The war is the continuation of politics by other means
En la primavera de 2026, un almirante retirado con casi medio siglo de servicio naval ofreció una lectura que los titulares del día parecían contradecir: la fase bélica del conflicto entre Estados Unidos, Israel e Irán había llegado a su fin. Juan Rodríguez Garat, desde un plató de televisión española, situó el momento presente no como el umbral de una escalada, sino como el inicio de una negociación inevitable. En la historia de los conflictos modernos, el silencio de los cañones no siempre anuncia la paz, pero sí suele señalar el momento en que la política retoma el mando que la guerra le arrebató.
- El Estrecho de Ormuz sigue siendo un polvorín: misiles de crucero iraníes han alcanzado embarcaciones comerciales incluso después de un alto el fuego declarado.
- Trump lanzó la 'Operación Libertad' para garantizar el paso seguro de buques mercantes, pero sus amenazas públicas de borrar Irán del mapa han tensado aún más una situación que se suponía en vías de apaciguamiento.
- El presentador Iñaki López puso el dedo en la llaga: ningún capitán comercial se aventurará por el estrecho sin una garantía americana sólida, y la solidez de esa garantía está en entredicho.
- Garat sostiene que ninguna de las tres partes —Washington, Tel Aviv ni Teherán— tiene verdadero interés en reanudar las hostilidades activas, pues una escalada real exigiría movilizar cientos de miles de soldados estadounidenses desde sus vidas civiles.
- El conflicto se desplaza del campo de batalla a la mesa de negociaciones: lo que cada parte pueda arrancar diplomáticamente definirá el verdadero resultado de esta guerra.
Juan Rodríguez Garat, con 47 años de servicio en la Armada Española, apareció en el programa Más Vale Tarde de LaSexta para ofrecer una valoración que chocaba de frente con la agitación del momento: la fase militar del conflicto entre Estados Unidos, Israel e Irán había concluido. Lo que quedaba era negociación.
El contexto era turbulento. Donald Trump había anunciado la Operación Libertad, un despliegue de fragatas para garantizar el tránsito comercial por el Estrecho de Ormuz. Sin embargo, Irán continuaba lanzando misiles a pesar del alto el fuego, y Trump respondió con una amenaza en redes sociales: borraría Irán del mapa si sus fuerzas alcanzaban barcos americanos. Varios buques ya habían sido impactados por misiles de crucero procedentes de Teherán.
El presentador Iñaki López señaló que la presencia naval estadounidense no era un servicio de escolta barco a barco, sino un intento de imponer orden en una región que se desintegraba. Garat matizó: Trump había inflamado la situación al hablar en nombre de Irán sin consultarle, algo coherente con su estilo, pero la pregunta de fondo era si Teherán realmente quería romper la tregua. Ese día, dos barcos habían cruzado el estrecho; otros dos habían sido atacados.
Para Garat, ninguna de las tres partes tenía apetito real por una vuelta a los combates. Las fuerzas iraníes habían llegado al límite de lo que podían hacer militarmente, y una escalada americana requeriría movilizar a cientos de miles de soldados que hoy viven en paz. El alto el fuego era, a su juicio, el mejor resultado posible para todos.
Invocando a Clausewitz, Garat cerró su análisis con una idea clásica: la guerra es la continuación de la política por otros medios. Los misiles habían callado. Ahora comenzaba la batalla por las concesiones, las narrativas y el honor salvado en la mesa de negociaciones.
Juan Rodríguez Garat spent nearly half a century in the Spanish Navy before hanging up his uniform, and on a May afternoon in 2026, he sat down on a Spanish television program to make a claim that cut against the day's headlines: the war with Iran, he said, was already over.
Garat, who served 47 years in the Armada Española, appeared on LaSexta's afternoon news program Más Vale Tarde to walk through the current state of tensions between the United States, Israel, and Iran—particularly the roiling situation in the Strait of Hormuz, where commercial shipping had become a flashpoint. The military phase of the conflict had concluded, he argued. What remained was negotiation.
The timing of his assessment was pointed. Donald Trump had recently announced what he called Operation Freedom, a plan to guarantee safe passage for merchant vessels through the strait using deployed naval frigates. Yet Iran had continued launching missile attacks despite what was supposed to be a ceasefire. Trump responded with a threat posted to his social media platform: he would erase Iran from the face of the earth if they struck American ships. Several vessels had already reported being hit by cruise missiles originating from Tehran.
The television host, Iñaki López, pressed the point: the American naval presence wasn't really about escorting individual cargo ships and tankers through the waterway one by one. It was about imposing order in a region where order was fracturing. López questioned whether any commercial captain would risk the passage without an ironclad American guarantee—and whether America could actually provide one.
Garat's reading of the situation was more nuanced. Yes, the strait had grown more tense. But Trump's public statements about speaking on behalf of Iran, made without consulting Tehran, had inflamed things in a way that reflected the president's characteristic style. The real question was whether Iran actually wanted to break the ceasefire. Two ships had crossed the strait that day; two others had been attacked. A cruise missile that the United Arab Emirates appeared to have intercepted, originating from Iran, could be the thing that shattered the fragile truce.
Yet Garat believed none of the three parties—not Washington, not Tel Aviv, not Tehran—had any genuine appetite for a return to active hostilities. The military phase had exhausted itself. Iran's armed forces had done what they could do militarily; further escalation would require deploying hundreds of thousands of American troops to the region, soldiers who were currently living peacetime lives back home. The current ceasefire, in his view, was the best outcome available to all sides.
What had ended was the shooting war. What was beginning was the political one. Garat framed it in classical terms: war, as the theorist Clausewitz observed, is politics by other means. The real contest now would be what each side could extract from the table, what concessions they could win, what face they could save. The missiles had stopped. The talking was about to begin.
Notable Quotes
The military phase has concluded; now begins the phase of negotiations and politics— Juan Rodríguez Garat, retired Spanish admiral
Neither the US, Israel, nor Iran have genuine interest in returning to active hostilities— Juan Rodríguez Garat
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
When you say the military phase has ended, do you mean there's no more fighting, or that fighting can't accomplish anything more?
The second one. Both sides have shown what they can do with force. Iran has demonstrated its missile capability. The US and Israel have shown their defensive and offensive reach. More fighting doesn't change the math—it just burns resources and risks escalation neither side actually wants.
But ships are still being attacked in the strait. How is that not an active conflict?
It's the friction at the edges. The ceasefire is real, but it's fragile. When you have that many military assets in one narrow waterway, accidents happen, miscalculations happen. That doesn't mean the war is still on—it means the ceasefire is being tested.
Trump says he'll erase Iran if they hit American vessels. Doesn't that sound like someone still preparing for war?
It sounds like someone trying to deter action without actually taking it. The threat is meant to hold the line. But if he actually wanted war, he wouldn't need to threaten it—he'd just start it. The fact that he's threatening means he's trying to prevent it.
What does Iran actually want from negotiations?
Sanctions relief, probably. Recognition as a regional power. Some face-saving way to step back from the brink. What they don't want is another round of fighting they can't win. None of them do.
So you're saying this ceasefire could actually hold?
It can hold if everyone remembers that the alternative is worse. That's usually what makes ceasefires work.