Published on May 8, 2026 at 10:33 am, Updated on May 8, 2026 at 10:34 am
Is the truce in Iran being jeopardized by the new exchanges of fire that took place last night between Washington and Tehran around the Strait of Hormuz? “No one wants to go further,” says Djilali Benchabane, a guest on “La Matinale” this Friday, May 8, who emphasizes a “desire to test the opponent again.”
Three American ships attacked in the Strait of Hormuz are still blocked this morning of Friday, May 8. In response, the United States targeted Iranian military installations. But for Donald Trump, the ceasefire is still in effect, while Tehran accuses the US president of violating it. An incident dismissed as a “small quarrel” by the American president, who threatens violent retaliation. To provide an update on this extremely tense situation in the strait, “La Matinale” welcomes this Friday, May 8, Djilali Benchabane, an analyst in geopolitics and strategy – director of the CEOS Strategy and Consulting firm.
Djamel Mazi: The United Arab Emirates reported facing missile and drone attacks, activating their anti-air defense. With the recent exchanges of fire between the US and Iran last night, is the truce still in effect this morning?
Djilali Benchabane: It depends on what one considers a truce. There’s the semantic dimension of what this truce really means, and then there’s the operational reality. We are currently in an absurd situation where everyone claims there are violations, but everyone also wants to stay below the threshold of total war. No one wants to go further, everyone is testing each other. We are paradoxically in this desire to test the opponent again, as the negotiation phase is still ongoing. Ultimately, this kind of truce and rupture of truce will, in my opinion, serve throughout a negotiation process, if it is to succeed.
Anthony Bellanger: With a particularity this time: Saudi Arabia intervened two days ago to explain to Donald Trump that it was out of the question for him to implement this operation “Project Freedom,” which aimed to remove Iran’s trump card, that is, control of the Strait of Hormuz, and to try to force it militarily if necessary. Why did Saudi Arabia intervene so forcefully in the matter?
Because for Saudi Arabia, there is a first consequence, which tends to be overlooked, the economic aspect. For Saudi Arabia, it is crucial to remember that we are in an extremely sensitive phase of its economy. The longer this war continues, the more it jeopardizes this plan, which potentially positions Saudi Arabia as one of the drivers of growth for the Gulf states. And they know that, militarily speaking, the longer this conflict continues, the more instability will persist, and economic instability will interfere in their perspective. For Saudi Arabia, this situation is untenable. There is no good military solution, there is a political solution that they must reach quickly.
No military solution, yet Iran has just demonstrated that as a country of 90 million people with a world-class military force, they can even challenge the United States, which counts in the region. And I think the discussions will not be quite the same after this war between the US, Israel, and Iran compared to before. There will be a lot to negotiate in the region?
There will be a lot. For Iran, there is the issue of reaffirming its primacy over the Strait of Hormuz. They’ve realized that their geographical position has become the major strategic asset, even more than nuclear capabilities. What is interesting is that today, nuclear issues have almost become secondary to the global consequences of the Strait of Hormuz. For Iran, there is no question of backing down. In this escalation rhetoric, they demonstrate their resilience and readiness, if necessary, to increase pressure regarding this exercise conducted by Washington.
Djamel Mazi: It’s the economic nuclear weapon, I was going to say, of Iran. As the Americans have also labeled it.
Not only an economic weapon, but mostly a lever of pressure that allows them to fit into this world reconfiguration, ultimately built around economic conflict. We’ve had the war in Ukraine and its consequences, the trade war led by Donald Trump, and ultimately Iran, through the control of maritime flows, opens up a new field.
