Strait of Hormuz: Why did Trump's promise of "free flow of energy" crash into reality?

Imagine the narrowest part of the world’s energy artery, where the life of the global economy pulses daily – the Strait of Hormuz. A place where every tanker movement, every gunshot, every diplomatic maneuver echoes in stock markets and gasoline prices. During Donald Trump’s presidency, the world watched the region with bated breath as his administration promised to guarantee the “free flow of energy” despite unprecedented pressure on Iran. But have these grandiose words come true in the harsh reality of the Persian Gulf, where geopolitics are intertwined with oil, and promises collide with armed provocations? This story is not just a chronicle of maritime incidents, but a deep dive into a confrontation that changed the rules of the game for international shipping and energy security.

The oil tanker Parnassos is anchored due to reduced traffic in the Strait of Hormuz amid the US and Israeli conflict with Iran, Muscat, Oman, March 10, 2026. Photo: Benoît Tessier/Reuters

Geopolitical bottleneck: The Strait of Hormuz and its indispensable role

The Strait of Hormuz is more than just a waterway; it is the nerve center of the global energy system. Located between Oman and Iran, it connects the Persian Gulf with the Arabian Sea and the open ocean. It is only about 34 kilometers (21 miles) wide at its narrowest point.¹, with two lanes of shipping, each 10 kilometers wide, separated by a buffer zone. This relatively small stretch of water carries approximately 20-21% of the world's oil supply, making it the world's most important route for transporting oil by sea.². Every day, about 17 million barrels of crude oil and petroleum products, as well as significant volumes of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Qatar and other countries in the region, pass through its waters. Any disruption in this region instantly triggers a chain reaction on world markets, raising energy prices and causing economic uncertainty. Historically, the strait has been the scene of numerous conflicts, including the “tanker war” during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, which clearly demonstrates its strategic importance and vulnerability.

Trump's "maximum pressure" doctrine and the promise of free flow

Since taking office, the Donald Trump administration has dramatically changed the US approach to Iran. In 2018, the United States unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. Instead of diplomatic dialogue, the White House has implemented a policy of “maximum pressure,” aimed at tightening economic sanctions on Tehran in an effort to force it to reconsider its regional policies and nuclear program. This campaign included a complete ban on Iranian oil exports, which has dealt a devastating blow to the Iranian economy.³. Amid these events, Donald Trump has repeatedly stated the US's determination to guarantee the "free flow of energy" through the Strait of Hormuz, promising that "Iran will not gain access to nuclear weapons, and we will ensure that important waterways like the Strait of Hormuz remain open to free navigation."⁴. This promise was intended to calm global markets and emphasize American leadership in ensuring global energy security. However, despite the strong rhetoric, events in the strait developed according to a completely different scenario, which called into question the effectiveness of the chosen strategy.

Escalation and Interception: A Chronicle of Maritime Failures

The promise of “free flow” quickly collided with a harsh reality. The spring and summer of 2019 were a period of unprecedented escalation of tensions in the Strait of Hormuz and surrounding waters.

• May-June 2019: Attacks on tankers. A series of incidents that began with an attack on four commercial vessels off the coast of the UAE in May reached its peak in June when two oil tankers – a Norwegian Front Altair and Japanese Kokuka Courageous – were attacked in the Gulf of Oman. The United States immediately accused Iran of using naval mines and torpedoes, presenting video evidence showing members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) removing a failed magnetic mine from the hull. Kokuka Courageous⁵Iran has categorically denied any involvement, calling the accusations “baseless.”
• June 2019: Shooting down of an American drone. In June, Iranian forces shot down a U.S. RQ-4 Global Hawk reconnaissance drone over the Strait of Hormuz, claiming it had violated Iranian airspace. The U.S. said the drone was in international airspace and was an “unprovoked attack.”⁶The incident almost led to a direct US military strike in response, which Trump called off at the last moment, citing too many potential casualties.
• July 2019: Seizure of a tanker Stena Impero. The crisis culminated in Iran seizing a British tanker Stena Impero in the Strait of Hormuz on July 19, 2019. This happened after British forces detained an Iranian tanker Grace 1 (later renamed to Adrian Darya-1) near Gibraltar, accusing it of violating EU sanctions against Syria⁷Iran has stated that Stena Impero violated international maritime rules, although many saw it as an act of retaliation. The tanker and its crew were held for several months, prompting significant diplomatic efforts to secure their release.

These events not only demonstrated the vulnerability of shipping, but also highlighted Iran’s asymmetric ability to influence the situation in the region, despite the American military presence. Instead of “free flow,” the world witnessed a period of chaos and uncertainty.

Economic waves and global nerves: impact on oil and shipping

The effects of the escalation in the Strait of Hormuz were felt immediately in global markets. Oil prices jumped sharply after each incident, albeit briefly, as investors weighed the risks of supply disruptions. But the longer-term and more devastating impact was felt by insurers and shipping operators. Marine insurance rates for ships passing through the Persian Gulf have soared by hundreds of percent.⁸. Some companies were forced to pay additional premiums amounting to millions of dollars for each voyage. This led to a significant increase in operating costs and, in some cases, to reroute, which further slowed down deliveries and increased logistics costs. Many major shipping companies began to consider alternative routes or abandon voyages to the dangerous region, despite the economic losses. This situation created additional pressure on global trade and undermined confidence in the security of maritime routes in the region, demonstrating that a military presence alone cannot guarantee stability when there is a motivated actor capable of asymmetric action.

Iran's deliberate ambivalence: responding to sanctions and threats

Iran’s actions in the Strait of Hormuz were not random or haphazard. They were part of a deliberate strategy in response to the US’s “maximum pressure” policy. Iran viewed the US sanctions as an act of economic warfare, restricting its ability to export oil and earn the revenues it needed to run its economy and support its regional proxies. According to Iranian doctrine, if Iran cannot export its oil, then no one else in the region should be able to do so unhindered.⁹. The IRGC, which plays a key role in Iran’s maritime security, has been actively using asymmetric warfare tactics that include small speedboats, naval mines, and anti-ship missiles. This approach has allowed Iran to exert significant pressure on shipping while avoiding direct confrontation with the much more powerful U.S. Navy. In addition, Iran’s actions have sent a signal to the international community that escalation without a diplomatic solution will have global consequences, and that Iran will not passively watch its economy collapse under sanctions.

An Unfulfilled Promise: Why Diplomatic and Military Efforts Were Futile

The failure of Trump's promise of "free flow of energy" was due to several key factors:

1. Lack of diplomatic channel: The policy of “maximum pressure” effectively severed any direct channels of communication between the United States and Iran, making it impossible to de-escalate or discuss mutual interests. Without a diplomatic safeguard, every incident had the potential for rapid military escalation.
2. Underestimating Iran's resilience: The Trump administration likely underestimated Iran's willingness to respond asymmetricly and its ability to withstand economic pressure without changing its basic behavior in the region.¹⁰.
3. Limited international support: While many countries shared concerns about Iranian behavior, the US’s unilateral withdrawal from the nuclear deal and its aggressive approach alienated key allies, such as European countries. This made it difficult to form a united front to ensure security in the strait and led to the US acting largely alone.
4. Control complexity: The Strait of Hormuz is extremely difficult to fully control. Even the most powerful navies cannot guarantee 100% protection from asymmetric threats such as small boats, naval mines, or stealth attacks. Too many ships and too narrow a space make complete protection almost impossible without extraordinary military resources.
5. Military response without political solution: Although the US has increased its military presence in the region, this has only increased tensions. Military force without a clear political strategy that includes de-escalation and diplomatic solutions has failed to restore stability or guarantee the promised “free flow.”

Thus, the grand promise of “free flow of energy” crashed into the pitfalls of geopolitical reality, where unilateral policies and a lack of dialogue only deepened the crisis rather than resolved it. This became an important lesson about the limitations of military force in resolving complex regional conflicts without accompanying diplomatic efforts.

Beyond Trump: The Unresolved Challenge to the Stability of the Strait of Hormuz

Although Donald Trump’s presidency is over, the problems of the Strait of Hormuz remain unresolved. Tensions between the United States and Iran, while changing form, continue to simmer, regularly flaring up in new incidents. The Persian Gulf region remains a high-risk area for international shipping and vital to global energy security. Without a clear, multilateral strategy that combines diplomacy, deterrence, and economic cooperation, the promise of a “free flow of energy” in the Strait of Hormuz will remain an ambitious but unattainable ideal. The world needs not just promises, but effective mechanisms to ensure stability in this critically important artery, where a surge in oil prices could be just the first echo of much larger upheavals.

Sources

1. US Energy Information Administration: Strait of Hormuz
2. Britannica: Strait of Hormuz
3. Council on Foreign Relations: US Policy Toward Iran
4. The White House Archives: Remarks by President Trump on the Economy (example of rhetoric)
5. US Department of Defense: Officials Brief Reporters on Gulf of Oman Attacks
6. The New York Times: Iran Shoots Down US Drone
7. BBC News: Iran seizes British-flagged tanker Stena Impero in Gulf
8. Reuters: Gulf shipping insurance premiums surge after tanker attacks
9. Chatham House: Iran's Escalation Strategy in the Gulf
10. International Crisis Group: Risky Business: US-Iran Tensions and the Gulf