Wall Street Journal (WSJ): According to U.S. government officials, Trump has told his aides that he is willing to end U.S. military operations against Iran even if the Strait of Hormuz remains significantly blocked.
The reason is that if U.S. forces continue pushing forward with the "open the strait" operation themselves, the war could easily exceed the 4-to-6-week window he has set. In the coming period, the White House will prioritize diplomatic pressure and shift responsibility to allies, transferring the burden of reopening the strait more heavily onto European and Gulf states.
This exclusive report by the Wall Street Journal reveals a very critical strategic retreat signal from the Trump administration during the standoff over the Strait of Hormuz—from “American leadership” to “allies bearing the cost.”
The Trump administration’s pivot toward “diplomatic pressure and ally takeover” continues its long-standing transactional foreign policy style.
The U.S. hopes that Europe and Gulf countries—such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE—will take on the primary responsibilities for escorting and mine-clearing operations. For Gulf states, this is a matter of existential survival; they have greater incentives than the U.S. to maintain the strait’s openness. The U.S. aims to push these nations to the front lines while stepping back to provide intelligence support and air cover from behind.
This “step back” posture is actually also a psychological pressure tactic aimed at Iran. The underlying message from the U.S. is: “If you don’t cooperate, I’ll let Europe and Gulf states impose economic blockades and isolation on you that are far more painful than military strikes.” The U.S. seeks to exploit regional allies’ survival anxieties to build a coalition aimed at isolating Iran.
The WSJ paints a picture of a U.S. government preparing to pause military escalation even without achieving full victory.
The logic of the Trump administration is this: rather than getting bogged down in an unpredictable war over the ideal goal of complete strait clearance, it’s better to accept a reality of partial obstruction, shifting the costs and responsibilities of maintaining navigation to allied nations dependent on oil exports, while pivoting toward diplomatic pressure.
The risk of this strategy lies in the possibility that if Europe and Gulf states prove unable or unwilling to take up this “hot potato,” resulting in prolonged partial blockade and severe international oil price volatility, the Trump administration may ultimately be forced to re-enter—only to find its leverage significantly weakened. This is a distinctly transactional form of “managed disengagement.”
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1861181231782924/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.