TEHRAN — An Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson has dismissed recent US allegations that Iran is responsible for rising global fuel prices, saying Washington is trying to shift responsibility for the consequences of its military actions.
Spokesman pins blame on US actions around shipping lanes
Esmaeil Baqaei, the ministry spokesperson, wrote on his X account that blaming Iran ignores who he called the initiator of the “war of aggression” and whose conduct, he said, produced a crisis around the Strait of Hormuz and disrupted commercial shipping. The post, reported by Tasnim News Agency, framed the US charge as a deliberate attempt to absolve itself of responsibility.
“US officials blame Iran for rising fuel prices, as if the public's memory is short enough to forget who actually initiated the war of aggression, and whose actions created the crisis that led to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the disruption of commercial shipping,” Baqaei wrote.
In the same post he drew a historical analogy, comparing the current situation to a tactic used in 1939 and invoking the phrase “The March of Folly.” He wrote that the instigator of what he called an unlawful “war of choice” then blames the victim for the fallout, and posed a rhetorical question whether that should be seen as strategic brilliance or simply folly.
Why the comment matters for global markets and politics
Although the Tasnim report relays only Baqaei’s comments, the exchange highlights two dynamics that influence international energy markets and diplomacy.
- Attribution of responsibility: Competing narratives about who caused disruptions can harden political positions and complicate diplomatic efforts to reopen shipping lanes or ensure safe passage.
- Market psychology: Public accusations between states involved in a crisis can increase risk premia in oil and shipping markets even before physical supply changes occur.
- Escalation risk: Strongly worded public statements raise the stakes for both states, making de-escalation more politically difficult.
Those effects are relevant to South Africa because global oil and fuel prices are set on international markets. When major players in a volatile region publicly trade blame over shipping disruptions in a choke point such as the Strait of Hormuz, traders often react to perceived higher geopolitical risk.
What was said — at a glance
| Element | Content |
|---|---|
| Who spoke | Esmaeil Baqaei, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson |
| Medium | Post on X (reported by Tasnim News Agency) |
| Core claim | US is blaming Iran to avoid responsibility for actions that led to a crisis at the Strait of Hormuz |
| Historical analogy | Comparison to 1939 and reference to “The March of Folly” |
The Tasnim report contains the spokesperson’s assertions but does not provide supporting evidence for the sequence of events he describes or independent confirmation of the specific incidents he alludes to. It also does not include an immediate US response to Baqaei’s post.
Diplomatic exchanges of this kind tend to have three practical consequences: they shape the rhetoric available for negotiators, influence how businesses price risk, and affect public perceptions in the countries directly involved. For consumers and policymakers elsewhere, including in South Africa, the key effect is through market prices and the time it takes for tensions to be resolved.
Whether the rhetoric will translate into concrete changes — such as new sanctions, shifts in naval deployments, or altered shipping patterns — is not addressed in the Tasnim account.
