The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s busiest shipping channels. Following the attacks from the US and Israel, Iran has almost entirely cut off access to the channel. About 20% of the world’s liquified natural gas passes through the strait and so far, Iran has only allowed 21 tankers and a few other vessels to pass through, mostly from China and India. As a result, oil prices have risen to nearly $100 a barrel, up nearly 70% this year.
Several European countries rejected President Donald Trump’s request for them to intervene in helping unblock the strait. Germany's Defense Minister, said, "What does … Donald Trump expect a handful or two handfuls of European frigates to do in the Strait of Hormuz that the powerful U.S. Navy cannot do? This is not our war, we have not started it."
Voices on the right were more likely to argue that European countries should step up and help the US while those on the left more commonly argued that the situation was Trump’s fault and the European position was understandable.
A Washington Examiner (Lean Right bias) piece said, “It’s understandable that American allies are frustrated with Trump. U.S. military action to prevent a resurgent Iranian nuclear capability was almost certainly going to be necessary at some point over the next 12 months. But the regime change ambition of this very significant air campaign has thus far failed to deliver on that objective.”
He added, “Trump’s insistence that NATO members owe him their support also reflects his overly simplistic understanding of the transatlantic alliance. Iranian action in the strait does not trigger NATO defensive commitments. And while the president deserves significant credit for getting NATO allies to finally spend more on defense, he continues to adopt a strategically illiterate assessment of NATO’s purpose and value…Treating NATO as a catch-all partnership is foolish and, measured alongside the U.S. relationship with other allies such as Israel, deeply disingenuous… America and NATO notwithstanding, the Europeans will lose significant credibility in the Middle East and beyond if they refuse to deploy forces to defend their core interests.”
An MS NOW (Left) opinion read, “Trump’s isolation is a crisis of his own making. Just as he hardly made a case to the American public about why the U.S. should go to war with Iran — or what he wanted to do after he started it — he also never made a case to the international community. None of these countries want to endure exorbitant oil prices. But they are also understandably disinclined to incur expenses and potential casualties to secure a waterway that was functioning normally until Trump decided to whimsically begin his ‘little excursion’ in Iran. Doubly so, likely, because it’s unclear if such an effort would be necessary, since Trump’s impulsive decision to start this war could just as impulsively be reversed. Why would other states risk resources and legitimize Trump’s war when the whole thing could wrap up in a moment? And triply so, because Trump can’t even keep his story straight on whether he thinks the U.S. needs assistance. Who wants to work with a mad emperor?”
A New York Post Opinion (Right) said, “Trump says he asked for help from some countries ‘not because we need them’ but to show he was right in predicting that ‘if we ever did need them, they won’t be there.’…Trump’s bid to completely defang the Islamic Republic (which had managed to accumulate enough enriched uranium for 11 nuclear bombs) was long overdue. Western leaders don’t have to endorse his actions, but now that he has acted, they owe it to America to stand by him — and step up. This is a global problem, if ever there was one. It needs a global response.”
A writer in the Atlantic (Left) argued that the Trump administration missed the effects of the Strait of Hormuz because it underestimated Iran. “Trump is now learning what Putin found out in Ukraine: that most leaders who start a war with an assumption of a quick and decisive victory are underestimating the enemy. Some militaries are too confident in their own capacity to overwhelm any hostile army; some are drawn from societies that simply look down on their enemies. Discounting the enemy’s ability to adapt is also a trait of megalomaniacal leaders—many of whom choose advisers who tell them what they want to hear and suppress information that would make them unhappy.”
.png.webp)
