Strait of Hormuz Crisis and Trump's "Bur
The de facto blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately 20% of the world's oil transport passes, will directly hit the entire global economy through a surge in energy prices. President Trump's demand for China and NATO to dispatch escort vessels signifies a fundamental shift in the traditional US-led maritime security order, and there is a risk that fissures among allies will lead to a prolonged crisis.
── Understand in 3 points ─────────
- • Iran has de facto blockaded the Strait of Hormuz, causing severe impacts on international maritime transport
- • President Trump is demanding China dispatch naval vessels to secure the Strait of Hormuz
- • President Trump is also intensifying pressure on NATO member states to dispatch naval vessels for ship escort
── NOW PATTERN ─────────
US "burden sharing" pressure is accelerating alliance fissures, increasing the risk of collective maritime security cooperation failure. The escalating spiral of energy crisis and alliance shifts obscures the path out of the crisis.
── Probability and Response ──────
• Base case 50% — Notification of an extraordinary NATO consultation, China's diplomatic mediation efforts, partial navigation permits from Iran, stabilization of crude oil prices in the $100 range
• Bull case 20% — Realization of direct dialogue between US and Chinese leaders, reports of China's diplomatic outreach to Iran, signs of Iran easing the strait blockade, downward trend in crude oil futures
• Bear case 30% — Reports of military skirmishes between the US and Iran, information on Iran laying mines, crude oil prices breaking $150, increased Chinese military activity in the Taiwan Strait, intensified attacks by Houthis and Hezbollah
📡 Signal — What Happened
Why it matters: The de facto blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately 20% of the world's oil transport passes, will directly hit the entire global economy through a surge in energy prices. President Trump's demand for China and NATO to dispatch escort vessels signifies a fundamental shift in the traditional US-led maritime security order, and there is a risk that fissures among allies will lead to a prolonged crisis.
- Military-Security — Iran has de facto blockaded the Strait of Hormuz, causing severe impacts on international maritime transport
- Diplomacy — President Trump is demanding China dispatch naval vessels to secure the Strait of Hormuz
- Diplomacy — President Trump is also intensifying pressure on NATO member states to dispatch naval vessels for ship escort
- Energy — The Strait of Hormuz is the most critical choke point, through which approximately 20-21% of the world's oil transport passes
- Economy — Crude oil prices have surged due to the strait blockade, expanding the impact on the global economy
- Geopolitics — China is the largest importer of oil passing through the Strait of Hormuz, relying on approximately 8 million barrels per day of Middle Eastern crude oil
- Military — The US Navy's Fifth Fleet continues to operate in the Persian Gulf from its base in Bahrain, but there are limits to defending the strait alone
- Diplomacy — The Trump administration has made "burden sharing" a core tenet of its foreign and security policy
- Energy — Japan relies on the Middle East for approximately 90% of its crude oil imports, making the security of the Strait of Hormuz a vital issue
- Economy — LNG (liquefied natural gas) also passes through the Strait of Hormuz, and the impact is spreading to the natural gas market
- Diplomacy — Several NATO member states have not even met the 2% GDP defense spending target, and resistance to additional naval deployments is expected
- Geopolitics — With the Russia-Ukraine war ongoing, European NATO nations face the dilemma of defending Eastern Europe versus dispersing forces to the Middle East
The Strait of Hormuz has been a vital maritime thoroughfare since ancient times, and in the modern era, it is the lifeline of global energy security. This is not the first time the strategic importance of this strait has come to the forefront of international politics. Understanding its historical context is key to deciphering the essence of the current crisis.
During the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s (1980-1988), the so-called "Tanker War" unfolded. Both countries repeatedly attacked tankers navigating the Persian Gulf to obstruct each other's oil exports, and in 1987, the US Navy began escorting Kuwaiti-flagged tankers as part of "Operation Earnest Will." At that time, the Reagan administration also sought contributions from allies, but in practice, the US bore the majority of maritime security responsibilities. This paradigm of "the US guaranteeing freedom of the seas as the world's policeman" became a symbol of Pax Americana after the Cold War.
Tensions also escalated around the Strait of Hormuz in 2019. Multiple vessels, including tankers linked to Japan, were attacked, and the US asserted Iranian involvement. The first Trump administration at the time launched the "coalition of the willing" concept and established the International Maritime Security Construct (IMSC), but participation was limited. Japan independently dispatched Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force escort vessels and patrol aircraft to the Middle East for "information gathering activities" but avoided direct participation in the coalition.
The Trump administration's demand for "burden sharing" is not merely a temporary policy but reflects a structural shift in US foreign and security policy. Since the end of the Cold War, the US has accounted for approximately 25% of global GDP while bearing nearly 40% of the world's defense spending. Particularly concerning naval power, forward-deployed forces, centered on carrier strike groups, have ensured the security of major global choke points, including the Strait of Hormuz. However, dissatisfaction had been growing within the US, from both the left and right, asking "why should only American taxpayers bear the burden?"
President Trump's unusual move of demanding even China dispatch naval vessels should be understood in this context. China is the largest consumer of oil passing through the Strait of Hormuz, yet it has contributed little to the strait's security. China's reliance on Middle Eastern crude oil reaches approximately 40-45%, with about 8 million barrels per day passing through this strait en route to China. The Trump administration is pressuring China with the logic that "beneficiaries should bear a proportionate share of the burden."
However, this demand carries serious geopolitical contradictions. With US-China relations deteriorating due to trade wars, the Taiwan issue, and technological hegemony competition, seeking military cooperation can be considered unrealistic. The deployment of the Chinese navy to the Persian Gulf could fundamentally alter the regional power balance and potentially harm the strategic interests of Gulf states, India, and even the United States itself.
The demands on NATO are similarly complex. With the Russia-Ukraine war ongoing and Europe's security environment at its most tense since the Cold War, NATO member states must disperse their limited naval forces between defending the Eastern Mediterranean, Baltic Sea, and North Sea, and deploying them to the Middle East. While France and the UK possess their own naval capabilities, countries like Germany and Italy have limited naval power, and their capacity for additional deployments is scarce.
The reason this crisis is happening "now" is the result of multiple converging structural factors. First, the US "maximum pressure" policy since its withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) has provoked Iran's hardline stance. Second, it has become an additional shock amid an energy market already destabilized by the Russia-Ukraine war. Third, the "America First" approach within the US has increased coordination costs with allies, making collective responses to the crisis difficult. And fourth, the rise of China is making the traditional "unipolar US maritime security" model unsustainable. These factors acting simultaneously mean that the crisis surrounding the Strait of Hormuz is not merely a regional conflict but an event symbolizing the reorganization of the post-World War II international order.
The delta: President Trump's simultaneous demand for both China and NATO to participate in escorting the Strait of Hormuz is tantamount to an official declaration of the end of the era when the US alone served as the "world's maritime policeman." This is not merely a request for burden sharing but a turning point that compels the reconfiguration of the maritime security order itself, which has persisted for 80 years since the war, creating an unprecedented situation where two crises—energy security and alliance relations—are unfolding simultaneously.
🔍 Reading Between the Lines — What the News Isn't Saying
President Trump's true aim in asking China to dispatch naval vessels is not the security of the strait itself. He anticipates China's refusal and intends to construct a narrative that "China, despite being the world's largest oil importer, is free-riding on security," using this to justify pressure on China in trade negotiations and tariff policies. Furthermore, pressure on NATO is positioned as new leverage in defense spending increase negotiations. Essentially, the Strait of Hormuz crisis is largely being utilized as a "stage setting" for US domestic politics and external economic strategy.
NOW PATTERN
Alliance Fissures × Overextension of Power × Spiral of Conflict × Failure of Cooperation
US "burden sharing" pressure is accelerating alliance fissures, increasing the risk of collective maritime security cooperation failure. The escalating spiral of energy crisis and alliance shifts obscures the path out of the crisis.
Intersection of Dynamics
The three dynamics of "alliance fissures," "spiral of conflict," and "failure of cooperation" are deeply intertwined, acting to structurally entrench the crisis.
First, alliance fissures are directly causing the failure of cooperation. By pushing "burden sharing" to the forefront, the mechanism for supplying the public good of maritime security, which was previously automatically provided under US hegemonic leadership, is becoming dysfunctional. As the old system collapses without alternative cooperation mechanisms being established, a security vacuum is emerging.
Next, this failure of cooperation is accelerating the spiral of conflict. Because the international community cannot exert unified pressure on Iran, Iran continues to have an incentive to maintain the leverage of the strait blockade. A prolonged blockade threatens the economic and political stability of various countries through soaring energy prices, further depleting political capital for international cooperation.
Furthermore, the spiral of conflict further deepens alliance fissures. US-China rivalry, the burden-sharing issue between the US and Europe, and the division of public opinion within each country interact, weakening the cohesion of alliance relationships. In particular, President Trump's request for cooperation even from China, a strategic competitor, is an entirely different approach from traditional alliance logic, causing confusion and distrust among allies.
This triple interaction bears similarities to the pattern of international order collapse in the 1930s. At that time, too, the decline of the hegemonic power (Britain), the rise of emerging powers (US, Germany, Japan), and the dysfunction of international organizations (League of Nations) progressed simultaneously, leading to an uncontrollable collective action problem where individual rational actions worsened overall security. Whether the current crisis follows the same trajectory depends on whether the US chooses to abandon hegemonic leadership or promote international cooperation, and how other major powers respond to that choice.
📚 Patterns of History
1987-1988: Tanker War and "Operation Earnest Will"
Maritime transport in the Persian Gulf was threatened, and the US led escort operations, but the burden on allies was limited.
Structural similarities with the present: US unilateralism is effective in the short term, but an imbalance of burden leads to long-term alliance fatigue. Furthermore, even if maritime escort is militarily successful, fundamental political issues (Iran-Iraq conflict) required separate resolution.
1956: Suez Crisis
Military action over a vital energy choke point (Suez Canal) exposed fissures in international alliance relations.
Structural similarities with the present: US opposition to Anglo-French military intervention proved that interests regarding energy security can conflict even among allies. Actions contrary to the hegemonic power's intentions undermine the overall credibility of the alliance.
1973: First Oil Crisis (Oil Shock)
A geopolitical crisis in the Middle East directly hit the global economy through disruptions in energy supply, exposing the limits of international cooperation.
Structural similarities with the present: While it led to the establishment of the IEA (International Energy Agency), coordinated release of oil reserves during a crisis always involves political negotiations, making rapid response difficult. Energy security critically depends on preparedness during peacetime.
2019: Hormuz Strait Tanker Attacks and Coalition of the Willing Concept
The US sought burden sharing from allies, but participation remained limited.
Structural similarities with the present: While the "coalition of the willing" approach has a low barrier to participation, its effectiveness tends to be limited. Japan responded with its own deployment but kept its military role to a minimum. Reaching consensus on burden sharing takes time.
2008-2011: Anti-Piracy Operations off Somalia and Multinational Naval Forces
International joint action was taken against threats to maritime transport, but there were significant differences in the level of involvement among countries.
Structural similarities with the present: One of the few examples of international maritime security cooperation that included the Chinese navy. Cooperation is possible when a common threat (piracy) is clear and political conflict is minimal, but the hurdle for cooperation rises significantly when inter-state conflict is involved.
Patterns Revealed by History
The most important lesson revealed by historical patterns is that crises concerning vital maritime transport choke points always serve as a "litmus test" for the actual strength of alliance relationships. In all cases—the 1956 Suez Crisis, the 1987 Tanker War, and the 2019 Hormuz Strait tanker attacks—the military resolution of the crisis itself was far less challenging than the burden sharing and interest coordination among allies.
Furthermore, past examples show that the "window for cooperation" is limited. While new institutions may be established in the wake of a crisis, such as the IEA after the 1973 oil crisis, this is typically confined to a short period when the memory of the crisis is vivid. Over time, national interests tend to diverge again, and institutions risk becoming hollow. While broad cooperation, including China, is possible against threats with minimal political conflict, such as anti-piracy operations off Somalia in 2008, the hurdle for cooperation rises significantly in highly politicized issues like those surrounding Iran. The current crisis can be described as a rare complex crisis, even historically, where all these patterns are simultaneously at play.
🔮 Next Scenarios
The international community reaches an agreement on a limited "Coalition of the Willing 2.0" framework, but full Chinese participation does not materialize. The US continues to provide the main naval force, while the UK, France, Japan, Australia, and others participate in complementary roles. Diplomatic negotiations with Iran proceed behind the scenes, and a partial restoration of strait passage is gradually achieved. Crude oil prices remain elevated at around $100-110 but do not return to pre-crisis levels. Specifically, NATO agrees on a framework for naval deployment to the Persian Gulf at an extraordinary summit in April-May 2026, but the actual scale of deployment remains limited to a few escort vessels. China refuses overt participation but contributes indirectly by diplomatically urging Iran to grant partial permission for strait passage. Japan expands the scale of its Maritime Self-Defense Force deployment, adding 2-3 escort vessels and patrol aircraft. In this scenario, the crisis is not fully resolved, but escalation is avoided. Iran agrees to a limited opening of the strait in exchange for partial sanctions relief, appealing to its domestic audience with a "victory." However, fundamental issues (nuclear development, sanctions, regional hegemony) remain unresolved, and there is a risk of tensions rising again within a few years.
Implications for Investment/Action: Notification of an extraordinary NATO consultation, China's diplomatic mediation efforts, partial navigation permits from Iran, stabilization of crude oil prices in the $100 range
An unexpected diplomatic breakthrough is achieved, and Iran fully lifts the strait blockade. Key to this scenario is China exerting strong influence over Iran and reaching an agreement with the US that is close to a "grand bargain." China strongly urges Iran to lift the blockade from the perspective of its own energy security, and in return, the US agrees to a phased easing of sanctions against Iran. In this optimistic scenario, the crisis paradoxically creates a new framework for "managed competition" in US-China relations. Shared interests in energy security enable cooperation through channels separate from the Taiwan issue or trade wars. Crude oil prices revert to the $80 range within 3-6 months, and the impact on the global economy remains limited. Furthermore, this crisis could serve as an opportunity to institutionalize an international security mechanism for the Strait of Hormuz. If multilateral maritime patrols under the UN framework, navigation safety agreements with littoral states including Iran, and strengthened emergency response mechanisms for energy supply disruptions are realized, a more stable order could be established in the long term. However, for this scenario to materialize, both the US and China would need to be willing to accept domestic political costs, and that possibility must be judged as low at present.
Implications for Investment/Action: Realization of direct dialogue between US and Chinese leaders, reports of China's diplomatic outreach to Iran, signs of Iran easing the strait blockade, downward trend in crude oil futures
Failure of cooperation deepens, leading to military escalation. As the US intensifies military pressure on Iran, an accidental military clash occurs. For example, scenarios include an engagement between US Navy escort vessels and Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps fast boats, or Iran laying mines in the Strait of Hormuz, causing damage to merchant ships or warships. In this pessimistic scenario, crude oil prices surge past $150, potentially nearing $200. The global economy falls into stagflation (inflation during a recession), and central banks worldwide are caught between addressing inflation and supporting the economy. Criticism of the Trump administration grows within the US, but at the same time, public opinion demanding a "strong response" also exists, making policy direction unstable. China strongly criticizes US military actions and may intensify military demonstrations in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea. This would create a "two-front crisis" situation where military tensions simultaneously rise in two regions: the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific. NATO's internal divisions deepen, and some member states begin to distance themselves from US military actions. Furthermore, there is a risk that Iran's allies—Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shia militias in Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen—will coordinate to intensify attacks across the Middle East, expanding the conflict throughout the region. For Japan, a scenario of prolonged disruption to energy supplies from the Middle East becomes a reality, inflicting severe economic damage.
Implications for Investment/Action: Reports of military skirmishes between the US and Iran, information on Iran laying mines, crude oil prices breaking $150, increased Chinese military activity in the Taiwan Strait, intensified attacks by Houthis and Hezbollah
Key Triggers to Watch
- Decision to hold an extraordinary NATO Foreign Ministers' Meeting or Summit: Late March to Mid-April 2026
- Official statement of position or leader-level remarks from China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the Strait of Hormuz issue: Mid-March to April 2026
- Direct military contact/skirmishes between the US Navy and Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps: Constant monitoring (especially March-June 2026)
- Crude oil prices (WTI/Brent) breaking $150: April-June 2026
- New Cabinet decision by the Japanese government regarding the dispatch of the Maritime Self-Defense Force to the Middle East: April-May 2026
🔄 Tracking Loop
Next Trigger: Extraordinary NATO Foreign Ministers' Consultation Late March to Early April 2026 — Consensus among member states on naval deployment to the Strait of Hormuz is the turning point for success or failure.
Continuation of this pattern: Tracking Theme: Hormuz Strait Crisis and the Reorganization of the "Burden Sharing" Order — Next milestones are NATO's extraordinary meeting decision on deployment (April-May 2026) and China's official response.
>How do you read it? Participate in Prediction →
