Trump escalates pressure on Iran over Strait of Hormuz

Trump intensifies pressure on Iran as standoff shifts to Strait of Hormuz

Donald Trump has shaken up the geopolitical board again with a message directed at Iran, announcing a "Power Plant Day and Bridge Day" and demanding the opening of the Strait of Hormuz under threat that the country will otherwise live "in hell." The rhetoric is extreme but not new. Observers of such standoffs recall that the former president used incendiary language toward North Korea in 2017 — "fire and fury," "Rocket Man" — which ended with the first summit between a US president and a North Korean leader in 2018. The same script was repeated with Venezuela: designating Maduro as leader of a terrorist organization, offering a $50 million reward, and finally executing a military operation that captured him on January 3, 2026.

The question hovering over the analysis is whether that playbook works with Tehran. The Iranian regime is neither North Korea nor Venezuela. It has 90 million inhabitants, conventional military capacity, and a network of regional allies that multiply the cost of any adventure. Maximum pressure can bend an isolated leader, but it can also rally support around a regime that has spent four decades preparing for such a scenario.

What does Iran risk if it doesn't yield?

Trump's message is not an isolated declaration. It is part of a coercion strategy combining economic threats, military deployment, and public ultimatums. In the Iranian case, the stated goal is to prevent Tehran from closing the Strait of Hormuz, the main outlet for Gulf oil. If Iran blocks this passage, crude prices spike and the global economy enters uncharted territory.

Some argue that the only way to negotiate with regimes financing terrorism is through credible and disproportionate threats. This argument rests on two precedents Trump himself cites: North Korea and Venezuela. In both cases, maximum pressure — economic, military, and personal — preceded a change in behavior. Kim Jong Un stopped launching missiles and sat down to negotiate. Maduro ended up detained and transferred to New York.

The most optimistic calculation assumes that Iran, facing the prospect of having its energy and communications infrastructure destroyed, will choose to yield. The pessimistic scenario starts from a different premise: that a theocratic regime with 90 million people and the memory of an eight-year war against Iraq — with one million dead — does not bow to threats but digs in.

Oil as the backdrop

Behind the rhetoric lies a primary economic issue. Iran is one of the world's largest crude producers and controls the Strait of Hormuz, through which passes a substantial portion of the oil consumed by Europe and Asia. Any interruption of this flow has immediate consequences for prices.

Analyses circulating these days suggest that a prolonged closure of the strait could push barrels to $170 and force an end to the conflict through economic exhaustion. It is a prediction, not a fait accompli, but it measures the magnitude of the standoff.

The other economic derivative is less visible and deeper. If oil-buying countries accelerate the substitution of the dollar in energy transactions, the impact on US debt financing could be significant. This is an argument repeated in analyses critical of Washington's strategy: every military threat against a crude producer pushes buyers to seek alternatives to the greenback.

The precedent no one wants to repeat

The comparison with North Korea is inevitable but misleading. In 2017, Kim Jong Un led an impoverished, isolated country without conventional retaliatory capacity beyond its nuclear arsenal. Iran, however, has a population of 90 million, its own military industry, and a network of allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen that can open simultaneous fronts.

The Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s left one million Iranian dead. This figure, repeated in analyses, is not historical trivia: it explains why Tehran does not bow to threats. A regime that resisted eight years of war against a country armed by the United States will not surrender to an ultimatum.

The question hovering over the analysis is what happens if the pressure fails. If Iran does not yield, Trump must decide whether to carry out his threats or remain in rhetoric. The first option implies an open war with unpredictable consequences. The second weakens his credibility for future standoffs.

What is at stake for Europe

Europe watches the standoff with concern. The Old Continent depends on oil leaving the Gulf, and any escalation has an immediate cost in energy prices. Summer flights are already in the air: some airlines have warned that a prolonged conflict in Iran could affect European routes.

The European position is uncomfortable. On one hand, it shares with Washington the goal of preventing Iran from closing the strait. On the other, it lacks the military capacity to intervene and relies on diplomacy to influence the outcome. The margin for maneuver is narrow.

In this context, Trump's strategy faces a classic dilemma: maximum pressure may work with isolated regimes, but it may also trigger an escalation that no one controls. The North Korea precedent ended in a summit. The Venezuela one, in capture. The Iran one remains unwritten.

---

If history serves as a guide, Trump has two precedents in his favor. If geography and demographics prevail, Iran is neither North Korea nor Venezuela. The standoff over the Strait of Hormuz will not be resolved in a tweet, but the pressure is already underway. What happens in the coming weeks will determine if the coercion playbook works once more or crashes against a regime that has spent four decades preparing for this moment.