The closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran was not merely a regional disruption; it was a direct challenge to the U.S.–Israeli military campaign against Iran and a shock to the global order. With nearly 20% of the world’s oil flowing through this narrow passage, its strategic importance cannot be overstated. 

Yet the current crisis reveals something deeper than a military standoff: it exposes the complexity of power, perception, and strategy in modern warfare. It also highlights how economic vulnerability can be weaponized as effectively as military force in shaping outcomes.

Aware of this, U.S. President Donald Trump called on NATO allies, as well as China, South Korea, and Japan, to help reopen the Strait and ensure the safe passage of tankers. Many observers, however, were quick to interpret this as a sign of weakness. That conclusion is premature. it misunderstands the nature of global power in a geopolitical context, particularly in a world where the imbalance of power continues to grow. 

The Strait of Hormuz is not an American asset, nor does it serve the United States alone. It is a global lifeline. Securing it is not a unilateral task, but a shared necessity. In such a context, cooperation becomes a tool of strength rather than a concession. So calling allies to secure the Strait of Hormuz was not a sign of weakness or defeat. It was a recognition of Iran’s strategy—and of how power works today. Trump made it clear, saying: “I wonder what would happen if we ‘finished off’ what’s left of the Iranian Terror State, and let the countries that use it—we don’t—be responsible for the so-called ‘Strait?’” He added, “That would get some of our non-responsive ‘allies’ in gear, and fast!!!”

 Iran understands this reality well. After failing to gain decisive leverage through attacks on its neighbors, including Gulf countries, Tehran has turned its focus to the Strait as its most potent strategic weapon to achieve its objectives in a broader way. By threatening or closing the Strait, Iran raised the stakes for everyone—not just the United States. Control over this chokepoint allowed Tehran to shift the battlefield from conventional military confrontation to economic disruption with global consequences. Thus, Iran does not need to lead on the battlefield to control or probably win the war if it can force the world to feel the economic cost of the conflict. This is asymmetric warfare at its best and, In doing so, Iran has strategically transformed geography into power, extending its influence beyond the Middle East in an attempt to halt and possibly win the war. 

In this sense, the control of the Hormuz Strait is central to its war strategy. As reported by Reuter and Kuwait Times, citing senior Iranian sources: “The Guards strongly believe that if they lose control over the Strait of Hormuz, Iran will lose the war.” So Iranian officials view control over Hormuz as essential to avoiding defeat. Their logic is simple: if Iran loses control of the Strait, it loses its most effective lever in the conflict. That’s why Tehran continued to stand firm in the face of both verbal and military threats that aimed at forcing Iranian authorities to reopen the Strait.

Iran’s leadership has reinforced this position. The new Supreme Leader has reportedly ordered the Strait to remain closed as a tool of pressure. Iranian Foreign minister Abbas Araghchi also told UN Secretary-General that “Disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz cannot be addressed independently of the U.S.–Israeli war against Iran,” and “called upon states and institutions concerned with global peace and security to condemn U.S.–Israeli attacks on his country.” This is not just a military stance, it is a strategic message to the international community. It signals that any attempt to isolate Iran will carry consequences beyond the region.

That’s why President Donald Trump’s decision to call on allies—including NATO partners and major Asian economies—to help secure the Strait makes sense. It was not necessarily about asking for help. It was about making clear that Hormuz is not just America’s problem. By doing so, Trump tried to thwart this challenge alongside countries that depend on the Strait.

Countries like China, Japan, and South Korea depend heavily on that strategic waterway. So do U.S. allies in Europe. Ensuring its security is therefore a shared responsibility. Involving these nations also reinforces deterrence by demonstrating that disruption will trigger a broader international response rather than a purely bilateral confrontation.

The closure of Hormuz has driven the U.S. into a dilemma: whether to shift its offensive against Iran to a defensive posture, using the resources already on site to escort tankers, or to spend more money to deploy and risk additional assets to protect global shipping routes in a bid to continue to prioritize offensive operations against Iran. Either option carries significant costs. A prolonged disruption would strain military capacity and destabilize global energy markets, increasing pressure to de-escalate the conflict.

This is precisely the outcome Iran seeks. Trump understood this and, instead of accepting to de-escalate the conflict, he threatened to attacks Iran power plants if Iran does not reopen Hormuz. Fortunately, Iran has reached a ceasefire deal with the U.S to spare the country from this disaster and make way for diplomacy. 

In this context, Trump’s call for international cooperation was not a retreat, but a strategy to counter Iran’s approach by sharing the burden of securing a resource that affects the entire world. Through his call, Trump also attempted to unite the international community against Iran’s strategy.

The escalation that followed the breakdown of nuclear negotiations and months of intensifying rhetoric between Washintong and Tehran—particularly after Iran’s crackdown on protests—further reinforced this dynamic. Trump promised protesters that “the U.S. will come to their rescue” if Iran continued to shoot them, adding that “we are fully locked and loaded and ready to go.” Iranian officials responded to Trump’s threat, warning that if attacked, they are ready to defend their country’s sovereignty. This dynamic highlights a broader reality: authoritarian leaders often invoke or use state sovereignty as both a pretext and a shield to guard themselves, their abuse of power and their violations of human rights, as if the rights and well-being of their people that their government was meant to guarantee are less important than the sovereignty of the state. As Kofi Annan stated in his Nobel Peace Prize lecture, sovereignty “must no longer be used as a shield for gross violations of human rights,” emphasizing that peace must be meaningful for all individuals, not just states. According to him:  

“Peace belongs not only to states or peoples, but to each and every member of those communities. The sovereignty of States must no longer be used as a shield for gross violations of human rights. Peace must be made real and tangible in the daily existence of every individual in need. Peace must be sought, above all, because it is the condition for every member of the human family to live a life of dignity and security.”

The launch of joint U.S.–Israeli military operations on February 28 marked a turning point—not just militarily, but in narrative control. Statements from officials such as Marco Rubio, emphasizing preemptive action, attempted to frame the conflict as a defensive necessity. These justifications triggered a response from Abbas Araghchi, who argued that the United States had entered a “war of choice,” aligning with Israeli objectives rather than responding to a direct Iranian threat to U.S. security. Rubio’s remarks also reveal the extent to which anticipation, not just reaction, now shapes military decisions.

Meanwhile, Iran’s response has been calculated and deliberate, showing that its threats were not empty. The Revolutionary Guards warned that they have their “finger on the trigger,” and Iran’s mission to the United Nations stated that “if pushed, Iran will defend itself and respond like never before.”

By using strategic ambiguity while maintaining control over the Strait, Tehran has reinforced its position without fully closing the door to international pressure; Its leaders signal readiness to escalate while avoiding actions that would fully unite international opposition. Declaring the waterway open to all except its enemies was not just policy; it was messaging. It asserted sovereignty while inviting global tension. This dual approach allowed Tehran to maintain pressure while managing risk. It also keeps global markets in uncertainty, amplifying the psychological and economic impact of the crisis.

The Trump administration has attempted to align its actions with its rhetoric through proportional measures aimed at countering Iran’s pressure over Hormuz. Alongside plans to deploy amphibious ships and Marines to reopen the Strait—particularly by seizing Gharg Island—it also lifted sanctions on Iranian oil as a strategic move to stabilize global prices. Instead of yielding, Iran threatened to extend the disruption to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and the Red Sea—two other vital waterways for global shipping and the economy. This plan seems to be well prepared and anticipated. This might be why, unlike Lebanon’s Iran-Backed Hesbollah and Iraqi Iran aligned militia that fully engaged themselves in the war alongside Iran, yemen Houthis does not fully get involved in the war yet, despite a few attacks carried by them. They may, in this sense, keep their stockpile of weapons to be used for this purpose. 

Following his call for NATO assistance, Trump stated on Truth Social that the U.S. does not need or desire NATO support and “never did.” This was not incoherence; rather, it was a way to demonstrate that calling for help was not necessarily a necessity nor a sign of weakness, but a strategy to push countries that depend on Hormuz to take responsibility for securing it. This, in turn, would allow the U.S. to continue its campaign while minimizing costs and avoiding bearing the burden alone.

That is why interpreting Trump’s call for international cooperation as weakness misses the point. In reality, it reflects an acknowledgment of interconnected power. No single nation—no matter how dominant—can unilaterally secure a space that underpins the global economy. This is strategic realism, not dependence.

However, the two-weeks ceasefire deal has changed the situation. Despite the failure of U.S.–Iran talks in Islamabad with Iran refusing to give up its Uranium enrichment, while preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon constitutes the main goal of the US in the war, the ceasefire has altered the balance of pressure. It allowed the United States to raise the economic stakes for Iran by turning Tehran’s own strategy against it through this maritime blockade. After pausing threats against Iranian power plants, and following the ceasefire agreement—reportedly facilitated by Pakistan—under which Iran agreed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, the United States shifted the battlefield from direct military confrontation to economic pressure. This shift carries significant consequences for Iran, or even for major economies—especially China—that depend on the Strait. 

Whether viewed through the lens of symmetric or asymmetric warfare, the advantage now appears to be shifting toward the United States. Aware of this, Iran Revolutionary Guards tried to Curb U.S blockade, labeling it as a violation of the ceasefire and threatening to respond militarily. Despite claiming that they still have control over the Strait, the Guards harshly criticized Iran FM Abbas Araghchi after announcing that Hormuz Strait is fully reopen.

The failure of the first round of talks in Islamabad was bound to happen and both Iranian and some foreign officials already foresaw that outcome. In a context where negotiation has turned into competition with each side trying to secure its terms at the expense of the other and that, Iran went to Islamabad with the spirit of testing and weighing U.S trust mainly when it comes to abandon its nuclear program instead of with the will to reach a deal, things couldn’t have happened otherwise. Iran FM spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei has made it clear, stating; “These negociations were held after 40 days of imposed war, and were held in an atmosphere of distrust and suspicion. It is natural that we should not have expected from the beginning to reach an agreement with one meeting.”  He stated this after U.S Vice President JD Vance declared that: “We are going back to the U.S without an agreement, as Iran chose not to agree to our terms. We leave here with a simple proposal, a method of understanding and that is our final offer.” German chancellor Friedrich Metz also acknowledged that he foresaw the failure of the first round of talks between the US and Iran and, responding to his own question “want to know why negociations did not succed?” and quoting JD Vance’s statement, “They have chosen not to accept our terms,” Iran Former Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said: “No negociations, at least with Iran, will succeed based on our/your terms” he added “ the U.S must learn: you can’t dictate terms to Iran. It’s not too late to learn. Yet.”

The impact of the U.S blockade of the Strait of Hormuz appears to be visible. Not only Iran has agreed to continued its negociations with the U.S but else it accepts to fully reopen Hormuz despite threats to close it again soon after. Trump also claims that Tehran agreed to hand over its enriched Uranium and that the U.S and Iran were close to reach a deal. He also said that the deal will make Israel safe despite Iran responding by denying to send it enriched Uranium that it considers as sacred abroad. 

While waiting for the next round of talks, the Strait of Hormus is still at the center of the escalation. This situation shows how this nartow aritime route is strategically important in the conflict. War today is not fought only with missiles and troops. It is waged through supply chains, chokepoints, and narratives. The Strait of Hormuz has become all three. 

Ultimately, the outcome of this confrontation may hinge less on battlefield victories than on the control of this strait. For Iran, its closure offers leverage and the possibility of reshaping the conflict. For the United States, reopening it amid the ongoing war is essential to sustaining both military and economic stability. In that context, calling on allies is not a sign of failure or defeat. It reflects a clear understanding of Iran’s strategy and how to counter it effectively while minimizing unnecessary costs.

With the ceasefire—including the reopening of Hormuz—and the U.S. maritime blockade targeting Iranian ports after failed talks in Islamabad, Iran’s strategy over the Strait is now at risk. The United States holds the dominant position of pressure, increasing the likelihood of achieving its objectives, particularly in preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Besides both Trump and Netanyahu framed this as their main goal in the war. 

However, the next round of U.S. and Iran talks in Islamabad will decide both the fate of the war and the effectiveness of Iran’s continued control over Hormuz, with Trump already warning that “the U.S. may drop bombs again if no deal is reached with Iran by the ceasefire deadline.” 

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)