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

There are moments when history seems to be racing ahead, and you feel like you're waking up to a new chapter of a book you'd rather not be reading. Since last night, it's felt 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 one topic dominating every conversation, from the Seine’s quaysides to Geneva’s 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 its nuclear plants or energy infrastructure were hit. A threat that, in the current context, is no hollow 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 plans leak that, if confirmed, would target strategic installations inside Iran. The idea of striking power plants is to hit the very nerve centre of a conflict in a region where electricity and oil are the lifeblood of power. In response, Tehran is raising the stakes with a formidable asymmetric weapon: holding maritime traffic hostage. Nearly 20% of the world’s oil passes through this chokepoint. Shutting 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 agree, off the record, 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 just an abstract number.

In moments like this, I always find myself turning to the bookshelf. Not for ready-made answers, but for patterns that repeat themselves. When you see a US president engaging in such a risky confrontation at the end of his term, I'm immediately reminded 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 a story about legal procedures. 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, describe a political machine where international decisions are often made in a hyper-charged bubble, far from the nuances of a crisis room.

What strikes me as well is the near-total absence of a certain political “grammar” in this confrontation. It feels as if the fundamentals of political science, the ones taught in works like “Power and Choice: An Introduction to Political Science” or “Introduction to Comparative Politics”, have been momentarily suspended. Normally, in an international standoff, there are guardrails, channels of communication, backchannels. Here, we are witnessing a dialogue of the deaf, amplified by strong personalities. And we shouldn't forget the unseen actors in this affair. I'm thinking of Naghmeh Abedini Panahi, that figure from Iranian civil society whose name often comes 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 we here can hardly imagine.

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

• The response to the response: If Iran acts on its threat regarding 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 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 immediate price spike. For Europe, still reliant on certain sources, this would be a severe economic blow right in the middle of its transition.
• 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 no simple episode of tensions like the ones we see every six months in this region. The threat of a “complete closure” 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 start exactly like this one. The question remains whether today’s key players will have the wisdom and restraint 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 coming out over the next few hours. Because here, in Tehran as in Washington, this is no longer political fiction. This is real-time reality.