President Donald Trump’s declaration that the United States will become the “guardian” of the Strait of Hormuz, reimpose its blockade on Iranian shipping and demand reimbursement equal to 20 per cent of eligible cargo value has exposed a striking contradiction at the heart of American policy.
Until recently, Washington insisted that Hormuz was an international waterway through which commercial vessels must enjoy free and unimpeded passage. American officials condemned Iran’s attempts to regulate maritime traffic or collect payments as violations of international law. Now, the United States is proposing an even larger charge while declaring that it controls the strait.
Trump has defended this reversal by arguing that America has protected the waterway for decades without receiving payment. He said Washington was protecting “a very rich portion of the world” and therefore deserved reimbursement. The United States has simultaneously resumed attacks on Iran and restored its blockade of Iranian ports. This is no minor policy adjustment. It changes the character of the conflict and demolishes Washington’s earlier moral argument.
If Venezuela’s oil, Greenland’s strategic position and Hormuz’s energy traffic ultimately fall under decisive American control, Washington will not need to fire another bullet to influence much of the world.
When Iran sought to impose conditions on ships, Washington presented freedom of navigation as a universal principle. When the United States proposes a 20 per cent charge, the same waterway is suddenly treated as a commercial asset whose protection must generate revenue. A principle cannot remain universal if it changes according to who possesses the stronger navy.
The International Maritime Organisation has reaffirmed that passage through the Strait of Hormuz should remain free from tolls and charges and that all ships must enjoy nondiscriminatory and unimpeded transit. The strait is bordered by Iran and Oman, not the United States, which is geographically an external military power. The struggle over Hormuz must now be examined within a wider pattern involving Venezuela, Greenland and the world’s major energy corridors.
The first component is Venezuela. After the capture and removal of President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration said the United States intended to control Venezuelan oil sales and revenues indefinitely. American officials described arrangements under which proceeds from Venezuelan petroleum would be deposited into U.S.-controlled accounts, while sanctions were eased to permit greater Western participation in the country’s oil sector. Venezuela possesses enormous petroleum reserves. Control over its exports gives Washington influence not merely over one country’s resources but over a major source of energy in the Western Hemisphere. Oil shipments that might otherwise serve China or other customers can be redirected, regulated or subjected to financial arrangements determined by the United States.
The second component is Greenland. Trump has repeatedly argued that Greenland should come under American control, citing national security, Russian and Chinese activity, minerals and the island’s strategic position. Greenland’s importance goes beyond territory. Melting Arctic ice is gradually increasing the strategic relevance of northern shipping routes. These corridors could eventually carry energy, minerals and commercial cargo between Asia, Europe and North America. A dominant position in Greenland would therefore offer influence over an emerging maritime gateway as well as access to critical resources.
The third and most immediate component is Hormuz, through which a substantial share of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas normally travels. Before the war, around 130 ships reportedly crossed the strait daily.
Viewed together, Venezuela, Greenland and Hormuz form a strategic triangle: control of an enormous oil-producing state in the Western Hemisphere, influence over a future Arctic corridor and command of the principal energy gateway of the Middle East.
This does not require the existence of a publicly released document entitled “Plan for Global Energy Domination.” Great-power strategies are often revealed not by a single declaration but by the consistency of actions, priorities and outcomes.
Therefore, the possession of nuclear fissile material by Iran has never been an issue. Had the nuclear issue remained Washington’s sole or overriding concern, the United States could have preserved this framework, strengthened verification and continued negotiations.
Instead, the diplomatic framework was sacrificed as the confrontation over maritime authority intensified. Washington reimposed the blockade, expanded attacks and announced that it would control the strait and charge vessels for protection.
Therefore, the control of Hormuz has been a higher strategic priority than preserving the nuclear agreement. The nuclear issue may have initiated or justified the confrontation, but the struggle now concerns who regulates, protects, restricts and profits from the waterway.
The economic consequences would be enormous. If the 20 per cent charge is calculated on cargo value, transporting an $80 barrel of oil could attract an additional fee of approximately $16. A tanker carrying two million barrels could face more than $30 million in added costs. Importers, refiners and shipping companies would inevitably pass a significant portion of this burden to consumers.
The result would not be limited to higher gasoline prices. More expensive energy would increase manufacturing, transportation, electricity, fertiliser and food costs. It would intensify inflation, weaken financial markets and place severe pressure on countries dependent on Gulf energy. China, India, Pakistan, Japan, South Korea, Europe, Southeast Asia and other importing economies would become vulnerable to decisions made by the military power controlling their energy lifeline. Gulf producers themselves could find that their ability to reach customers depended on American permission and American pricing. This is why the proposed fee represents more than greed for revenue. It risks transforming military protection into economic domination. A country thousands of kilometres from the Persian Gulf would possess the power to determine who passes, what they pay and under what political conditions their energy can reach world markets.
The danger is that other nations may eventually unite against such concentrated leverage. China, Russia, India, Europe and affected regional powers could accelerate alternative pipelines, Arctic routes, currency systems, naval cooperation and strategic alliances designed to bypass American control.
Trump may regard Hormuz as a source of reimbursement-a “money-minting machine” protected by American power. But international waterways cannot remain instruments of shared commerce if the strongest state converts them into toll plazas.
The world is therefore approaching a dangerous crossroads. Either Hormuz remains an international passage governed by law and equal access, or it becomes a precedent under which military superiority determines the ownership of global trade.
If Venezuela’s oil, Greenland’s strategic position and Hormuz’s energy traffic ultimately fall under decisive American control, Washington will not need to fire another bullet to influence much of the world. It will sit astride the routes, revenues and resources on which modern economies depend.
History may record that the war publicly framed around Iran’s nuclear capability ultimately became a struggle for control of the world’s most valuable energy gateway-and that freedom of navigation was defended only until it became profitable to abandon it.
The writer is a former press secretary to the president; former press minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France and former MD (SRBC).