Forty years later, the United States faces the Hormuz dilemma again: the price of escorting ships back then is now unaffordable.
2026-04-24 17:56:39
The Persian Gulf is riddled with mines, and small speedboats of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) are carrying weapons to deter passing ships. The United States, as the central party in the conflict, is facing a historic choice—whether to replicate the escort operations of the "tanker war" of the 1980s in order to maintain the stability of the global energy supply chain.
The Strait of Hormuz, the "energy choke point" that carries 20% of the world's oil and gas trade, is once again shrouded in the shadow of war.
Looking back at history, the shadow of the "tanker war" has not yet dissipated. During the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, Iraq launched the first attack on Iranian oil infrastructure and tankers, and Iran immediately launched retaliatory strikes, severely damaging shipping in the Persian Gulf by laying mines and other means.
According to statistics from the U.S. Naval Academy, the two sides have attacked more than 440 ships in total, and Iran's mine warfare tactics have caused shipping disruptions and a surge in global shipping insurance costs.
At that time, in order to safeguard the security of energy routes, the United States launched "Operation Sincere Will" to provide escort for Kuwaiti oil tankers that had switched to the US flag, successfully ensuring the passage of approximately 70 convoys.
But this operation was not without cost: the Kuwaiti oil tanker Bridgeton was damaged by a mine, the US Navy frigate USS Stark was attacked by Iraqi missiles, resulting in the deaths of 37 crew members, and the US mistakenly shot down Iran Air Flight 655, causing the deaths of 290 people. In the end, the US paid $130 million but did not admit to the crime.
The similarities in the current situation have sparked discussions about history repeating itself.
As the conflict between the US, Israel, and Iran continues for nearly eight weeks, Iran, employing an asymmetric warfare model of "military use of civilian vessels," has recently successfully seized two cargo ships, demonstrating its ability to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. This involves converting small civilian vessels into combat platforms equipped with heavy machine guns and rocket launchers.
Even with the U.S. Navy imposing a blockade on the Iranian coast, the Revolutionary Guard could still control this vital global energy source with limited resources, putting the global economy at risk.
Against this backdrop, President Trump ordered the U.S. military to "kill without mercy" small Iranian vessels. Coupled with the U.S.'s previous precedent of providing limited escort for attacked ships in the Red Sea, this has led to speculation that the U.S. may restart large-scale escort operations.
However, replicating "sincere will action" is far more difficult than before.
The generational leap in military technology has changed the rules of the battlefield. Iran now possesses approximately 1,000 fast attack craft, anti-ship missiles with a range of 700 kilometers, and thousands of attack drones, significantly enhancing its asymmetric warfare capabilities compared to the 1980s.
Experts from the British think tank, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, pointed out that the current size of the US Navy is only half that of the Reagan era, and the conflict is focused on the narrow waters of the strait, which has led to a sharp increase in the risks of US military operations.
More importantly, the United States’ current strategic goals are in a “kaleidoscope” state of ambiguity, lacking clear priorities from regime change to various extreme demands, which is in stark contrast to the clear goal of focusing on unimpeded waterways in the past.
The attitudes and practical concerns of the international community have further constrained the possibility of escorting ships. Under pressure from the Trump administration, European countries still refuse to participate in escorting ships before the end of the war, fearing that this move will exacerbate regional conflicts.
As a belligerent party, the US escort operation could make the escorted ships legitimate targets of Iranian attacks. Even with US military protection, international shipping companies may not dare to pass through rashly. As of April 7, there were still 187 oil tankers carrying approximately 172 million barrels of crude oil and petrochemical products stranded in the Persian Gulf.
Analysts say that unless the US and Iran reach an agreement or the US completely weakens Iran's strike capabilities, the security issue in the Taiwan Strait will remain unresolved for a long time.
The Trump administration’s contradictory stance has only exacerbated the situation.
On the one hand, the US military's seizure of an Iranian cargo ship on April 19 triggered Iran's vow of reciprocal retaliation, which may force the US to launch an escort mission;
On the other hand, the White House statement that "the ceasefire agreement is not threatened" only because Iran did not attack American and Israeli ships, a statement that goes against the centuries-old American tradition of "maintaining freedom of navigation at sea," exposes its strategic wavering.
This shows that the United States' tradition of "maintaining freedom of navigation at sea" is not an absolute principle, but rather a tool to serve its practical interests.
When the principle of "freedom of navigation" conflicts with more pressing strategic goals such as avoiding war and advancing negotiations, the United States will not hesitate to abandon the principle and choose compromise.
This strategic wavering not only damages the United States' international image but also raises global questions about the fairness and consistency of its "freedom of navigation" policy, further exposing the hypocrisy of US hegemonic diplomacy.
Former U.S. diplomat Tom Duffy points out that this contradiction not only weakens the United States' leadership in global shipping security, but also raises questions about its true willingness to get involved in a full-blown conflict.
The Trump administration’s strategic wavering essentially stems from its core dilemma of “wanting to extricate itself from the war but being unable to do so.”
Trump’s clear objective is to withdraw from the conflict by reaching an indefinite ceasefire with Iran. This conflict, which was initiated by the US and Israel on February 28, has already cost the US dearly: military spending has exceeded $45 billion in just over a month and may increase to $250 billion in the coming months. Some experts even predict that the final cost will reach trillions of dollars.
Even more serious is that the war has evolved into a political disaster: not only is it opposed by core Republican voters, but the oil price surge caused by Iran's control of the Strait of Hormuz is also putting pressure on the American people's livelihood before the midterm elections, directly impacting the election results.
However, Tehran is clearly unwilling to let Trump have an easy "graceful ending".
The core disagreement between the two sides focuses on "whether or not to impose a blockade": Trump insists on maintaining the naval blockade, seeing it as a key means of pressuring Iran; Iran, on the other hand, has made it clear that the blockade must be lifted before any ceasefire agreement will be considered.
This antagonism brought the negotiations to a standstill—the second round of talks with Pakistan, which Trump had high hopes for, fell through because Iran refused to confirm its participation, and Vice President Jad Vance's mediation ultimately failed.
The deeper obstacle lies in the extreme distrust between the two sides.
Iranian leaders vividly remember Trump's "betrayal": on the eve of two rounds of negotiations, the US and Israel launched military operations, causing Tehran to lose faith in US commitments.
Both Trump and the ruling Iranian clerics are extremely sensitive to "showing weakness," as any compromise could jeopardize their own political legitimacy.
Experts from the Middle East Institute pointed out that Trump's decision to announce a blockade during the ceasefire was a typical strategic mistake—in an attempt to appear tough, he inadvertently provoked Iranian resistance and undermined his own diplomatic efforts.
A compromise proposed by experts—that the US maintain the form of the blockade but ease its enforcement, allowing Iran to package it as a diplomatic victory—has not yet been adopted by either side.
Trump has yet to signal a relaxation of the lockdown, and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has even suggested that the lockdown will be a key tool for gaining the upper hand in negotiations. If Iran insists on a complete lifting of the lockdown, as Vatanka said, it may also fall into a strategic miscalculation because it is "more concerned with political gestures than actual agreements."
Meanwhile, the United States’ Arab allies in the Gulf region are preparing defenses against a potential new round of attacks from Iran once the ceasefire expires, further highlighting the fragility of the situation.
The future trajectory of the Strait of Hormuz depends on the interplay of multiple factors.
If the United States forcibly escorts the ships, it could trigger a direct confrontation between the US and Iran, repeating the tragedy of the "tanker war" in which hundreds of ships were attacked and dozens sank. If the US abandons its intervention, the global energy supply chain will continue to face the risk of disruption, and may even trigger the "gray rhino" risk of global stagflation and economic recession.
Currently, the conditions for a ceasefire between the US and Iran are vastly different, international mediation is still ongoing, and the UN Security Council draft resolution on escorting ships, spearheaded by Bahrain, is likely to fail due to opposition from China, Russia, and France.
Even more alarming is that the United States is caught in a vicious cycle of "high-cost attrition warfare": using air defense missiles worth millions of dollars to intercept Iranian drones that cost less than $100,000, making it difficult to balance tactics and strategy, and lacking a clear exit mechanism.
Perhaps, as experts have suggested, only when the US and Iran show goodwill and clarify their strategic goals—with the US abandoning its vague demands and focusing on the safety of the shipping lanes, and Iran facing up to the limitations of its asymmetric warfare capabilities—can the Strait be prevented from becoming a battlefield for large-scale naval warfare and can this global energy lifeline return to peace.
As a result, the market has moved away from a pattern of a weak dollar and gold, and a strong crude oil market. This means that compared to a more intense military confrontation between the two sides, the loss of crude oil shipping capacity is more certain, and the rise in oil prices is currently the most certain outcome in the market.
The Strait of Hormuz, the "energy choke point" that carries 20% of the world's oil and gas trade, is once again shrouded in the shadow of war.
Historical Lessons: Escort Missions in the "Tank Wars"
Looking back at history, the shadow of the "tanker war" has not yet dissipated. During the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, Iraq launched the first attack on Iranian oil infrastructure and tankers, and Iran immediately launched retaliatory strikes, severely damaging shipping in the Persian Gulf by laying mines and other means.
According to statistics from the U.S. Naval Academy, the two sides have attacked more than 440 ships in total, and Iran's mine warfare tactics have caused shipping disruptions and a surge in global shipping insurance costs.
At that time, in order to safeguard the security of energy routes, the United States launched "Operation Sincere Will" to provide escort for Kuwaiti oil tankers that had switched to the US flag, successfully ensuring the passage of approximately 70 convoys.
But this operation was not without cost: the Kuwaiti oil tanker Bridgeton was damaged by a mine, the US Navy frigate USS Stark was attacked by Iraqi missiles, resulting in the deaths of 37 crew members, and the US mistakenly shot down Iran Air Flight 655, causing the deaths of 290 people. In the end, the US paid $130 million but did not admit to the crime.
Current Game: Iran's Asymmetric Deterrence and the US Stance
The similarities in the current situation have sparked discussions about history repeating itself.
As the conflict between the US, Israel, and Iran continues for nearly eight weeks, Iran, employing an asymmetric warfare model of "military use of civilian vessels," has recently successfully seized two cargo ships, demonstrating its ability to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. This involves converting small civilian vessels into combat platforms equipped with heavy machine guns and rocket launchers.
Even with the U.S. Navy imposing a blockade on the Iranian coast, the Revolutionary Guard could still control this vital global energy source with limited resources, putting the global economy at risk.
Against this backdrop, President Trump ordered the U.S. military to "kill without mercy" small Iranian vessels. Coupled with the U.S.'s previous precedent of providing limited escort for attacked ships in the Red Sea, this has led to speculation that the U.S. may restart large-scale escort operations.
The Replication Dilemma: A Triple Obstacle of Technology, Goals, and Reality
However, replicating "sincere will action" is far more difficult than before.
The generational leap in military technology has changed the rules of the battlefield. Iran now possesses approximately 1,000 fast attack craft, anti-ship missiles with a range of 700 kilometers, and thousands of attack drones, significantly enhancing its asymmetric warfare capabilities compared to the 1980s.
Experts from the British think tank, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, pointed out that the current size of the US Navy is only half that of the Reagan era, and the conflict is focused on the narrow waters of the strait, which has led to a sharp increase in the risks of US military operations.
More importantly, the United States’ current strategic goals are in a “kaleidoscope” state of ambiguity, lacking clear priorities from regime change to various extreme demands, which is in stark contrast to the clear goal of focusing on unimpeded waterways in the past.
International Constraints: Allies' Attitudes and Shipping Companies' Concerns
The attitudes and practical concerns of the international community have further constrained the possibility of escorting ships. Under pressure from the Trump administration, European countries still refuse to participate in escorting ships before the end of the war, fearing that this move will exacerbate regional conflicts.
As a belligerent party, the US escort operation could make the escorted ships legitimate targets of Iranian attacks. Even with US military protection, international shipping companies may not dare to pass through rashly. As of April 7, there were still 187 oil tankers carrying approximately 172 million barrels of crude oil and petrochemical products stranded in the Persian Gulf.
Analysts say that unless the US and Iran reach an agreement or the US completely weakens Iran's strike capabilities, the security issue in the Taiwan Strait will remain unresolved for a long time.
Strategic Swing: The Trump Administration's Contradictory Stance
The Trump administration’s contradictory stance has only exacerbated the situation.
On the one hand, the US military's seizure of an Iranian cargo ship on April 19 triggered Iran's vow of reciprocal retaliation, which may force the US to launch an escort mission;
On the other hand, the White House statement that "the ceasefire agreement is not threatened" only because Iran did not attack American and Israeli ships, a statement that goes against the centuries-old American tradition of "maintaining freedom of navigation at sea," exposes its strategic wavering.
This shows that the United States' tradition of "maintaining freedom of navigation at sea" is not an absolute principle, but rather a tool to serve its practical interests.
When the principle of "freedom of navigation" conflicts with more pressing strategic goals such as avoiding war and advancing negotiations, the United States will not hesitate to abandon the principle and choose compromise.
This strategic wavering not only damages the United States' international image but also raises global questions about the fairness and consistency of its "freedom of navigation" policy, further exposing the hypocrisy of US hegemonic diplomacy.
Former U.S. diplomat Tom Duffy points out that this contradiction not only weakens the United States' leadership in global shipping security, but also raises questions about its true willingness to get involved in a full-blown conflict.
Negotiation impasse: The deadlock between extrication demands and blockade negotiations
The Trump administration’s strategic wavering essentially stems from its core dilemma of “wanting to extricate itself from the war but being unable to do so.”
Trump’s clear objective is to withdraw from the conflict by reaching an indefinite ceasefire with Iran. This conflict, which was initiated by the US and Israel on February 28, has already cost the US dearly: military spending has exceeded $45 billion in just over a month and may increase to $250 billion in the coming months. Some experts even predict that the final cost will reach trillions of dollars.
Even more serious is that the war has evolved into a political disaster: not only is it opposed by core Republican voters, but the oil price surge caused by Iran's control of the Strait of Hormuz is also putting pressure on the American people's livelihood before the midterm elections, directly impacting the election results.
However, Tehran is clearly unwilling to let Trump have an easy "graceful ending".
The core disagreement between the two sides focuses on "whether or not to impose a blockade": Trump insists on maintaining the naval blockade, seeing it as a key means of pressuring Iran; Iran, on the other hand, has made it clear that the blockade must be lifted before any ceasefire agreement will be considered.
This antagonism brought the negotiations to a standstill—the second round of talks with Pakistan, which Trump had high hopes for, fell through because Iran refused to confirm its participation, and Vice President Jad Vance's mediation ultimately failed.
The deeper obstacle lies in the extreme distrust between the two sides.
Iranian leaders vividly remember Trump's "betrayal": on the eve of two rounds of negotiations, the US and Israel launched military operations, causing Tehran to lose faith in US commitments.
Both Trump and the ruling Iranian clerics are extremely sensitive to "showing weakness," as any compromise could jeopardize their own political legitimacy.
Experts from the Middle East Institute pointed out that Trump's decision to announce a blockade during the ceasefire was a typical strategic mistake—in an attempt to appear tough, he inadvertently provoked Iranian resistance and undermined his own diplomatic efforts.
A compromise proposed by experts—that the US maintain the form of the blockade but ease its enforcement, allowing Iran to package it as a diplomatic victory—has not yet been adopted by either side.
Trump has yet to signal a relaxation of the lockdown, and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has even suggested that the lockdown will be a key tool for gaining the upper hand in negotiations. If Iran insists on a complete lifting of the lockdown, as Vatanka said, it may also fall into a strategic miscalculation because it is "more concerned with political gestures than actual agreements."
Meanwhile, the United States’ Arab allies in the Gulf region are preparing defenses against a potential new round of attacks from Iran once the ceasefire expires, further highlighting the fragility of the situation.
Future Game: The Fate of the Energy Lifeline
The future trajectory of the Strait of Hormuz depends on the interplay of multiple factors.
If the United States forcibly escorts the ships, it could trigger a direct confrontation between the US and Iran, repeating the tragedy of the "tanker war" in which hundreds of ships were attacked and dozens sank. If the US abandons its intervention, the global energy supply chain will continue to face the risk of disruption, and may even trigger the "gray rhino" risk of global stagflation and economic recession.
Currently, the conditions for a ceasefire between the US and Iran are vastly different, international mediation is still ongoing, and the UN Security Council draft resolution on escorting ships, spearheaded by Bahrain, is likely to fail due to opposition from China, Russia, and France.
Even more alarming is that the United States is caught in a vicious cycle of "high-cost attrition warfare": using air defense missiles worth millions of dollars to intercept Iranian drones that cost less than $100,000, making it difficult to balance tactics and strategy, and lacking a clear exit mechanism.
Perhaps, as experts have suggested, only when the US and Iran show goodwill and clarify their strategic goals—with the US abandoning its vague demands and focusing on the safety of the shipping lanes, and Iran facing up to the limitations of its asymmetric warfare capabilities—can the Strait be prevented from becoming a battlefield for large-scale naval warfare and can this global energy lifeline return to peace.
As a result, the market has moved away from a pattern of a weak dollar and gold, and a strong crude oil market. This means that compared to a more intense military confrontation between the two sides, the loss of crude oil shipping capacity is more certain, and the rise in oil prices is currently the most certain outcome in the market.
- Risk Warning and Disclaimer
- The market involves risk, and trading may not be suitable for all investors. This article is for reference only and does not constitute personal investment advice, nor does it take into account certain users’ specific investment objectives, financial situation, or other needs. Any investment decisions made based on this information are at your own risk.
