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

There are moments when history seems to accelerate, and you feel like you're waking up each morning to another chapter of a book you'd rather not read. Since last night, it's been a bit like that. The echoes from Tehran and Washington resonate as an unmistakable warning: we are on the brink of open confrontation. And this morning, the single topic saturating every conversation, 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 waterway if the country’s nuclear plants or energy infrastructure were targeted. A threat that, in the current context, is no mere empty rhetoric.

To understand why this stretch of sea between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman is becoming such a flashpoint, you have to look at the last 48 hours. The Trump administration has allowed plans to leak out that, if confirmed, would target strategic installations in Iran. The idea of striking power plants strikes at the very heart of warfare in a region where electricity and oil are the lifeblood of power. In response, Tehran is raising the stakes with a formidable asymmetric weapon: threatening maritime traffic. Nearly 20% of the world’s oil passes through this bottleneck. Shutting Hormuz would send a shockwave far more violent than the oil crises of the 1970s, or even the one 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 of a barrel of oil would become a purely abstract number.

In moments like this, I always find myself browsing my bookshelves. 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”. It’s not just about legal proceedings. It’s a perfect illustration of how an executive branch, cornered at home, sometimes tends to seek a way out through external escalation. The parallel with “One Damn Thing After Another: Memoirs of an Attorney General” is striking. These memoirs, from a former Attorney General, describe a political machine where international decisions are often made in a hyper-charged bubble, far from the nuances of the crisis room.

What also strikes me is the almost 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 are witnessing a dialogue of the deaf amplified by strong personalities. And we shouldn't forget the behind-the-scenes players. I’m thinking of Naghmeh Abedini Panahi, a figure in Iranian civil society whose name often comes up in nuanced analyses of the situation. Her story, like that of 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 hardly imagine.

So, what should we expect in the coming hours? Here are what I see as the three absolute points of concern:

• The response to the response: If Iran acts on Hormuz, don't expect 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. Even a partial closure of the strait would cause an instant spike. For Europe, still reliant 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, like power plants, would have the opposite of its intended effect. It would temporarily erase internal divisions to create a united front against the “Great Satan.”

I say this without hyperbole: this is not just another episode of tensions like we see every six months in that region. The threat of a “complete shutdown” of Hormuz, coupled with offensive plans targeting energy sites, places us in a zone of turbulence that foreign policy veterans are comparing to the worst moments of the Cold War. The history books, the ones recounting miscalculations and tragic escalations, are filled with chapters that begin exactly like this one. The question remains whether today’s key players will have the foresight to turn the page before it’s too late. In the meantime, I’ll be keeping one eye on maritime traffic and the other on the statements set to emerge in the coming hours. Because here, in Tehran as in Washington, this is no longer political fiction. This is real-time.