In his strongest indication yet that he may be prepared to soon end hostilities in the Middle East, US President Donald Trump on Friday said he was considering “winding down" military operations against Iran, as the United States temporarily eased sanctions on Iranian oil shipments to stem a global supply crisis.
In a post on Truth Social, Trump said the United States was “getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East".
Claiming that the United States had “won" the war, the US President clarified that he was not looking for a ceasefire with Iran. As he slammed the NATO allies for being “cowards" for refusing to partake in the war, it was Trump’s statement on the Strait of Hormuz that soon caught attention.
“The Hormuz Strait will have to be guarded and policed, as necessary, by other Nations who use it—The United States does not!" he posted. “If asked, we will help these Countries in their Hormuz efforts, but it shouldn’t be necessary once Iran’s threat is eradicated."
The question then is—does the US really not need Hormuz? The bigger question is—does its shunning of the crucial chokepoint really matter?
The United States claims that America can ride out the storm. According to energy analysts, the US shale boom has transformed its energy position. America is now among the world’s top oil producers. Imports from the Gulf have declined significantly and domestic output also provides a buffer, according to The Guardian.
As a result, the US is less directly exposed to disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz than in previous decades.
But, here’s where the problem begins.
Roughly 20 per cent of the global oil supply moves through the Strait of Hormuz. This means any disruption pushes up global crude prices, leading to an increase in fuel costs worldwide, including in the US. The rise in fuel costs will push up inflationary pressures. Hence, even without direct dependence, the US remains tied to global pricing.
Analysts warn that the real risk is not a full closure but prolonged instability.
To begin with, there is a built-in “risk premium" on oil. The markets factor in the ongoing conflict leads to structurally higher prices. Another issue is supply disruptions. The rerouting or delay in tankers translates to price volatility.
Then there is the insurance angle. Once war-risk premiums rise sharply, it leads to higher delivered cost of oil.
Ultimately, Asia bears the brunt of the chaos. Countries like India, China, and Japan are heavily dependent on Gulf crude, making them more vulnerable to disruptions—an exposure repeatedly flagged in global energy security reports.
Even if the US achieves its military objectives against Iran, securing the waterway is a different challenge.
In Hormuz, Iran has the tactical advantage. With naval mines, drones, and intermittent tanker attacks, it can keep the route unstable, pushing up prices.
While other countries may pitch in to get the route cleared, such operations are usually slow. Mine-clearing and route security could take weeks or longer and it requires sustained naval presence. This can also be reversed quickly, which would undo the efforts made.
There is also the issue of ambiguity. Unlike conventional wars, there’s no decisive moment that restores safe passage. The disruption can continue below a full-scale conflict.
Iran, for instance, can operate in a space between war and peace. It could make limited, deniable attacks, thus not blocking the strait completely but not providing full safety either. This would result in persistent uncertainty for global markets.
Trump’s argument on the Strait of Hormuz draws a line between direct dependence and global exposure.
While there’s no denying that the US imports less Gulf oil, the reality is that it cannot escape global price shocks or the economic fallout from allies being hit.
The US may not need the Strait of Hormuz in a narrow, physical sense, but if the maritime artery remains unstable:
• Oil markets stay volatile
• Global growth slows
• Military gains don’t translate into economic stability
This underscores a key reality: winning the war is easier than stabilising the consequences
Source: News18