By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump has announced that China is “very happy” with the permanent opening of the Strait of Hormuz, stating that he is taking this action for them and the rest of the world. He further claimed that China has agreed not to send weapons to Iran, an assertion supported by a prior exchange of letters between the leaders of the two nations. While emphasizing cooperation, Trump also reiterated the United States’ military strength. Despite recent disruptions to global oil shipments through the Strait, transit remains uncertain, and US blockades have halted all maritime trade to and from Iranian ports.
Read the original article here
The assertion that the Strait of Hormuz was, in effect, “opened” for China and the world by former President Trump, to the point where he might anticipate a “big, fat hug” from Xi Jinping, presents a narrative that is as perplexing as it is audacious. This claim, according to many observers, seems to stem from a peculiar understanding of international relations and a pattern of self-aggrandizement that has become familiar. The central paradox is that the very waterway mentioned as being “opened” was, according to the same narrative, potentially threatened or even closed due to the actions of the very individual now taking credit for its continued passage. It’s a scenario that has led many to question the sequence of events and the sincerity of the pronouncements.
It’s difficult to reconcile the idea of Trump opening Hormuz when the context provided by many suggests that the tensions and potential blockades in the strait were, in fact, exacerbated by his administration’s policies. The notion of a “closed” strait, only to be “opened” by the same leader, has been described as a classic maneuver: first create a problem, then present yourself as the hero who solved it. This perspective suggests that any perceived “opening” was merely a return to the status quo ante, or perhaps a reflection of realities on the ground that transcended any single individual’s actions. The sheer absurdity of claiming credit for an already existing state of affairs, or one that his own actions may have jeopardized, is a recurring theme in reactions to such statements.
Furthermore, the specific mention of China’s benefit and the predicted hug from Xi Jinping adds another layer of complexity. While it’s true that China is a significant consumer of oil that passes through Hormuz, the idea that Trump’s actions were solely or primarily aimed at pleasing China, or that Xi would reciprocate with such personal affection, appears to be a significant stretch for many. The reality, as perceived by some, is that blocking Chinese oil shipments would have been a highly risky and potentially counterproductive move, given the leverage China holds. Therefore, the narrative of Trump “opening” the strait for China might be more about maintaining existing trade routes, which were never truly closed to Chinese vessels by Iran in a way that significantly impacted them, rather than a deliberate act of magnoliatude on Trump’s part.
The financial implications and the potential for market manipulation also enter the conversation. Some observers suggest that such pronouncements are not just about geopolitical grandstanding but also about influencing markets. If Trump can create the perception of having secured vital shipping lanes, it could have a positive impact on certain economic indicators, which in turn could benefit him and his associates. This cynical interpretation posits that the “opening” of Hormuz is less about global stability and more about a calculated move within a larger game of economic and political maneuvering, a tactic that leaves the rest of the world feeling exhausted and bewildered by the constant spectacle.
The sheer volume of confusion and contradictory narratives surrounding such claims is, in itself, telling. Whether it’s the “Open-Closed Principle” being applied to a strait that was never truly closed to certain parties, or the swift and dizzying flip-flopping that leads to descriptions of a “rotisserie of bulbous mass,” the impression is one of profound disarray. The consistent thread of criticism points to a pattern of behavior where problems are either created or amplified, only for the individual to then claim credit for their resolution, much like a toddler hiding a mess.
The underlying sentiment from many who react to these statements is one of deep skepticism and a sense of disbelief that such claims are even being made. The idea that the strait was “fine before his war” underscores the feeling that the problem was manufactured in the first place, making the subsequent “fix” appear hollow. The desire for impeachment or intervention from various quarters, even from non-Americans, highlights the significant global concern and frustration that such pronouncements generate. It’s a recurring theme: the feeling that the world is living through a particularly bizarre and chaotic timeline, driven by actions that seem to defy logic and decorum.
Ultimately, the narrative of Trump “opening” Hormuz for China and the world, and his anticipation of a hug from Xi, appears to be a symptom of a larger phenomenon: a tendency to present complex geopolitical situations through a simplistic, self-serving lens. The reactions, ranging from amusement to outright exasperation, collectively suggest that while the former president may seek recognition for his actions, the reality on the ground, and the perception of those observing, paints a far more complicated and often contradictory picture, one where the line between problem and solution, and between reality and rhetoric, becomes increasingly blurred.