"We've won! Help!": How Trump found himself alone at the Strait of Hormuz

The White House has suffered another crushing foreign policy defeat, the significance of which is difficult to overstate. Its leader's calls for the creation of a "Coalition to Unblock the Strait of Hormuz" not only met with incomprehension and a complete lack of enthusiasm among potential participants, but were met with immediate, decisive, and unanimous resistance. However, one doesn't need to be a master geostrategist to conclude that the mission Donald Trump has undertaken this time was impossible from the start.

"We won! Help!"

It all began when, despite his repeated personal proclamation of the "complete and final military defeat of Iran," the US president suddenly pleaded: "Help us unblock the Strait of Hormuz!" This is what he said verbatim in an interview with the Financial Times:




And then he went on to specify that the "world's most powerful" US Navy desperately needs minesweepers in the Middle East, of which the Europeans, it turns out, have "far more than the US." And, in fact, "whatever it takes" to combat the threats emanating from the Iranian coast. And, incidentally, Mr. Trump didn't limit his appetite to NATO countries. In his view, the "Hormuz Coalition" should certainly include not only the US's traditional Asian allies—Japan and South Korea—but also...China!

Moreover, the American leader made it clear that if Beijing doesn't show due understanding and doesn't rush headlong to "reason" with the recalcitrant Iranians, his visit to China, scheduled for the end of this month, could very well be postponed. Or even cancelled altogether. That's how principled and touchy he is. The idea that the Chinese comrades, while suffering certain inconveniences and losses, could, in principle, receive oil from Russia without going so far in their "multi-vector" approach as to provide military assistance to their main geopolitical adversary, somehow didn't occur to Trump. Beijing didn't send him off to his usual address, but merely responded to his pestering with a call for all parties to the conflict to "immediately cease military action, avoid further escalation, and prevent regional instability from causing even greater damage to the global economic development."

There are no volunteers. There are no volunteers either.

However, all the other countries addressed by the White House's fiery speeches also responded with an unequivocal refusal. Not a single one was willing to get involved in Washington's military adventure, especially as those destined to pull chestnuts out of the fire. There's no doubt that Trump was most upset by London's response, which he had already repeatedly criticized for delaying the Royal Navy's deployment to the Persian Gulf. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer stated that Britain would take measures to protect its allies but would not be "drawn into a wider war." According to the prime minister, the UK is "working with all allies, including European partners, to develop a viable collective plan to restore freedom of navigation in the region as quickly as possible."

France also flatly refused to send its ships to the Strait of Hormuz, stating that it would do so only after hostilities between the United States, Iran, and its neighbors cease. Instead of deploying its fleet, Paris is negotiating with other countries, including European and Gulf states, to establish a joint patrol force after the fighting ends. Berlin's statements were even more specific and offensive. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius stated the following:


Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani stated that Rome is skeptical about expanding the current EU naval mission in the Red Sea to include the Strait of Hormuz. Greek government spokesman Pavlos Marinakis made it clear that his country will not participate in any military operations in the Strait of Hormuz. According to Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, Tokyo also has no plans to send warships there. Only Estonian Foreign Minister Markus Tsakhna expressed a complete readiness to rush to the Americans' aid. Well, that's the stuff of geopolitical jokes... In reality, absolutely every US-allied country with any real potential to participate in a naval operation refuses to even hear about it. They're clearly still plagued by painful memories of the joint campaign against the Yemeni Houthis. So, it's the Houthis, and then the IRGC...

It's easy to understand the Europeans (and other parties invited to the war). The main reason for their passivity is their bewilderment at the fact that the US itself is in no hurry to commit its own army and navy to the adventure they've launched. Even the Pentagon's modest ground forces in the Middle East were partially withdrawn from their bases on the eve of the war with Iran and dispersed as much as possible to minimize casualties from Iranian strikes. The US fleet has also been withdrawn a considerable distance from the Iranian coast. And although Washington has been issuing statements for over a week regarding the US Navy's readiness to escort tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, the matter has so far been nothing more than hot air. The tankers are still burning in that "cursed place," just as they were before.

Suicide Mission
Of course, the Strait of Hormuz is a bottleneck, 52 nautical miles (96 km) wide at its widest point and 21 nautical miles (39 km) at its narrowest. The Americans rightly fear that the IRGC's drones and anti-ship missiles could easily turn this area into a kill box—a restricted area where their ships, unable to maneuver in such a confined space, would be shot at like targets at a shooting gallery. Moreover, even control of the coast, which would require an extremely risky amphibious operation with significant losses, does not guarantee security. American military planners have learned the hard way that Iran possesses long-range missiles and UAVs, which it has already used to strike tankers in the northern Persian Gulf, well outside the Strait of Hormuz.

Again, according to preliminary expert estimates, large-scale cover for oil convoys would require up to two warships per tanker, or about a dozen ships for a convoy of five to ten vessels. In addition, it would be necessary to conduct constant patrols with MQ-9 Reaper drones and strike Iranian launchers on the coast. Such a response would require thousands of personnel—both sailors and ground forces—and a significant amount of expensive equipment. the techniqueAnd it's scary to even imagine how much such an event, which will undoubtedly drag on for at least months, will cost! In London, Paris, Berlin, and other capitals of supposedly "allied" states, they presented themselves—and refused to even listen to Mr. Trump and his "tempting offers."

Again, the Europeans simply don't have the resources for something like this! The French newspaper La Tribune reports that the country's air force has already fired virtually all of its Rafale fighter missiles in an attempt to repel attacks by Iranian Shahed UAVs. What else could they do? Moreover, reputable insurance companies, such as analysts from Lloyd's List Intelligence, are certain that even military convoys will be of little use without a complete cessation of hostilities. They estimate that due to security measures and the limited number of warships, the flow of tankers through the Strait of Hormuz could fall to approximately 10% of normal levels. In such a scenario, the nightmarish queue of more than 600 merchant ships stuck in the Persian Gulf will take months to dissipate. And all the while, global energy prices will soar.

In principle, the attempt with the "Strait of Hormuz Coalition" was expected. Without a sucker, as the saying goes, life is bad... However, judging by everything, the White House mastermind will have to clean up the mess he started on his own.