By Matt Underwood 
The notion of the US military blockading the Strait of Hormuz from April 13th has surfaced, and it’s quite a development, to say the least. It’s hard to see this as anything but a significant escalation of already simmering tensions, and honestly, it feels like the US is stepping in to do Iran’s job for them. This move certainly doesn’t suggest a de-escalation of the conflict; rather, it seems to be actively fanning the flames.
This whole situation brings to mind a peculiar brand of deal-making, the kind that emerges when someone more accustomed to business dealings than international diplomacy is at the helm. It feels like when a deal isn’t forthcoming, the response is less a strategic maneuver and more a petulant outburst. There’s a sense that Trump wants the Strait opened by Iran, but when his usual tactics don’t yield the desired outcome, the reaction is to threaten to close a waterway that, for all intents and purposes, is already largely controlled by Iran. This kind of “baby-man tirade” is becoming exhausting for many Americans who want no part of this. It’s not just a personal feeling; it seems to be a widespread sentiment that the world doesn’t need this kind of volatility, especially when people are suffering and dying, while others seemingly profit.
The question naturally arises: why is this necessary, particularly if there was a sense of victory just a few weeks prior? It feels like there should have been ample time to adjust course or find a more diplomatic solution. The idea of a blockade brings to mind the immense complexities and potential tolls involved with such an operation, especially when considering the presence of major global players like China and Russia. The notion of the US military attempting to stop ships from these nations seems highly improbable, and frankly, it opens up a whole new can of worms.
There’s a distinct feeling that this is becoming a performance, a display of threats without genuine substance. It’s as if Trump is turning into a “paper tiger,” his leverage diminishing with each pronouncement. The prediction of a market tank followed by a swift reversal of the blockade seems plausible, a strategy to manipulate financial markets rather than genuinely resolve geopolitical issues. It’s a stark contrast to Iran’s potential actions – Iran threatening to close the Strait, and Trump responding with an even more aggressive counter-threat, almost as if eager to instigate conflict with China. The world, it seems, is growing increasingly weary of this approach.
For those who find themselves representing a nation making such decisions, there’s a palpable wish for a period of quiet reflection and withdrawal from global affairs once the current leadership departs. A plea for the country to simply be “really really quiet and leave everyone else to it for a few decades” speaks volumes about the desire for a less disruptive presence on the world stage. The timing of these pronouncements, often just before markets open, suggests a deliberate attempt to influence financial sentiment, followed by delays or modifications, like the idea of a blockade being delayed for another week, or a “TACO Tuesday” event – a casual reference to a potential market manipulation tactic.
The practicalities of upholding such a blockade are also deeply questionable. The idea of the US Navy engaging in what appears to be an act of piracy, driven by a “if we can’t have it, no one can” mentality, is deeply troubling. This will undoubtedly have a direct impact on global energy prices, with gas prices unlikely to decrease and possibly even rise. It’s akin to a kidnapper threatening harm, and the response being to preemptively harm the hostages. The US essentially taking over Iran’s threatened action, claiming victory by doing the same thing, seems to be the core of this questionable strategy.
The shift from an open Strait to one with restrictions and then potentially complete closure is illogical and deeply concerning. The notion of the US Navy becoming a “pathetic bunch of pirates” highlights the moral and strategic confusion of the situation. This blockade on an already contested Strait, following a period where it was reportedly open and flowing without incident, begs the question of sanity. It feels as though the current reality is so detached from reason that one might question their own perception. The back-and-forth “You hang up” – “No you” dynamic between Iran and the US perfectly captures the immaturity and irrationality of the situation.
The fundamental question remains: what is the actual problem being addressed? The strategy of threatening action but delaying it, similar to someone saying they’ll quit drinking “tomorrow,” lacks credibility and suggests a lack of genuine resolve or a coherent plan. The Strait was open until… and now the US appears poised to potentially engage with allies and major powers like China, which seems counterproductive if the stated goal is to keep the Strait open. There’s a profound confusion about the intended impact, especially if Iran allows certain ships through. Is the US effectively blocking its own desired outcomes for the sake of asserting dominance? This is not how international relations or military strategy typically functions.
The idea of extra blockades for our “safety” rings hollow, and the predictable responses from Iran, China, and Russia are yet to be fully understood but are unlikely to be positive. The conclusion drawn is that this plan is inherently flawed, lacking the solid foundation of previous, presumably more thought-out, strategies. It’s as if the US military is engaging in a confused self-inflicted wound, mirroring Iran’s actions rather than offering a distinct or effective counter-strategy. The question then becomes, what’s next, perhaps even targeting allies like Israel? This entire scenario points to a deeply problematic and potentially dangerous approach to foreign policy.