Washington Between War Failure and Hormuz Strait Dilemma: Trump Administration Seeks an Exit After Igniting the Crisis

Washington – Said Arikat – 28/4/2026

News Analysis

The recent statements by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio reveal the extent of the dilemma faced by President Donald Trump's administration after the disruption of the latest round of negotiations with Iran, and the transformation of the Strait of Hormuz into an open conflict zone threatening the global economy. Instead of presenting a diplomatic vision to end the tension, the US administration chose the language of dictates and threats, then was surprised that the war it waged with Israel did not result in Iranian surrender, but rather an escalating international crisis.

Rubio stated that the United States cannot accept Iran controlling who passes through the Strait of Hormuz or imposing fees on passing ships. His remarks appeared to be an attempt to portray Washington as a protector of freedom of navigation, forgetting that the crisis itself did not exist before the American-Israeli war on Iran at the end of last February. The strait was operating normally, and markets were relatively stable, before Washington and Tel Aviv decided to open a military confrontation under the pretext of the Iranian nuclear program.

Reports indicated that Tehran offered an interim agreement to reopen the strait in exchange for ending the US naval blockade on Iranian ports, and postponing the more complex nuclear issues to a later stage. However, the US administration dealt with the proposal with great hesitation, reflecting internal confusion between those who want a quick exit from the crisis, and those who insist on continuing the policy of maximum pressure, even at the expense of the global economy.

The irony is that Washington talks about rejecting Iran's "blackmail" of maritime passages, while it itself practices a military blockade and uses naval force to impose political conditions. When the United States uses fleets to prevent Iran-linked ships from sailing, it is not much different from the logic it claims to reject, but rather gives Tehran an additional argument to present itself as a victim of external aggression.

Domestically, the war has begun to turn into a political burden for Trump. The rise in fuel prices in the United States directly affected the American voter, making the question more pressing: Why is Washington fighting a new war in the Middle East while the American citizen suffers from inflation and the cost of living? This question becomes more acute the longer the crisis continues without clear achievement.

In Europe, Western capitals have shown increasing resentment towards the American approach. European countries find themselves facing a new energy crisis, at a time when they were trying to avoid being drawn into an additional conflict. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz's statements, in which he described the United States as being "humiliated" in front of the Iranian leadership, reflected the extent of tension within the Western camp itself.

The deeper truth is that the Trump administration repeated an old strategic mistake: the belief that military force alone can impose complex political arrangements. But experiences extending from Iraq to Afghanistan have proven that wars may open the doors to chaos, but they do not create lasting stability. And here is Iran, despite the losses and pressures, still negotiating from a position of equality, not from the position of the defeated.

In the UN Security Council, France warned that allowing the transformation of maritime passages into tools of blackmail or militarization would create a dangerous precedent threatening global trade. However, this warning also applies to US policy itself, because the militarization of the strait did not start from a vacuum, but from the decision of war and escalation.

Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the scene is not merely the closure of a strait or the rise in oil prices, but Washington's readiness to drag the world into a widespread economic crisis in service of Israel's regional calculations. By waging this war in response to Israeli demands, the United States has shown a willingness to ignite a broad conflict that could extend beyond the Gulf, for objectives that do not serve international stability or the interests of the American citizen.

The Hormuz crisis reveals that Washington is still captive to an old colonial perception that considers international passages as purely American spheres of influence. When another country, even a regional one, controls part of the maritime security equation, it is immediately viewed as a threat that must be crushed. This mentality does not recognize new power balances or the fact that the world is no longer unipolar. Therefore, every negotiable crisis turns into a military confrontation. The result is not the restoration of American prestige, but its accelerated erosion, because coercion fails where balanced settlements succeed, and produces stronger resistance instead of the expected political and military submission.

Politically, Trump finds himself facing a fundamental contradiction. He rose to popularity with a promise to end foreign wars and focus on the American interior, but today he returns to the same model he criticized. The average American voter does not care much about the details of the Strait of Hormuz, but he cares about the price of gasoline and the grocery bill. And with each day the crisis continues, the image of the president capable of decisive management erodes. If he does not achieve a quick breakthrough, the war may turn into an electoral burden that haunts him, just as the Middle East wars haunted his Republican and Democratic predecessors electorally later on.

As for Israel, the biggest strategic beneficiary of the escalation, it is once again pushing Washington towards a battle that drains others. Every American preoccupation with confronting Iran means easing pressure on Tel Aviv's policies in Palestine and the region. Moreover, turning Iran into the primary threat gives Israel a wider margin to expand its military and political influence. However, this approach is short-sighted; because it links American interests to a narrow regional agenda, and pushes the United States to bear the financial, military, and diplomatic costs, while Israel reaps security gains without paying the real price alone or bearing the full consequences of the escalation.