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

There are moments when history seems to be hurtling forward, and you feel as though each morning brings a new chapter from a book you'd rather not read. Since last night, it’s felt a bit like that. The echoes coming from Tehran and Washington sound like an unmistakable warning: we are a hair's breadth away from open confrontation. And this morning, the single 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 that it would “completely close” the passage if the country’s nuclear power plants or energy infrastructure are targeted. In the current context, this threat is anything but empty rhetoric.

To understand why this stretch 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 plans leak that, if confirmed, would target strategic installations inside Iran. The idea of striking power plants is to go for the jugular in a region where electricity and oil are the twin pillars of power. In response, Tehran is raising the stakes with a formidable asymmetric weapon: holding maritime traffic to ransom. Nearly 20% of the world’s oil passes through this bottleneck. Closing the Strait of Hormuz would send a shockwave far more violent than the oil crises of the 1970s, or even the shock triggered by the war in Ukraine. Privately, experts agree that an open conflict combined with a blockade could create an energy crisis on an unprecedented scale. We’re talking about a scenario where the price per barrel becomes a mere abstract figure.

In moments like these, I always find myself reaching for the bookshelf. Not for ready-made answers, but to spot 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”. This isn’t just a story about legal proceedings. It’s a perfect illustration of how an executive branch, under pressure at home, sometimes tends to look for an escape route 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 highly charged, insular environment, far removed from the nuances of the situation room.

What also 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 safeguards, communication channels, backchannels. Here, we are witnessing a dialogue of the deaf amplified by strong personalities. And we mustn't forget the actors behind the scenes in this affair. I’m thinking of Naghmeh Abedini Panahi, a figure from Iranian civil society whose name often comes up in nuanced analyses of the situation. Her story, like that of so many others, serves as a reminder that beyond the missiles and oil 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 coming hours? Here are what I see as the three critical points to watch:

• Response to the response: If Iran takes action in the Strait, 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 cause an instant spike. For Europe, still reliant on certain sources, this would be a devastating economic blow in the midst of its transition.
• 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 divisions and create a united front against the “Great Satan”.

I say this without hyperbole: this is not just another bout of tensions like we see in the region every six months. The threat of a “complete closure” of the Strait of Hormuz, coupled with offensive plans targeting energy sites, places us in a zone of turbulence that veterans of foreign policy compare to the worst days of the Cold War. History books—the ones filled with tales of miscalculation and tragic escalation—are packed with chapters that start exactly like this. The question remains whether today’s key players will have the foresight needed to turn the page before it’s too late. In the meantime, I’ll keep one eye on maritime traffic and the other on the statements due in the coming hours. Because here, as in Tehran and Washington, this is no longer fiction. This is real-time.