression of women.

“Namjoo is not, in my opinion, an important subject of conversation,” he said.

The point is not that his return is insignificant. It is that the spectacle surrounding one musician can swallow up the conversation about thousands of people who do not have the luxury of choosing whether to engage with the Islamic Republic.

An invitation with conditions

Namjoo’s homecoming also carries a message beyond Iran.

If someone who mocked the Quran and the country’s former supreme leader can return, other members of the diaspora may reasonably wonder whether the rules have changed for them too. That question is no longer hypothetical. Culture Minister Abbas Salehi has said his ministry compiled a list of more than 100 cultural, artistic and intellectual figures abroad whose return it wants to facilitate.

But the door does not open equally.

“Returning to one’s country has become a game of preferential treatment,” Rokni said.

The Islamic Republic effectively retains the power to determine which Iranians can come home, which critics can be forgiven and what compromises are required to make that possible.

History gives reason to be wary of assuming that an open door will remain open.

Kholdi recalled the experience of writer and dissident Saidi Sirjani, a prominent critic of the Islamic Republic. Following the death of its founder, Ruhollah Khomeini, Sirjani believed a different political era might be emerging and encouraged other Iranian intellectuals abroad to consider returning, Kholdi said.

Sirjani was arrested in 1994 and died in custody later that year under circumstances that remain disputed.

Kholdi also pointed to Iranian-Canadian scholar Ramin Jahanbegloo, who was arrested in Tehran in 2006 and detained for months before eventually leaving the country.

“I would not consider such moves a sign of the fact that they have become more moderate,” he said.

The history even gives Kholdi reason to worry about Namjoo himself.

“As a human who deserves the security and safety of life like any other normal person, I am worried for his safety,” he said.

Today’s welcome, in other words, does not guarantee tomorrow’s protection.

The power of an open door

That uncertainty carries particular weight for millions of Iranians abroad who still have family, professional and emotional ties to the country.

Kholdi said he was warned as a young academic that outspoken criticism of the Islamic Republic could cost him access to Iran, its archives and the field research needed for his career.

The threat did not have to be explicit. Access itself became leverage.

The same calculation can apply to artists, journalists, academics and ordinary diaspora Iranians who want to see parents or relatives. The state controls the door, and the possibility of losing access can shape behavior long before anyone attempts to cross the border.

Namjoo’s return makes that door appear wider.

It also gives the Islamic Republic a useful image to present to the outside world: a former critic who once violated some of its most sensitive taboos is back in Iran. How intolerant can the system be if someone like him is allowed to return?

Kholdi warned that there is another side to that calculation. Iran has repeatedly detained dual and foreign nationals who later became subjects of negotiations or prisoner exchanges, a practice critics of Tehran describe as hostage diplomacy.

The same state that can invite people in retains the power to prevent them from leaving.

That is why Namjoo’s return matters less as a story of one controversial musician coming home than as a glimpse of how the Islamic Republic behaves when under pressure.

It can enforce religious morality against a woman who sings without a hijab while overlooking the past of a man who mocked the Quran. It can imprison critics while advertising the return of another. And it can present selective tolerance as evidence of change without surrendering the power to reverse that tolerance later.

Namjoo’s return also appears to be part of a broader effort to selectively reopen the door to prominent Iranians abroad while the state retains the power to decide who may return and under what conditions.

The Islamic Republic’s red lines have not disappeared.

What Namjoo’s return exposes is that those lines were never equally rigid for everyone and that when the regime sees an advantage in moving them, even the principles it calls sacred can suddenly become negotiable.

After weeks of reduced gasoline supplies and kilometer-long queues at filling stations, the government raised the non-quota price to 100,000 rials per liter, roughly 4.3 US cents.

Iran now has a three-tier gasoline pricing system. Each vehicle receives 60 liters per month at 15,000 rials per liter, or about 0.65 US cents, and another 50 liters at 30,000 rials, or about 1.3 cents. Gasoline purchased beyond those quotas costs 100,000 rials per liter, double the previous non-quota rate.

Government spokesperson Fatemeh Mohajerani has said the increase will not affect around 85 percent of car owners because their monthly consumption remains below the combined 110-liter subsidized quota.

At first glance, selling gasoline for only about 4.3 cents per liter while continuing to provide 110 liters per month at significantly lower subsidized rates may make the financial impact of the increase appear limited.

But the figures suggest the government could still raise several hundred million dollars annually. Whether the policy can substantially reduce consumption or Iran’s dependence on gasoline imports is another matter.

Government revenue

Iranian authorities have not published detailed current figures showing exactly how much gasoline is sold at each of the three price tiers.

But with roughly 22 million gasoline-powered passenger cars and a combined monthly quota of 110 liters per vehicle, those vehicles could consume a maximum of around 80 million liters of subsidized gasoline per day even if every driver used the full quota.

With national gasoline consumption at roughly 134 million liters per day, that would leave about 54 million liters being consumed outside the subsidized quotas.

That estimate is broadly consistent with remarks last November by the head of the National Iranian Oil Products Distribution Company, who said around 40 percent of gasoline refueling was being carried out using emergency cards provided at filling stations rather than motorists’ personal fuel cards.

A confidential 94-page report by the National Iranian Oil Refining and Distribution Company reviewed by Iran International puts average gasoline consumption in the Iranian year 1403, which ended in March 2025, at around 124 million liters per day, including additives and petrochemical products.

If around 54 million liters continue to be purchased each day at the non-quota rate, the additional 50,000 rials charged per liter would generate roughly 98.5 trillion rials over a year.

At the current exchange rate of around 2.3 million rials per dollar, that amounts to approximately $428 million.

The figure is a scenario based on current consumption patterns rather than a firm revenue forecast. The higher price could encourage some motorists to reduce consumption or rely more heavily on their subsidized quotas.

The government has also eliminated subsidized gasoline quotas for newly registered and imported vehicles, requiring them to purchase fuel at the non-quota rate.

Customs and Industry Ministry data show that Iran has added an average of around one million domestically produced or imported vehicles to its roads annually over the past five years.

Once a full year’s cohort of around one million additional vehicles is subject to the higher rate for 12 months, assuming average monthly consumption of 120 to 150 liters per vehicle, the latest increase could generate about another $35 million in annualized revenue.

Under these assumptions, the government could eventually generate less than half a billion dollars in additional annual revenue from the higher gasoline price.

Can higher prices ease the shortage?

According to Central Bank of Iran statistics, the country imported approximately $2.9 billion worth of gasoline last year.

Iranian officials say the country currently needs to import around 10 million liters of gasoline per day, with the cost at regional market prices broadly comparable to last year’s import bill.

President Masoud Pezeshkian has repeatedly argued for higher gasoline prices, saying it makes little sense for Iran to purchase gasoline abroad at much higher prices and then sell it domestically at heavily subsidized rates.

But even if the higher non-quota price generates close to $500 million annually, that would amount to only around 17 percent of the $2.9 billion Iran spent on gasoline imports last year.

The additional revenue, therefore, would not come close to covering the country’s gasoline import costs.

Officials have also argued that higher prices could reduce consumption. But many of Iran’s heaviest gasoline users work in freight transport, passenger transport and other service-sector businesses that depend directly on vehicle use.

For those workers, consuming less gasoline can also mean earning less income rather than simply cutting unnecessary fuel use.

Other structural factors are simultaneously increasing gasoline demand.

Official statistics show that CNG supplies for dual-fuel vehicles have declined every year over the past five years as Iran’s natural-gas shortage has worsened.

CNG consumption fell to around 16 million cubic meters per day last year, 38 percent below its 2020 level. The decline is equivalent to adding roughly 9 million liters to daily gasoline demand.

Iran has also not commissioned a new oil refinery since 2018, while around one million vehicles continue to be added to the domestic fleet each year.

The combination of rising vehicle numbers, declining CNG availability and limited refining capacity is therefore likely to deepen the gasoline deficit and increase Iran’s need for imports even if higher prices curb some demand.

The continued depreciation of the rial poses another problem.

The US dollar has gained around 120 percent against the rial since September 2025. If the currency continues to weaken, part of the additional revenue generated by the gasoline increase will quickly lose value in dollar and real terms.

There is also inflation.

Iran’s 12-month average inflation rate has climbed to nearly 70 percent, while food prices are around 128 percent higher than a year ago.

Higher gasoline prices can feed directly into transportation costs and, in turn, the prices consumers pay for goods and services. A policy that generates less than half a billion dollars in additional revenue could therefore impose broader costs on households already struggling with steep price increases.

The much larger cost of sanctions

The sums involved become even smaller when compared with the economic losses associated with sanctions on Iran’s oil exports.

According to Central Bank statistics, Iran generated $57.4 billion in oil-related exports last year when its crude and petroleum-product exports were valued at Gulf market prices.

That represents their nominal market value. The amount Iran ultimately receives is substantially lower.

Homayoun Falakshahi, a senior analyst at commodity intelligence company Kpler, told Iran International that around 25 to 30 percent of Iran’s oil revenues are lost between loading and delivery because of the mechanisms required to circumvent sanctions.

Those costs include discounts offered to Chinese buyers, payments to brokers, falsification of shipping documents, ship-to-ship transfers, longer transit times, floating-storage costs and the expense of chartering vessels belonging to the so-called shadow fleet.

On that basis, Iran lost an estimated $15 billion to $17 billion last year from the oil it actually exported because of discounts and sanctions-circumvention costs.

There is also the oil Iran was unable to export.

Iran’s crude exports in 2025 averaged around one million barrels per day below pre-sanctions levels. At prevailing prices, the value of that foregone export volume was approximately $25 billion a year.

Taken together, those figures suggest Iran suffered more than $40 billion in potential oil-revenue losses and additional export costs associated with sanctions last year.

That is around 80 times the less than $500 million in additional annual revenue the government could generate from the gasoline measures under current consumption assumptions.

The gap has widened further this year.

Since mid-July, the movement of newly loaded Iranian crude from the country’s oil terminals toward final overseas markets has effectively ground to a halt.

Some crude has continued to be loaded, but instead of heading to its final destination, much of it has accumulated offshore in waters south of Iran. Around 55 million barrels of Iranian oil are currently held in floating storage there and effectively trapped inside the maritime blockade.

Deliveries to China have nevertheless continued because not all of the crude arriving at Chinese ports was recently loaded in Iran.

Kpler data obtained by Iran International show that Iranian crude discharged in China averaged around 500,000 barrels per day last month, down from roughly 800,000 barrels per day in June and July.

Much of that oil had left Iran earlier and was drawn from previously accumulated floating stocks in Asian waters.

That explains how Iranian crude can continue arriving in China even as the movement of newly loaded oil from Iran to overseas markets has largely stopped.

The comparison underscores the scale of Tehran’s economic problem.

The government could raise less than half a billion dollars annually by charging consumers more for gasoline, yet the price increase does little to address the structural forces driving Iran’s gasoline deficit, while the country simultaneously faces tens of billions of dollars in lost oil revenues and sanctions-related costs.

Minister of State Stephen Doughty said the government was introducing legislation to tighten financial and trade restrictions, widen powers to sanction ships linked to Iran and bar Iranian aircraft from landing in the UK unless exemptions apply.

“Today we are laying legislation which will tackle Iranian nuclear activity and other hostile Iranian activity,” Doughty said in a written statement to parliament.

Focus on nuclear program

Doughty said Iran had expanded its nuclear program in ways that had no credible civilian justification and pointed to its stockpile of more than 400 kg of uranium enriched to 60%.

• 

  If Britain backs US plan, Iran's London bank shuts down on October 22

“Iran is the only country without nuclear weapons to enrich uranium to this level,” he said.

Britain restored UN sanctions on Iran in October 2025 after the snapback mechanism was triggered and also designated 71 people and entities linked to Iran's nuclear program, including financial institutions and energy companies.

Wider trade and financial restrictions

The new rules expand restrictions on goods, technology and services tied to sectors including energy, software, metals and gold, as well as shipping, insurance and banking.

They also ban exports of additional goods and technology that Britain says could support Iran's conventional weapons and nuclear capabilities.

Doughty said the financial measures would “further reduce the Government of Iran’s ability to access the UK financial system and raise funds in support of its nuclear programme.”

• 

  UK minister says new state-threat bill could pave way for IRGC designation

Shipping and aviation targeted

Britain will also gain broader powers to sanction ships that it says enable or facilitate Iran's nuclear program or other destabilizing activity.

Iranian aircraft will be barred from landing in the UK unless exemptions apply, following Britain's termination of bilateral air service arrangements with Iran in 2024.

The legislation includes exemptions to allow continued operations at the Shah Deniz gas field in Azerbaijan, which supplies energy to European countries.

Doughty said Britain remained committed to diplomacy, saying a negotiated outcome was “the only long-term solution” to the dispute over Iran's nuclear program.

The strikes targeted civilian and economic sites in Abha, Khamis Mushait, Jizan and Najran, according to Turki al-Maliki, spokesperson for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen. He said women and children were among those injured.

Yahya Saree, the Houthi’s military spokesman, also said that the group launched a “broad military operation” deep inside Saudi territory with drones and ballistic missiles to target Saudi energy sites belonging to oil giant Aramco.

Saudi Arabia’s Energy Ministry said the attacks caused fires at several energy facilities and utilities, temporarily halting some operations. Emergency crews were working to extinguish the fires, secure the affected sites and assess the damage.

“The coalition will take all necessary operational measures to deter this terrorist militia,” Maliki said, pledging a firm response.

The attacks came after Iranian officials warned that energy infrastructure across the Persian Gulf, including US oil and gas interests, was vulnerable following renewed exchanges of attacks involving vessels around the Strait of Hormuz.

• 

  Houthis more effective Iran ally than Hezbollah, Yemen expert says

Houthi attacks helped push oil prices to their highest levels in more than six weeks, according to Reuters. Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea has already slowed amid threats to commercial vessels and uncertainty over access to the two critical waterways.

The Houthis, who control Yemen’s capital and much of the country’s north, declared a naval blockade against Saudi Arabia in July and have since attacked vessels in the Red Sea and targets inside the country.

100%

The GCC denounced the strikes, describing them as a threat to regional security and backing measures taken by Riyadh to protect its territory and population. Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Egypt and Jordan also issued separate condemnations.

The attacks mark a further escalation in the war that began with US and Israeli strikes on Iran on February 28. Repeated missile and drone strikes, along with attacks on shipping and energy infrastructure, have punctuated lulls in the fighting.

US President Donald Trump said on Monday that oil prices would fall sharply once the United States won the war, adding that “Iran will never have a nuclear weapon.”

The escalation marks a potentially significant shift in Iran’s approach to the conflict. Iranian officials and hardliners are increasingly describing a strategy that goes beyond defending Iranian territory or simply maintaining the Strait’s closure, seeking instead to impose costs on US forces and economic interests across the region.

The shift followed a series of tit-for-tat attacks involving Iranian and US-linked shipping. On Saturday, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) said it had fired ballistic missiles at a US aircraft carrier and destroyer. Washington said none of the missiles hit the vessels.

After US forces attacked three Iranian oil tankers, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth warned that any further Iranian attacks on American ships would be met with the destruction of Iranian oil tankers. Tehran subsequently said the Revolutionary Guards had targeted three tankers traveling through what it called unauthorized routes in the Strait of Hormuz and three US-linked vessels elsewhere.

“The rules of the game have changed”

The exchanges have fuelled increasingly explicit threats from senior Iranian officials.

Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s parliament speaker and head of its negotiating team with the United States, said after the attacks that Washington needed to understand that “the rules of the game have changed” and that any future attack on “Iran’s interests and security” would face “a faster, heavier and more painful response.”

On Monday, Ghalibaf escalated his warning by threatening US oil and gas companies in the region. Responding to Hegseth’s threat to sink Iranian oil tankers if Iran attacked American ships, he wrote: “The oil and gas chain here is sprawling, accessible, and exposed. American oil and gas companies across these waters and facilities share that exposure. Strike our assets and you get struck. We’ve already proven it. Ask the bases that are no longer viable.”

Ebrahim Rezaei, a member of parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, said Iran would henceforth respond forcefully to US naval vessels, equipment, destroyers and bases “anywhere.” He claimed Iranian missiles had become more advanced and intelligent than they were a year ago, increasing their ability to strike American warships. He concluded that the side that would eventually have to back down would be “the Americans.”

Mojtaba Zarei, another member of the parliamentary security committee, similarly warned that the withdrawal of US warships from the range of Iranian ballistic missiles would not end the confrontation. “This is not defence; it is decisive entry into a military confrontation,” he wrote, describing the new policy as one based on “pre-emptive operations” aimed at breaking the economic blockade.

The widening confrontation has also prompted warnings that attacks on tankers could open a much more dangerous phase of the conflict.

Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, a former chairman of parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, warned that attacks on Iranian tankers could trigger retaliation against Iran’s energy infrastructure. “The attack on the tankers is the prelude to setting fire to Iran’s energy and civilian infrastructure,” he wrote.

“What we are seeing is not war, but the killing of a nation and a civilisation,” Falahatpisheh added. “A regional initiative is needed to bring an end to the bloodshed and fire.”

New mechanism for controlling commercial traffic

At the same time, Tehran appears to be developing a more elaborate mechanism for controlling commercial traffic around Hormuz.

Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, said on state television on Sunday night that Iran considered the Strait closed and said it would establish a new “prohibited zone” outside the waterway. The zone would begin at the US blockade line and extend into parts of the Persian Gulf, with ships entering it to reach the Strait potentially subject to sanctions.

Rezaei stressed that Iran had not decided to sink oil tankers, citing the environmental consequences for the region. He also claimed that Iran had, for the first time, tested an anti-ship missile directly over a US warship.

Rezaei said Iran and Oman had also agreed on maps for a new shipping corridor through the Strait of Hormuz, which he said should be signed in the coming days. He said Iran would only commit to keeping the Strait open once the United States ended what Tehran calls sabotage, threats and attacks against Iran.

On Monday, Rezaei said Washington had received a “clear warning” from Iran’s new missiles and that economic warfare would be met with a maritime exclusion zone extending across the Persian Gulf to the US blockade perimeter. He said Iran’s operational posture toward US warships and bases had been “fundamentally recalibrated.”

Washington disputes Tehran’s description of the maritime balance. The White House said Monday that the Strait of Hormuz remained open and under US control, while the US military said it had redirected 94 commercial vessels, disabled three and boarded two as of Sept. 7 while enforcing the blockade.

Rezaei’s comments were interpreted by Nour News, a website close to the Supreme National Security Council, as evidence that Iran’s strategy was moving from restricting traffic through the Strait to establishing rules governing which vessels could pass through it.

Hardline analyst Mostafa Najafi described the emerging policy as a three-layer strategy: establishing an Iran-Oman middle corridor to manage traffic through Hormuz, entering an offensive phase against the US fleet, and imposing a sanctions-based prohibited zone between the blockade line and the Strait.

“In other words, Tehran, rather than simply closing or opening Hormuz, is defining a new equation for controlling traffic, deterrence and economic warfare,” Najafi wrote.

That approach may reflect the limits of Iran’s ability to sustain a conventional confrontation at sea.

Mohammad Ghaedi, an international relations lecturer at George Washington University, told Iran International that political considerations and Tehran’s relationships with countries such as China, India and Pakistan made it difficult or undesirable for Iran to fire on all oil tankers. The proposed sanctions regime, he said, could provide an alternative to attacking them directly.

Ghaedi nevertheless warned that Iran could eventually expand its attacks to smaller shuttle vessels that carry oil from Abu Dhabi to supertankers outside the Strait, which Iran has so far largely avoided targeting.

Hardliners push for escalation

The emerging strategy has been welcomed by some hardliners, who see attacks on US warships as evidence that Iran is overcoming its defensive posture.

Hardline commentator Nezameddin Mousavi said the missile attack sent “two clear messages”: that Iran’s missile technology had advanced to the point where US warships were now “easy prey for ballistic missiles,” and that Iran would not allow President Donald Trump to play “cat and mouse” until the November elections. “The blockade must be broken,” he wrote.

Javad Mirgalouye-Bayat went further, arguing that an attack on US warships was a political decision equivalent to extensive bombing of Tel Aviv or an attack on US territory. He said Iran should be prepared for a response “at the level of using a tactical nuclear bomb” and argued that effective attacks on warships were necessary to change the equation of the war.

But the increasingly aggressive rhetoric has also exposed a broader concern among some Iranians: whether Tehran has the military capacity to sustain the escalation it is threatening.

One social-media user warned that starting an oil-tanker war without a functioning navy would be reckless, arguing that Iran no longer had even a frigate capable of protecting tankers at sea. The user also questioned Iran’s ability to defend its own energy infrastructure if it began attacking energy facilities in the Persian Gulf.

Another critic accused the government of celebrating a failed operation after losing three tankers without hitting its intended targets, arguing that Tehran was effectively telling its adversary: “Make concessions or I will suffer more defeats.”

That criticism highlights the central risk facing Iran’s new strategy. Expanding the confrontation may allow Tehran to demonstrate that the cost of attacking Iran extends beyond Iranian territory. But each additional target also creates opportunities for a stronger US military response.

The strategy therefore appears to rest on a difficult calculation: that Iran can raise the economic and military costs for Washington without triggering a level of retaliation that its weakened military and economic infrastructure cannot absorb.

The emphasis on a prohibited maritime zone, sanctions on vessels and threats against regional energy infrastructure suggests Tehran is trying to find a middle ground between reopening Hormuz and indiscriminately attacking commercial shipping. But the more Iran seeks to enforce its new rules, the greater the risk that isolated incidents at sea will develop into a wider regional confrontation.

The result is a potentially more volatile phase of the conflict. Iran is no longer presenting the closure of Hormuz simply as a defensive response or a bargaining chip. Increasingly, officials are portraying control of maritime traffic, attacks on US forces and pressure on regional energy infrastructure as parts of a broader offensive strategy designed to break the economic blockade.