Trump, the Strait of Hormuz, and the Scenario of “Encircling the World in the Region”
WANA (Apr 13) – At first glance, Donald Trump’s decision regarding the Strait of Hormuz appears deeply contradictory. The same United States that had repeatedly warned about the consequences of closing this vital waterway and emphasized the need to keep it open is now talking about blocking maritime traffic. But if this move is seen merely as a tactical shift or a temporary reaction, the core of the story is missed.
What is unfolding is not simply about “closing the strait,” but about redefining control and function over the Strait of Hormuz.
Rather than confronting Iran’s leverage—its ability to threaten closure—Trump appears to be attempting to strip Iran of that very tool and appropriate it for himself. In other words, he is transforming the Strait of Hormuz from an Iranian pressure point into an American one—even if that means blocking the same route Washington once insisted must remain open.
In this context, the announcement of a ban on all shipping takes on a different meaning. If the objective were solely to pressure Iran, the U.S. could have limited restrictions to Iranian-linked vessels or increased its naval presence under pretexts such as mine-clearing operations. But extending the restriction to all ships suggests that the issue goes well beyond Iran.
In reality, Trump is playing with a global variable: the flow of energy to the world.
People walk next to an anti-U.S. bilbord on a street, amid the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Tehran, Iran, April 5, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)
Disrupting the Strait of Hormuz does not only pressure Iran; it directly affects China, Europe, global energy markets, and the broader international economy. As such, this move can be interpreted as a form of geopolitical hostage-taking—a means of exerting pressure not just on Tehran, but on all actors dependent on Persian Gulf energy supplies.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) statement regarding a maritime blockade of Iran helps clarify the operational layer of this strategy. If the blockade is primarily directed at Iranian ports, it effectively becomes an attempt to impose a transaction: relief from pressure in exchange for concessions. Yet even under this scenario, the outcome would likely be heightened insecurity across the entire region.
More importantly, this approach effectively “double-locks” the Strait of Hormuz: on one side, Iran with its traditional leverage over the strait, and on the other, the United States intervening to block or control the same passage. The result is not stabilization, but the paralysis of one of the world’s most critical energy arteries.
In terms of execution, Washington may not need a large-scale military presence near Iranian ports. Instead, by creating a climate of insecurity and threatening to target non-compliant vessels from a distance, it can effectively halt maritime traffic without direct confrontation. This model is lower-cost, yet potentially more disruptive.
The key question, however, remains: is this decision based on a coherent strategic calculation, or is it a continuation of the miscalculations that have already marked this conflict? If it is the latter, the world may be entering a new and dangerous phase—one in which not only Iran, but all major actors, from the United States and Europe to China, will bear significant costs.
Ultimately, what distinguishes this move is that Trump is not merely pressuring Iran; he is attempting to reshape the rules of the game in one of the world’s most critical geopolitical chokepoints—where a single decision can simultaneously impact a country, a region, and the global economy.
Iranian Armed Forces: Regional Port Security “For All or For None”
WANA (Apr 13) – The spokesperson for the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters has issued a stern warning regarding maritime security in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman, asserting that regional stability must be inclusive to be maintained. In a formal statement, the spokesperson outlined the following positions: Sovereignty and Territorial Waters The […]
