The Strait of Hormuz was open to the world before the Iran war. Then came a conflict pushed into motion by the United States and Israel. In response, Iran moved to close or restrict the Strait. Now, the United States is calling upon the very same world to come together and help reopen it. If this is not insanity, what is?

But perhaps the deeper question is not whether this is insanity. Perhaps the real question is, what kind of world have we built where this appears normal? There is an old philosophical paradox, when the arsonist returns as the firefighter, does he become a saviour, or does the fire still belong to him? The present crisis around the Strait of Hormuz fits uncomfortably within this paradox. Power has not merely acted; it has acted in a way that dissolves the boundary between cause and cure.

For years, the Strait remained open under tension. Sanctions tightened, rhetoric sharpened, threats escalated, but the line was not crossed. There existed, however fragile, a silent understanding of limits. That understanding was not born of goodwill, but of mutual awareness, that some actions unleash consequences too vast to control. Yet history shows that power often tests limits not because it must, but because it can.

The United States and Israel, secure in military superiority, chose escalation in a region where equilibrium was already delicate. Such decisions are rarely impulsive; they are calculated. But calculation, in the realm of geopolitics, often suffers from a dangerous illusion, the belief that consequences can be managed after they are triggered.

This is where philosophy meets reality. The Greek tragedians wrote of hubris, the arrogance of power that blinds itself to limits, inviting inevitable downfall. In modern terms, hubris manifests not as ignorance, but as overconfidence. It is the belief that one can destabilize a region and still dictate the terms of its stability.

Iran’s response, then, is not an anomaly. It is the predictable unfolding of pressure. When a state cannot match force with force, it turns to asymmetry. Geography becomes its argument. The Strait of Hormuz becomes its voice. In closing it, Iran is not merely acting, it is communicating, that vulnerability, when cornered, transforms into leverage.

And yet, instead of confronting this chain of cause and consequence, the narrative shifts. The United States now invokes the language of global order. It speaks of open seas, secure trade routes, and shared responsibility. These are, in themselves, universal goods. But when articulated without acknowledging the origins of disruption, they begin to resemble something else, not principles, but instruments. This is the quiet transformation of ethics into strategy.

Philosophers have long warned of this moment, when morality is not abandoned, but repurposed. When words like “freedom” and “security” are used not to reflect reality, but to reshape its perception. The call to reopen the Strait of Hormuz is framed as a collective duty, yet the responsibility for its closure is carefully diffused. In such a world, responsibility does not disappear, it dissolves. And when responsibility dissolves, so does accountability.

This is why the situation feels deeply unsettling. Not because it lacks logic, but because its logic is morally inverted. Those who act bear less visible cost. Those who did not act bear the consequences. The global community becomes both audience and participant, drawn into resolving a crisis it neither initiated nor consented to.

For regions far-off from the conflict, the implications are immediate and tangible. A disrupted Strait means rising fuel prices, economic strain, and hardship that filters down to the most ordinary lives. The decisions of power echo in kitchens, in markets, in classrooms, far removed from the rooms where those decisions were made.

This raises a profound ethical question, can a system be called rational if its burdens are borne by those who had no role in shaping it? Perhaps what we are witnessing is not insanity in the clinical sense, but something more enduring, a structured irrationality. A world order that appears logical within its own framework, yet produces outcomes that defy fairness, balance, and moral coherence.

It is a system where power disrupts, and interdependence compels others to repair. Where crises are not accidents, but recurring consequences. Where the cycle continues, not because it is just, but because it is normalized. The Strait of Hormuz, in this moment, is more than a geopolitical chokepoint. It is a philosophical mirror. It reflects a world where might precedes right, and where right is later invoked to manage the fallout of might. And so we return to the opening question. Is this insanity?

If insanity means the absence of reason, then no, there is reason here, cold and calculated. But if insanity is the repetition of actions that predictably produce crisis, followed by appeals to fix them without confronting their origin, then perhaps the word is not misplaced.

What we are witnessing is not chaos. It is a pattern.

And until that pattern is questioned, not just politically, but philosophically, we will continue to live in a world where the arsonist returns as the firefighter, and the flames are called a shared problem. That, more than anything else, is why this moment feels like insanity at its peak.

Obeida Ashraf is a teacher by profession.

© Greater Kashmir