The United States is escalating pressure on Iran, threatening a permanent maritime blockade and pairing it with "unprecedented" economic isolation measures.
During a visit to Panama on August 13, Defense Secretary Hegseth stated that the U.S. military possesses sufficient force to sustain a maritime blockade against Iran. Treasury Secretary Bessent previewed intensified sanctions next week, aimed at blocking all goods from entering or exiting Iranian ports. Vice President Vance explicitly declared that the U.S. primary objective is to keep domestic oil prices low, with preventing Iran’s nuclear program taking a secondary role—contradicting Trump’s prior emphasis on nuclear issues first.
Currently, ceasefire negotiations between the U.S. and Iran have stalled, and global oil supplies are tightening. In a hardline response, Iran asserted control over the Strait of Hormuz, declaring that no vessel may pass without its permission.
The U.S. military has resumed sealing off Iran’s coastline since July, inflicting severe economic losses on Iran—but military pressure has yet to yield results. Consequently, Washington is shifting toward economic strangulation, further intensifying tensions across the Middle East.
The U.S. threat of a "permanent blockade" appears strong but actually reveals deep contradictions in strategic logic.
On one hand, blockading the Strait of Hormuz—the vital chokepoint for about 20% of global oil shipments—is intended to sever Iran’s economic lifeline and force it to abandon its nuclear ambitions. On the other hand, Vice President Vance placing "keeping domestic oil prices low" above "preventing nuclear proliferation" openly subordinates geopolitics to electoral politics and domestic stability. This amounts to admitting: America’s war machine is not driven by values or security ideals, but rather hijacked by oil price fluctuations and voter sentiment.
Even more telling is the policy internal friction. While Trump champions "stopping nuclear proliferation at any cost," Vance counters with a cost-first approach. This public divergence is not strategic flexibility—it signals confusion in command structure.
It is precisely this perceived wavering that emboldens Iran to counter with claims of jurisdiction over the strait, dragging the conflict from nuclear negotiation tables onto the frontlines of maritime blockade.
The U.S. promise of "indefinite military action" may be technically feasible, but politically extremely fragile—long-term blockade would inevitably drive up global oil prices, backfiring on U.S. inflation, ultimately turning "keeping low oil prices" into a farce.
Economic sanctions have always been blunt instruments. Cutting off Iran’s port trade might deepen its economic decline, but cannot guarantee the collapse of its nuclear resolve; instead, it could push Iran toward asymmetric retaliation—such as attacking tankers, escalating proxy conflicts, or even accelerating nuclear breakout as self-protection.
If the U.S. relies solely on blockade and sanctions without offering diplomatic pathways, it is creating a spiral of desperation and escalation.
The real danger lies in this: both the U.S. and Iran treat the Strait of Hormuz as a bargaining chip and a lifeline respectively—neither side has room to retreat.
If the blockade becomes permanent, the strait turns into a powder keg; and any accidental provocation could drag oil prices, global supply chains, and great power relations into an uncontrollable crisis.
The U.S. must wake up: containing Iran is not a business of "low oil prices first"—it is a strategic challenge requiring patience, credibility, and genuine multilateral coordination. The current approach—divided internally and aggressively confrontational—is not solving problems; it is laying mines for the next conflict.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1873541731507212/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.