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

There are moments when history seems to spin out of control, and you get the feeling that each morning brings a new chapter from a book you’d rather not read. Since last night, that’s pretty much where we are. The echoes coming out of Tehran and Washington sound like an unmistakable warning: we are on the brink of open confrontation. And this morning, the single topic dominating conversations everywhere—from Parisian cafés to Geneva think tanks—is Iran’s ultimatum regarding the Strait of Hormuz. The Iranian government has just announced it “would completely shut down” the passage if the country’s nuclear plants or energy infrastructure were hit. A threat that, in the current context, is anything but empty rhetoric.

To understand why this strip of sea 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 let it leak that plans—if confirmed—would target strategic facilities in Iran. The idea of striking power plants is to hit at the very nerve centre of a region where electricity and oil are the twin pillars of power. In response, Tehran is upping the ante with a formidable asymmetric weapon: holding maritime traffic hostage. Nearly 20% of the world’s oil passes through this chokepoint. Shutting down the Strait of Hormuz would send a shockwave far more severe than the oil crises of the 1970s, or even the one triggered by the war in Ukraine. Experts are quietly acknowledging that an open conflict combined with a blockade could create an energy crisis of unprecedented proportions. We’re talking about a scenario where the price of a barrel becomes a mere abstract figure.

In moments like this, I’ve always liked to dig into my library. Not for ready-made answers, but to find recurring patterns. When you see a US president engaging in such a risky confrontation at the end of his term, my mind immediately goes to a book on my nightstand: “When You Come at the King: Inside DOJ's Pursuit of the President, From Nixon to Trump”. It’s not just about legal proceedings. It’s a perfect illustration of how an executive branch, backed into a corner at home, sometimes tends to seek a way out through escalation abroad. The parallel with “One Damn Thing After Another: Memoirs of an Attorney General” is striking. These memoirs, from a former attorney general, depict a political machine where international decisions are often made in a supercharged, insular environment, far from the nuances of a crisis room.

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

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

• Response to the response: If Iran follows through on its threat regarding the Strait of 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 calibrated or whether it will open a Pandora’s box.
• The domino effect on energy prices: Markets are already on edge. A closure, even a partial one, of the strait would trigger an immediate price spike. For Europe, still dependent on certain sources, this would be an economic hammer blow right 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, such as power plants, would have the opposite of its intended effect. It would temporarily erase internal fractures to create a united front against the “Great Satan.”

I say this without hyperbole: this is not just another episode of tensions like the ones we see in this region every six months. The threat of a “complete shutdown” of the Strait 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. The history books—the ones that recount miscalculations and tragic escalations—are filled with chapters that begin exactly like this. The question remains whether today’s players will have the foresight to turn the page before it’s too late. In the meantime, I’m keeping one eye on maritime traffic and the other on the statements set to come out in the next few hours. Because here, in Tehran as in Washington, this is no longer political fiction. This is real-time.