Just Go and Get Your OWN Oil: Trump, Hormuz & the End of Guaranteed Alliances

Statements by Donald Trump that U.S. allies should “secure their own oil” in the area of the Strait of Hormuz reflect profound changes in international politics and energy security.

Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump has lashed out at the UK and other countries, telling them to “go get your own oil” from the Strait of Hormuz. “You’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself; the USA won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us,” he wrote in a Truth Social post.

“I have a suggestion for you: all those countries that can’t get jet fuel because of the Strait of Hormuz, like the UK, which refused to get involved in the decapitation we did for you: 1) Buy from the US—we have plenty, and 2) build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT…the USA won’t be there to help you anymore…. Go get your own oil!’’

“I have a suggestion for you: all those countries that can’t get jet fuel because of the Strait of Hormuz, like the UK, which refused to get involved in the decapitation we did for you: 1) Buy from the US—we have plenty, and 2) build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT…the USA won’t be there to help you anymore…. Go get your own oil!’’

The hard part is done!

The US won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us. Iran, in his rhetoric, is decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil. Either Trump is being practical, or he is acting out of desperation, as Trump has picked a fight in Iran that he and Israel cannot finish without destroying the region and the world’s economy. It is as if his whole purpose in starting the fight with Iran in the first place was for other reasons, to make the US Great Again at the expense of others, friends and foes alike.

Tip of the iceberg as to motivations

Helping Israel with its GREATER ISRAEL plans, seizing lands from the West Bank, and Israel expanding its territory into Lebanon. However, it seems like the world’s economy has been Trump’s target from the onset, knowing if he can destabilize markets, economic systems that functioned, it would be a way to cover for America’s debts, trying to keep the US dollar as a world currency, especially now that the mechanism of a petro-dollar has been destroyed by the US not being willing to protect its Gulf State allies that had hosted US bases.

Either Donald Trump is the most naive and stupid of presidents in US history, or he’s the most cunning and street smart in knowing how to play all ends against the middle. Not only did he likely know that the US would not suffer significantly due to its own relative energy independence, but higher prices would also mean that US energy would fill the gap.

This is why he advocated for ‘Buy American’ – and too, he may have, including family and friends, to profit from ups and downs in the stock market, which are driven by his own rhetoric and are based on the day of the week,

However, that does not say much for the plight of average working-class Americans, as they are expendable in the greater scheme of things, as much as are erstwhile allies, including the EU and the UK. They, and the rest of the world, are basically considered as collateral damage in such schemes.

Trump’s remarks should be considered less as practical policy advice and more as a stark reflection of a shifting geopolitical mindset—one that prioritizes transactional self-interest over long-standing alliances. Whether interpreted as a blunt wakeup call or a calculated provocation, the message signals a world in which traditional security guarantees and cooperative economic frameworks are eroding.

For the UK and others, the implication is not that they should literally “go and take” resources, but that reliance on global stability—once underwritten by U.S. power—can no longer be assumed. The deeper issue exposed here is the fragility of interconnected energy and financial markets and the risks of a system increasingly driven by unilateral action rather than coordination.

The US is too reckless and cannot be considered a reliable partner, not in its actions that impact Europe, nor in its decision-making. Recent actions have been instigated by the US without considering the potential fallout, i.e., how the reaction would impact its friends more than its foes, and negatively.

Not only should the UK and EU look to a new format for strategic alliances, but the world at large should start looking to a new world order. And one that cannot be held hostage by the actions of the mood swings of one aging president who is just hanging onto the tail of the bull for the ride.

Reaction and Blowback

Ultimately, the statement reflects a lack of unity among friends, uncertainty, and even fear: is this the byproduct of short-term political rhetoric or part of a deliberate strategy to reshape global order in a way that benefits U.S. leverage at the expense of collective stability? It really doesn’t matter at this point, stage of the game, as the damage is done. The consequence is the same—a more volatile, fragmented world where nations must reconsider how they secure energy, and alliances and maintain economic resilience in the absence of dependable and trusted leadership.

Delivered in the midst of heightened tensions involving Iran and disruptions to two of the world’s most critical sea chokepoints, the Red Sea and Persian Gulf. The statement should not be considered solely as literal policy guidance, but as a revealing snapshot of a broader shift in geopolitical thinking and exit strategy from the region on the part of the US. This brings to the forefront some urgent questions about the future of alliances, global energy security, and the role the United States intends to play in both.

In much of the immediate commentary, Trump’s tone has been understood as one of frustration—particularly toward European allies such as the United Kingdom and France, which refused to get involved in recent U.S. military actions.

Trump’s message appeared to draw a sharp line: countries that depend on stable oil flows but do not contribute to maintaining them should no longer expect American protection. Such an interpretation aligns with a longstanding theme in Trump’s political rhetoric, in which alliances are viewed through a transactional lens, a short-term view, rather than as enduring strategic commitments.

Beyond frustration, analysts have pointed to a more consequential signal embedded in the remarks: a potential retreat from the United States’ traditional role as guarantor of global trade routes.

For decades, U.S. naval power has underwritten the security of the Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant portion of the world’s oil supply passes. Trump’s suggestion that others should take responsibility for securing access to energy resources has been read by some as an indication that this era may be drawing to a close.

Such a shift would have far-reaching implications, forcing energy-dependent economies in Europe and Asia to reconsider their strategic posture in a more uncertain and fragmented environment.

Trump’s comments encapsulate a moment of confused transition. Whether driven by frustration, strategic calculation, or a combination of both, they point toward a world in which the assumptions underpinning global stability are increasingly in flux.

For allies accustomed to relying on U.S. leadership, often to their disadvantage, the message is unmistakable: the burden of securing energy and economic resilience may no longer be shared as it once was. The long-term consequences of that shift—both for international order and for the balance of power—are only beginning to come into full focus.

Trump’s challenge to “go get your own oil” may prove less a throwaway provocation than a defining signal of the times—a world where power no longer guarantees protection, alliances come with a price tag, and stability and friendship itself are negotiable. The real question is no longer whether others can secure the oil, but whether any nation can afford the cost of a system where everyone is told to fend for themselves—and where the rules of the game can change with a single mood swing post.

Jeffrey K. Silverman is a freelance journalist and international development specialist, BSc, MSc, based for 30 years in Georgia and the former Soviet

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

© New Eastern Outlook