By Lina Irawan 
This latest ultimatum comes at a time when the bedrock of transatlantic cooperation has already been severely eroded by years of transactional diplomacy and sharp rhetoric from the U.S. President. Trump’s demand, delivered to the Financial Times, was stark: “It’s only appropriate that people who are the beneficiaries of the Strait will help to make sure that nothing bad happens there.” He further intensified the pressure, suggesting that a lack of compliance or a "negative response" would be "very bad for the future of NATO," hinting at a potential delay in his summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping amidst the escalating global crisis.
A History of Strain: From Greenland to Global Conflict
The current crisis over the Strait of Hormuz is not an isolated incident but rather the latest and most perilous chapter in a fraught relationship between President Trump and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Just two months prior, the alliance was rocked by what became known as the "Greenland Crisis." President Trump, citing strategic interests in the Arctic and a desire to expand U.S. territorial holdings, had publicly floated the idea of purchasing Greenland from Denmark, a NATO ally. When Denmark, understandably, rejected the overture as "absurd," Trump reacted with fury, canceling a state visit and threatening economic repercussions. Though he eventually backed down from the most extreme threats of tariffs and military action, the episode left many European leaders questioning the reliability and even the sanity of U.S. foreign policy, viewing it as a clear breach of diplomatic protocol and alliance solidarity.
This followed a protracted period of trade disputes initiated by the Trump administration last year, which saw the U.S. impose tariffs on steel and aluminum from European allies, ostensibly on national security grounds. These actions were widely seen as undermining global trade norms and punishing partners rather than adversaries, further alienating key NATO members and fostering a climate of distrust. Allies began a serious re-evaluation of the global order and their long-term future with the U.S., perceiving a shift from a predictable, rules-based international system to one governed by unilateral demands and transactional loyalty.
Against this backdrop, Trump’s latest call for NATO to intervene in the Strait of Hormuz is met with a mixture of exasperation and profound concern. He admitted to the FT his pessimism about U.S. allies coming to his aid, yet simultaneously suggested NATO owes him, despite years of berating member states for not meeting defense spending targets and even belittling their sacrifices fighting alongside the U.S. in Afghanistan.
"We’ve been very sweet," Trump asserted, employing his characteristic blend of self-praise and grievance. "We didn’t have to help them with Ukraine. Ukraine is thousands of miles away from us… But we helped them. Now we’ll see if they help us. Because I’ve long said that we’ll be there for them but they won’t be there for us. And I’m not sure that they’d be there.” This transactional view of alliances, where past U.S. actions (even if aligned with broader Western security interests) are framed as personal favors, deeply rankles European capitals who view NATO as a collective security pact based on shared values and mutual defense, not a protection racket.
The Strait of Hormuz: A Global Chokepoint Under Siege
The urgency of Trump’s demand stems from the critical situation in the Strait of Hormuz. Following the U.S. and Israeli military campaign against Iran – a conflict that reportedly decimated significant portions of Iran’s conventional military capabilities but failed to neutralize its asymmetric warfare assets – Tehran has retaliated by effectively closing the Strait. This narrow waterway, connecting the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea, is the world’s most important oil transit chokepoint. Approximately one-fifth of the world’s total consumption of petroleum liquids and a significant portion of the world’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) flow through it daily. Any disruption here sends shockwaves across global energy markets and supply chains.
Iran’s strategy, as detailed by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, is not a complete closure but a selective blockade, asserting a "gatekeeper role" by choosing which vessels may pass. This tactic aims to inflict maximum economic pain on its adversaries while demonstrating its continued ability to exert leverage despite military setbacks. Oil prices have soared to unprecedented levels, with Wall Street analysts warning that crude could hit $150 a barrel in a prolonged conflict, threatening to trigger a global recession far more severe than any seen in decades. The impact on inflation, consumer prices, and industrial output worldwide would be catastrophic.
Crucially, while commercial shipping from many nations remains bottled up in the Gulf, reports indicate that Iran is selectively allowing its own oil shipments to reach its top customer, China. This ensures a critical revenue stream for Tehran, mitigating some of the economic pressures from international sanctions, while simultaneously exacerbating the global energy crisis. By contrast, major oil producers like Saudi Arabia and Iraq, whose economies are heavily reliant on oil exports, have been forced to pump less due with nowhere left to stash their output, creating a profound imbalance in the global energy market.
In response, President Trump ordered an attack on military sites on Kharg Island, Iran’s primary oil export terminal, further upping the ante. Concurrently, his administration is attempting to assemble a naval coalition to reopen the strait. Sources told the Wall Street Journal that an escort mission involving multiple countries could be announced soon. Trump had previously called on China, France, Japan, South Korea, Britain, and others to dispatch warships, but responses have been largely non-committal, reflecting the deep international reluctance to be drawn into a U.S.-initiated conflict. While the U.K. and the Gulf Cooperation Council have issued statements affirming their right to defend their security, concrete military commitments for a joint mission in Hormuz remain elusive.
The Perils of Naval Intervention: A "Kill Box" Scenario
The reluctance of allies is well-founded, as U.S. Navy officials themselves have grimly dubbed the Strait of Hormuz a “kill box.” This term underscores the extreme military threat posed by Iran’s asymmetric capabilities. Despite the decimation of its conventional navy, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) maintains a formidable array of defensive and offensive assets tailored for the narrow, shallow waters of the Strait: thousands of naval mines, sophisticated aerial and underwater drones, surface drones, shore-based anti-ship missiles, and swarms of small, fast-attack boats. These assets collectively present an immense danger to commercial shipping and multi-billion-dollar warships alike, making any escort mission incredibly hazardous. Indeed, the U.S. Navy has reportedly turned down requests from shipping companies to provide protection, acknowledging the prohibitive risks.
European officials, while considering a naval mission, admit that their current effort to protect shipping in the Red Sea, Operation Aspides, "hasn’t been effective" against Houthi attacks. German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul expressed deep skepticism, stating, “That’s why I’m very skeptical whether an expansion of Aspides into the Strait of Hormuz could provide more security,” adding definitively that Germany would not take an active role in the war. This highlights the severe challenges faced even by well-resourced navies against determined asymmetric threats in constricted waterways.
Defense experts are unanimous: a proper naval escort mission through the Strait of Hormuz would require an immense commitment of resources. Jennifer Parker, founder of Barrier Strategic Advisory and a Royal Australian Navy veteran, elaborated on the complexities in a recent analysis. The Strait is navigationally constrained, she explained, meaning reaction times to attacks from the coast are incredibly short. "Responding to coastal launch sites as they emerge would require coordinated strike operations ashore and perhaps marines – the latter a clear escalation risk," Parker wrote. "Without significantly degrading Iran’s UAV and USV capability, escorts alone are unlikely to enable the safe transit of large numbers of tankers.”
Such an operation would demand not only significant numbers of warships equipped with advanced air defense and anti-surface capabilities but also extensive combat air patrols, diverting critical air assets from other missions. Furthermore, the threat of naval mines remains paramount. Despite the U.S. military’s efforts against Iran’s conventional forces, the IRGC can still rapidly deploy mines using small boats, and even a few strategically placed mines can effectively scare away commercial traffic, paralyzing maritime trade.
The U.S. mine countermeasures (MCM) capabilities have, ironically, atrophied over the years. The fleet of dedicated minesweepers has shrunk, and those remaining are largely stationed in Asia, making their rapid deployment to the Gulf problematic. A new class of littoral combat ships (LCS) was designed with modular minesweeping capabilities, but these systems have yet to be proven in actual combat scenarios, adding another layer of uncertainty.
Caitlin Talmadge, a political science professor at MIT, underscored the grim reality in Foreign Affairs, noting, “Historically, mine clearance has been slow, and it is almost impossible to do under fire.” She echoed Parker’s assessment that effectively defending the Strait in a shooting war might necessitate the U.S. taking control of the Iranian coast by inserting Marines or special operations forces – a move that would represent a massive escalation.
Indeed, the U.S. is deploying a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) with over 2,000 troops to the Mideast, sparking speculation among analysts about the possibility of an amphibious attack on Kharg Island to neutralize Iranian coastal defenses and mining capabilities. However, such an operation would be fraught with extreme risks and almost certainly guarantee a further expansion of the conflict.
Suboptimal Choices and the Looming Catastrophe
"In short, if Iran effectively mines the strait, all U.S. response options are suboptimal," Talmadge warned. The dilemma is stark: direct military intervention to clear the Strait risks massive escalation and heavy casualties, while inaction guarantees devastating economic consequences.
Talmadge emphasized that the United States should "focus aggressively on preventing Iranian mine-laying in the first place and finding an off-ramp from the larger war." This highlights the critical need for de-escalation and diplomatic solutions, rather than purely military ones, a path that President Trump’s current rhetoric and actions seem to be actively undermining. If Washington fails to find a diplomatic solution, Talmadge concluded, it should expect that ongoing harassment of traffic in the strait "will be but one of a number of responses that Iran has long prepared and will now deploy.”
The current crisis over the Strait of Hormuz represents an unprecedented challenge to global security and economic stability. President Trump’s demands on NATO, coming after years of strained relations and recent unilateral actions, have pushed the alliance to a breaking point. With the global economy teetering on the brink of a recession due to soaring oil prices, and the military options for securing the Strait fraught with immense risks of escalation, the international community faces a precarious future. The choices made in the coming days and weeks will not only determine the fate of the Strait of Hormuz but also the very structure of the global order and the future of transatlantic cooperation.