Trump, Iran and the Strait of Hormuz: The Escalation That Has the World on Edge

There are moments when history seems to be running on fast-forward, and you wake up each morning feeling like you're turning the page of a book you'd rather not read. Since last night, it’s been that kind of moment. The echoes out of Tehran and Washington ring out as an unmistakable warning: we are on the brink of open confrontation. And this morning, the one topic dominating conversations everywhere—from the banks of the Seine to Geneva’s think tanks—is Iran’s ultimatum regarding the Strait of Hormuz. The Iranian government has just announced it would “completely shut” the passage if the country’s nuclear plants or energy infrastructure were targeted. In the current climate, this threat is no hollow rhetoric.

To understand why this stretch of water between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman has become such a flashpoint, you need to look at the last 48 hours. The Trump administration has allowed plans to leak—if confirmed, they would target strategic installations in Iran. The idea of striking power plants gets to the very heart of warfare in a region where electricity and oil are the lifeblood of power. Tehran, in response, is upping the ante with a formidable asymmetric weapon: holding maritime traffic hostage. Nearly 20% of the world's oil passes through this chokepoint. Closing Hormuz would send a shockwave far more violent than the oil crises of the 1970s, or even the jolt caused by the war in Ukraine. Behind the scenes, experts agree that open conflict combined with a blockade could trigger an energy crisis on an unprecedented scale. We’re talking about a scenario where the price per barrel becomes a meaningless abstract figure.

In moments like this, I often find myself turning to the bookshelf. Not for ready-made answers, but to recognise recurring patterns. When you see a US president engaging in such a risky confrontation at the end of his term, I immediately think of a book on my nightstand: “When You Come at the King: Inside DOJ's Pursuit of the President, From Nixon to Trump”. This isn’t just about judicial procedures. It’s a perfect illustration of how an executive branch, feeling cornered at home, can sometimes seek a way out through escalation abroad. The parallel with “One Damn Thing After Another: Memoirs of an Attorney General” is striking. These memoirs, written by a former Attorney General, depict a political machine where international decisions are often made in an overheated bubble, far from the nuanced discussions of a crisis room.

What strikes me is the near-total absence of a certain political “grammar” in this confrontation. It feels as though the fundamentals of political science—the kind taught in books like “Power and Choice: An Introduction to Political Science” or “Introduction to Comparative Politics”—have been temporarily suspended. Normally, in an international standoff, there are guardrails, communication channels, backchannels. Here, we are witnessing a dialogue of the deaf, amplified by strong personalities. And we shouldn’t forget the less visible players in this affair. I’m thinking of Naghmeh Abedini Panahi, a figure in Iranian civil society whose name keeps coming up in nuanced analyses of the situation. Her story, like so many others, is a reminder that beyond the missiles and tankers, there is an Iranian society watching this dangerous game with an anxiety we here can scarcely imagine.

So, what should we expect in the hours ahead? Here are what I see as the three absolute points to watch:

• Response to the response: If Iran follows through on its threat regarding Hormuz, don’t expect a mere verbal condemnation. The Trump administration has shown in the past that it responds with force. The question is whether that response will be measured or whether it will open a Pandora’s box.
• The domino effect on energy prices: Markets are already on edge. Even a partial closure of the Strait would cause an instant price spike. For Europe, still dependent on certain sources, this would be a huge economic blow in the middle of its transition process.
• National unity in Iran: Nothing unites a people like an external attack. A US strike on civilian infrastructure, like power plants, would have the opposite of its intended effect. It would temporarily erase internal divisions and create a united front against the “Great Satan.”

I say this without exaggeration: this isn’t just another episode of tensions like we see in this region every six months. The threat of a “complete shutdown” of Hormuz, combined with offensive plans targeting energy sites, places us in a zone of turbulence that foreign policy veterans are comparing to the worst days of the Cold War. History books, the ones that recount miscalculations and tragic escalations, are filled with chapters that begin exactly like this one. Whether today’s players will have the foresight to turn the page before it’s too late remains to be seen. In the meantime, I’m keeping one eye on maritime traffic and the other on the statements that will emerge in the coming hours. Because here—in Tehran and in Washington—this is no longer political fiction. It’s real time.