For decades, American military planners have operated on a simple assumption: that overwhelming force, applied decisively, could resolve almost any crisis in the Persian Gulf. Iran, it turns out, has spent years making that assumption obsolete — not by building a navy capable of matching America’s, but by turning a narrow strip of water into the world’s most expensive dare.

What Iranian commanders have constructed in and around the Strait of Hormuz — the 21-mile-wide chokepoint through which roughly a quarter of the world’s seaborne oil passes each day — is not a conventional defense.

It is an economic booby trap, engineered less to defeat the United States Navy than to make the cost of confrontation appear greater than the cost of concession.

It is an economic booby trap, engineered less to defeat the United States Navy than to make the cost of confrontation appear greater than the cost of concession.

The distinction matters enormously, and Washington is paying a great deal of attention to Iran’s calculations. 

The threat’s architecture is instructive. From the disputed islands of Abu Musa and the islands of Tunbs — seized from the United Arab Emirates in 1971 and never returned — Tehran has positioned drone swarms capable of reaching targets within minutes, a fleet of more than twenty mini-submarines, and an estimated stockpile of 6,000 naval mines. Chinese surveillance vessels operating nearby provide real-time targeting data, closing the intelligence gap that American forces have historically enjoyed and exploited. None of this is designed to win a naval battle. All of it is designed to make one unthinkably expensive.

READ: Netanyahu tells Knesset Israel facing “very complex, difficult days” amid Iran tensions

Admiral Mike Mullen, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, once described the Strait as “the world’s most important energy chokepoint.” Iran has treated that description as a blueprint.

Even a partial or temporary closure would send oil prices surging from roughly $64 a barrel to somewhere between $120 and $130, by most credible estimates.

Even a partial or temporary closure would send oil prices surging from roughly $64 a barrel to somewhere between $120 and $130, by most credible estimates.

Global strategic reserves could buffer the shock for perhaps two months. Alternative pipelines through Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates can divert perhaps eight million barrels a day. The Strait carries twenty million.

“Control oil and you control nations,” Henry Kissinger observed — a formulation that has aged uncomfortably well. Iran’s leadership has clearly internalized the lesson and built a military doctrine around it.

What makes the calculus more treacherous is China’s role. Beijing is not a passive observer. Some 84 percent of the oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) moving through the Strait is bound for Asian markets; China alone depends on the passage for roughly a quarter of its total energy supply. The Chinese destroyer patrolling alongside Iranian forces is not an act of revolutionary solidarity. It is an act of national interest — a move to protect supply lines Beijing cannot afford to lose, while simultaneously raising the diplomatic and military costs for Washington of any military action.

Together, Iran, Russia, and China have constructed what some analysts have taken to calling an “Iron Triangle” — not a formal alliance, but a convergence of interests designed to reshape the terms on which American power operates in the region.

Together, Iran, Russia, and China have constructed what some analysts have taken to calling an “Iron Triangle” — not a formal alliance, but a convergence of interests designed to reshape the terms on which American power operates in the region.

The goal is not a decisive military confrontation. It is something more patient and more dangerous: forcing Washington to negotiate not exactly from a position of weakness, but under the quiet, compounding pressure of economic necessity.

READ: 12 F-22 fighter jets land in Israel amid US tensions with Iran

The historical echoes are neither subtle nor accidental. In 1956, Britain and France discovered at Suez that military capability and geopolitical leverage are not the same thing — that an army can win every engagement and still lose the war that matters. In 1973, OPEC demonstrated that a barrel of oil could accomplish what no tank division could, bringing Western economies to their knees without a single shot fired across a recognized border. Iran is drawing on both lessons, wagering that the spectre of inflation, energy disruption, and market instability will concentrate American minds more effectively than any ballistic missile.

The United States is not without options. American forces retain the capacity to destroy Iranian naval assets, neutralize drone swarms, clear mine fields, and keep the Strait open by force. Senior military officials are careful to say so, and they are not wrong.

But the deeper challenge Iran has constructed is not military. It is conceptual. “A naval fleet,” as one former senior Pentagon official put it privately, “is a weapon of offense — not a hedge against global market volatility.” The question confronting Washington is not whether it can strike Iran. It is whether striking Iran would leave the United States and the world economy worse off than the alternative: a negotiated arrangement, however imperfect and however unsatisfying, that constrains Iranian ambitions while preserving the flow of oil that keeps global markets functioning.

That is the trap Tehran has carefully and patiently built. It is designed to work not by defeating American power, but by redirecting it — by making the exercise of that power more costly than its restraint. Whether Washington can think its way out of the trap, or whether it will reach, as it so often has, for the tools it knows best, may turn out to be one of the defining strategic questions of this decade.

Geography, in the end, does not negotiate. But the men who control it do.

OPINION: Turkey as Israel’s “next Iran”? A strategic rivalry reconsidered

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

© Middle East Monitor