Strait of Hormuz Crisis and Trump's "

📡 The 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 stance of demanding China and NATO dispatch escort vessels signifies a fundamental shift in the traditional US-led maritime security order, and there is a risk that cracks between 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 chokepoint, 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 placed "burden sharing" at the core 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 matter of life and death.
• 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 countries face the dilemma of defending Eastern Europe versus dispersing forces to the Middle East.

The Strait of Hormuz has been a vital artery for global maritime traffic 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, where "the US guarantees 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 Japanese-affiliated tankers, were attacked, and the US claimed 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 Maritime Self-Defense Force destroyers and patrol aircraft to the Middle East for "information gathering activities" but avoided direct participation in the coalition of the willing.

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 expenditures. Particularly regarding naval power, forward-deployed forces centered on carrier strike groups have ensured the security of major global chokepoints, 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 commensurate share of the burden."

However, this demand has 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 in the Persian Gulf could fundamentally alter the regional power balance, potentially harming 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 overlapping 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 "US unipolar maritime security" model unsustainable. These factors are acting simultaneously, making the Strait of Hormuz crisis 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 vessels through 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 continued for 80 years since the war, creating an unprecedented situation where two crises—energy security and alliance relations—are unfolding simultaneously.