Heaven and Hell: What the US-Iran War over Hormuz Really Means

In 1980, the British heavy metal band Black Sabbath released the track ‘Heaven and Hell.’ In it, the late vocalist Ronnie James Dio confirmed that the song is about how the world contains deceptive figures (‘kings’ and ‘queens’), whose grandiose promises exploit musicians, creating a dichotomy of Heaven and Hell. Dio’s approach was the need to protect one’s aspirations from being overshadowed or stolen, reinforcing the value of individuality and self-expression amid societal pressures. And that all means beware of people who try to blind your eyes with promises. Over the years, other interpretations emerged, but one concept was widely accepted as the song's true meaning: good vs evil. Good and evil are intertwined rather than separate, with each existing in relation to the other. As I will explain throughout the article, in the context of Hormuz, both the US and Iran embody principles that contain inherent contradictions.

In 2026, we are facing another dichotomy that embodies the idea of Heaven and Hell – the ongoing U.S.-Iran war, which shows no signs of resolution. Tensions have peaked over maritime supremacy in the Strait of Hormuz, with U.S. President Donald Trump claiming “total control” of the strategic waterway, while Iranian forces aggressively reject his notion of control. What does this tell us? An infinite economic siege, or at least the threat of one. 

In fact, the U.S.-Iran war is not merely over the Strait of Hormuz, but over who gets to define reality: who controls the waterway, who defends freedom of navigation, who commits aggression, and who gets to decide where legitimate security ends and coercion begins. Using the lyrical concept of Heaven and Hell, world leaders are the ‘kings’ who manipulate narratives of security and dominance to justify a state of perpetual conflict. It’s like an artificial purgatory, where there is no war or peace. Global economic stability is literally being held hostage by the egos of the ‘kings’.

There is something almost unnerving about listening to Black Sabbath’s Heaven and Hell while watching the U.S.-Iran war unfold. The song’s timeless message of exploring moral ambiguity and the powerful manipulation of reality (The world is filled with kings and queens / Who blind your eyes and steal your dreams / It’s Heaven and Hell) resonates with the current conflict. Because Washington claims to protect navigation and commerce, while Tehran defends its sovereignty against American actions. The U.S. asserts control over the naval choke point, whereas Iran contends otherwise, leading to a significant decline in vessel traffic. The true situation lies hidden between these conflicting accounts.

While Iran claims sovereignty to resist foreign coercion while coercing others, I believe that the U.S. and Iran are not morally equivalent. In fact, I argue that Iran’s legal case is weaker. Article 38 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) establishes the right of transit passage through straits used for international navigation, simultaneously limiting a state’s ability to suspend this right, even for national security. Funnily enough, neither Iran nor the U.S. have ratified UNCLOS. However, international law affirms the right of transit passage, weakening Iran’s legal argument against freedom of navigation in the Strait and prohibiting it from unilaterally suspending these rights.

We should also raise questions about whether the American response aligns with the principles it professes to uphold. The U.S. baptised its naval presence in Hormuz as ‘Project Freedom,’ which further invites stereotypical jokes about the United States’ coercive actions as symbols of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’. Though the U.S. Navy possesses massive military capability to enforce blockades, that does not establish political legitimacy. Project Freedom exemplifies the conflict between legitimate principles and coercive actions. In fact, calling an operation 'Project Freedom' raises a more uncomfortable question: how much coercion can be used in the name of freedom before the means begin to undermine the principle itself?

Dio interpreted life as being a carousel in Heaven and Hell. Applied to our logic, ordinary people are left riding that carousel, since the immediate victims are not only American or Iranian soldiers. They are the sailors who cannot safely navigate the world’s most important energy corridor. They are the consumers facing higher oil prices. They are businesses confronting disrupted supply chains. They are governments in Europe and Asia trying to absorb the economic consequences of a conflict they did not start. 

Ultimately, I believe that ‘Heaven’ represents principles like freedom of navigation, international law, sovereignty, security, and self-defence. At the same time, ‘Hell’ points to the negative outcomes such as blockade, coercion, attacks on shipping, and economic disruption. A legitimate principle can lead to illegitimate means; thus, the more profound the moral claim, the more significant the contradiction. The U.S. doesn’t need to be the ‘bad guy,’ but its legitimacy highlights the importance of contradictions. After all, the U.S. has a strong legal claim on freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. However, its blockade contradicts this principle. While I believe Iran’s case for restricting passage is weaker, U.S. rhetoric may blur the line between defending navigation rights and asserting naval control. Defending freedom of navigation does not equate to viewing blockades as neutral. Heaven and Hell can coexist within a political project, as the U.S. simultaneously defends maritime law, protects commercial shipping, opposes Iran's coercion, yet wields immense coercive power itself. 

Perhaps when the war is over, when the missiles have stopped, and ships once again move freely through Hormuz, Washington will look back at Project Freedom and ask if everything done in the name of freedom actually served it. Maybe even Tehran will ask whether everything done in the name of sovereignty actually protected it.

Image: Wikimedia Commons/ NASA

Licence.

No image changes made.