America’s Proxy War Expands: The Strait of Hormuz and Israel’s Hidden Agenda |
The recent Israeli attack on the South Pars gas field was a calculated move to deepen American entanglement, and provoke a direct confrontation between Iran and the Gulf Arab states. Announcing the raid, Israeli officials claimed the strike was coordinated with, and approved by the U. S., implicitly tying Washington to this action. Yet within hours, Donald Trump pleaded ignorance and, for the second time, demanded that Israel halt its targeting of energy facilities. Soon thereafter, Benjamin Netanyahu hastily convened a press briefing, professing that the attack did not involve the U.S.. This contradiction indicates either another Israeli-manufactured lie, or a calculated division of roles that allows Trump to deny foreknowledge and thereby assuage Gulf states’ concerns over targeting energy infrastructures, which could incite a similar Iranian response.
The Israeli strike on the major gas hub marks a dangerous strategic escalation. The choice of target reflects not an unintended move, but a purposeful attempt to instigate a broader war.
The Israeli strike on the major gas hub marks a dangerous strategic escalation. The choice of target reflects not an unintended move, but a purposeful attempt to instigate a broader war.
It is part of a long standing sinister Israeli effort to perpetuate permanent chaos in the Gulf and Middle East. With that in mind, and wasting no time, the Israeli prime minister is cynically positing Israel as a possible alternative energy corridor to bypass the Strait of Hormuz. That aside, and beyond expanding the war, further Iranian retaliations against countries hosting American bases, could also trigger a wider economic war severely disrupt global energy markets and upend the world economy. An eerily reminiscent of the world’s recession that followed the oil embargo in the aftermath of the 1973 war.
READ: Iran says Strait of Hormuz ‘open,’ but ships fear passage
More importantly, assuming he acted alone, Netanyahu may be signaling to Trump who truly dictates the pace and scope of this war. By declaring that “there has to be a ground component,” he, more or less, “instructed” the U.S. president to dispatch Marine amphibious assault warships, exposing Trump’s servile role.
Time and again, it has become more palpable: this is Netanyahu’s war; he alone dictates its course, has proven to be in command of America’s Middle East policy, and Trump does not control how—or when—it ends.
Time and again, it has become more palpable: this is Netanyahu’s war; he alone dictates its course, has proven to be in command of America’s Middle East policy, and Trump does not control how—or when—it ends.
The pressing question remain: how Trump was “dog-walked” into this war.
Two things move Trump: money and an insatiable vanity; profit attracts him, but flattery controls him. Inflating Trump’s sense of grandeur, coupled with theatrical displays of admiration, shapes his behavior. Netanyahu understands this better than anyone else, for he has long demonstrated a unique talent for ingratiating himself and indulging Trump’s bloated ego.
A potential scenario could be that Netanyahu, groomed by Senator Lindsey Graham, succeeded in persuading, or perhaps misleading, the U.S. President into believing that assassinating Iran’s leadership would prompt a collapse of the state, and force a swift surrender. The result, dragging the U.S. in a war with little preparation and strategic clarity.
The trajectory of this war shows that it serves Israel’s exclusive agenda. It is driven by Israel-first Americans and messianic Zionist Christians, advancing a 40-year-old scheme by a foreign leader bent on entangling Washington in a new, made-for-Israel Middle East war.
The trajectory of this war shows that it serves Israel’s exclusive agenda. It is driven by Israel-first Americans and messianic Zionist Christians, advancing a 40-year-old scheme by a foreign leader bent on entangling Washington in a new, made-for-Israel Middle East war.
To this end, Trump sidelined the advice of his field military commanders in favor of the reckless impulses of his jingoistic Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth.
Trump and Hegseth, not just miscalculated, but they fail to grasp that military might is not enough to win wars. Such a naïve thinking is the hallmark of inexperienced political appointees, not seasoned military strategists. Generals understand that military power can destroy and win battles, but they also know without a clear plan, a defined end state, and a realistic assessment of consequences, it cannot secure peace. A military strategy requires aligning force with purpose, means with ends, and tactics with long-term interests. Absent that, overwhelming military strength yields not victory but a costly quagmire, replaying the same failed lessons of the endless American ventures undertaken on Israel’s behalf
The Strait of Hormuz could become America’s Suez Canal trap, the point that launched Britain’s long decline. And that may have been one of the lessons that drove U.S. top generals to caution against the war option. A critical waterway where nearly one-fifth of the global oil shipments transit through it each day. Hence, a responsible leader does not get “shocked” by events in a war he created. Leaders anticipate both predictable and unforeseen scenarios, including, above all, retaliations against regional allies, American bases, and a strategic bottleneck corridor. What has unfolded instead suggests the opposite: confusion, improvisation, and a White House scrambling to manage outcomes that were entirely foreseeable.
A president who promised to end America’s “endless wars” and campaigned on lowering prices at the pump can hardly claim ignorance of these basic facts.
READ: Iran denies responsibility for missile attacks on Diego Garcia
Nowhere is this more evident than in the often-contradictory stream of Trump’s hyperbolic statements on the Strait of Hormuz. His remarks oscillate between feigned confidence and alarm, revealing an absence of coherent strategy and a pattern of ad hoc responses to rapidly changing events. At first, Trump suggested the U.S. Navy might escort oil tankers, when the U.S. Navy decided it was too risky, his next message was to oil tankers to “show some guts” and cross the Strait.
Then came yet another turn. Trump asked other countries to send warships to secure the passage. Having been drawn into a war he was unprepared for; he now wanted others to help contain its fallout. Notwithstanding the veiled threat to Nato countries and others, almost all have rebuffed his request. Countries such as Germany, Spain, Australia, Japan, UK, France, China, India, and Italy have explicitly declined to help. It is telling that, despite their heavy dependence on Gulf energy supplies, these countries are unwilling to be drawn into a war decided to serve the strategic interest of another country.
This refusal is not just diplomatic reticence, but more of a genuine concern that Trump’s aggressive posturing have made the war riskier and unjustifiable. More so when Trump’s appeal comes after months of sidelining and insulting key international partners, undermining the very coalition he now seeks. When all failed, Trump suggested that “at certain point it’ll (Strait of Hormuz) open itself,” before changing the messaging, over again, asserting that countries using the Strait must open it. The latest was a 48-hour ultimatum threatening “destruction” of Iran’s energy infrastructure. The president’s shifting goalpost, and tumultuous posture reinforce the impression of naked incompetence and reactive improvisation.
It’s worth recalling that the Strait—the most powerful card in Iran’s hand—was closed in response to an illegal aggression.
The war did not begin because the Strait was shut; rather, the Strait was shut because of the war. That distinction helps explain why many countries have resisted Trump’s call to join in what is perceived as Netanyahu’s war.
The war did not begin because the Strait was shut; rather, the Strait was shut because of the war. That distinction helps explain why many countries have resisted Trump’s call to join in what is perceived as Netanyahu’s war.
The struggle to secure the Strait of Hormuz—and Israel’s apparent intent to escalate the conflict—exposes America’s abject subservience to Israeli strategy and a yawning vacuum at the heart of U.S. policy. As in Iraq, Israel’s agenda of regional destabilization takes precedence over America’s national interests. In this case, Israel’s goal is not simply to dismantle Iran’s nuclear capabilities, but to neutralize it as a potential rival to its hegemony—eradicating its scientific and technical know-how and fragmenting it into a failed state.
Eventually, the incompatible Israeli and American objectives are bound to collide. Like George W. Bush in Iraq, Trump may come to realize too late that he was drawn into a war he never fully comprehended, leaving America to pay the price for another nation-building project in a country whose destruction was part of Israel’s hidden agenda.
OPINION: When Tel Aviv decides, Washington fights
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.