Trump, Iran, and the Strait of Hormuz: The Escalation Shaking the World

There are moments when history seems to be running at breakneck speed, and you get the feeling that each morning brings a new page from a book you'd rather not read. Since last night, it's felt a bit like that. The echoes coming out of Tehran and Washington resonate as an unmistakable warning: we are on the brink of open confrontation. And this morning, the single topic dominating conversations from Parisian cafés 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 plants or energy infrastructure were targeted. A threat that, in the current context, 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 have to look at the last 48 hours. The Trump administration has let it be known that, if confirmed, plans would target strategic installations in Iran. The idea of striking power plants goes straight for the jugular in a region where electricity and oil are the lifeblood of power. On the other side, Tehran is upping the ante with a formidable asymmetric weapon: holding maritime traffic hostage. Nearly 20% of the world's oil passes through this bottleneck. Closing the Strait of Hormuz would send a shockwave far more severe than the oil crises of the 1970s, or even the shock triggered by the war in Ukraine. Behind the scenes, experts agree that an open conflict combined with a blockade could create an energy crisis of unprecedented magnitude. We're talking about a scenario where the price per barrel becomes a mere abstract figure.

In moments like this, I always find myself drawn to 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, I immediately think of a book lying on my nightstand: "When You Come at the King: Inside DOJ's Pursuit of the President, From Nixon to Trump". It's not just a story about legal proceedings. It's a perfect illustration of how an executive branch, cornered 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 highly charged, insular environment, far from the nuanced discussions of a crisis room.

What strikes me is also the almost complete absence of a certain political "playbook" in this confrontation. It feels like the fundamentals of political science—the kind taught in works 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're witnessing a dialogue of the deaf, amplified by strong personalities. And we mustn't forget the shadow players in this affair. I'm thinking of Naghmeh Abedini Panahi, that figure in Iranian civil society whose name keeps cropping up in nuanced analyses of the situation. Her story, like that of so many others, reminds us that beyond the missiles and tankers, there is an Iranian society watching this dangerous game with an anxiety that we, here, can hardly fathom.

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 acts on its threat regarding the Strait of Hormuz, don't expect just a 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 if it will open Pandora's box.
• The domino effect on energy prices: Markets are already on edge. Even a partial closure of the Strait would cause an immediate price spike. For Europe, still dependent on certain sources, it 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 exaggeration: this isn't just another episode of tensions like we see every six months in this region. 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 foreign policy veterans compare 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 one. The question remains whether today's key players will have the wisdom 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 due in the coming hours. Because here, in Tehran as in Washington, this is no longer political fiction. This is real-time.