The media is currently obsessing over a fantasy. Reports suggesting that Donald Trump plans a "partnership" with Iran over the Strait of Hormuz following a ceasefire are not just optimistic—they are structurally illiterate. This narrative assumes that the global energy trade functions like a real estate deal where two rivals split the commission. It doesn't.
I have watched analysts misjudge Middle Eastern logistics for decades, usually by ignoring the physics of the water and the internal pressures of the IRGC. Thinking the U.S. and Iran will "partner" to secure the world's most vital chokepoint is like expecting a shark and a cage diver to start a joint venture in tourism. It ignores the fundamental reason the friction exists in the first place.
The Myth of Mutual Interests
The lazy consensus suggests that because both the U.S. and Iran want "stability" for oil prices, they have a natural path to cooperation. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Iranian leverage. For Tehran, the ability to threaten the Strait of Hormuz is their only true currency in international negotiations.
If they "partner" with Trump to secure the Strait, they effectively hand over their only remaining weapon. They lose the "madman" advantage that keeps the West at the bargaining table. Why would a regime that has survived decades of sanctions suddenly trade its strongest geopolitical asset for a handshake and a "plan"? They wouldn't.
Trump’s approach has always been about maximum pressure followed by a transactional exit. But you cannot transact with a power whose entire identity is built on being the resistance to your presence. The Strait of Hormuz isn't a business asset; it's a theological and nationalistic barricade.
The Math of the Chokepoint
Let’s look at the actual numbers that the "partnership" advocates ignore. Roughly 21 million barrels of oil pass through the Strait of Hormuz every day. That is about 21% of global petroleum liquid consumption.
The Strait is only 21 miles wide at its narrowest point, with shipping lanes just two miles wide in either direction. Iran doesn't need a high-tech navy to shut this down. They need "suicide" boats, sea mines, and shore-based missiles.
- The Cost of "Partnership": For the U.S. to truly partner with Iran, it would have to recognize Iran as the regional hegemon.
- The Risk of Betrayal: Any security arrangement would be a tactical pause, not a strategic shift.
- The Market Reaction: Markets don't crave a fragile U.S.-Iran alliance; they crave the total absence of Iran's ability to interfere.
Imagine a scenario where Trump offers to de-escalate sanctions in exchange for joint patrols. Within six months, a "rogue" element of the IRGC would likely provoke a skirmish to test American resolve. In the world of high-stakes logistics, a partnership with a bad actor is just a slow-motion hostage situation.
Energy Independence is the Real Trump Card
The competitor's article misses the most obvious shift in the room: the U.S. doesn't actually need the Strait of Hormuz like it used to.
In the 1990s, a shutdown was an existential threat to the American economy. Today, the U.S. is the world’s largest producer of crude oil. While a spike in global prices would hurt, the U.S. is now insulated in a way that China and Europe are not.
Trump’s true strategy isn't partnership—it’s irrelevance. By doubling down on domestic "drill, baby, drill" policies, he makes the Strait of Hormuz a "them" problem rather than an "us" problem. Why would he sign a complex, politically toxic partnership with Tehran when he can just let the Chinese—who get the bulk of their energy through that Strait—deal with the headache of policing it?
Why the "Ceasefire" Narrative is Flawed
The idea that a ceasefire in Gaza or Lebanon leads directly to a U.S.-Iran maritime pact is a massive leap in logic.
- Proxies vs. Principals: Iran uses proxies (Houthis, Hezbollah) precisely so they have "plausible deniability." A formal partnership kills that deniability.
- The Israel Factor: There is zero chance that a Trump administration maintains its "best friend" status with Israel while co-managing the world's most sensitive waterway with the regime that wants to erase Israel from the map.
- The Dollar Hegemony: Iran wants to bypass the dollar. Trump wants to protect it. You cannot partner on trade routes with a nation trying to burn down your financial house.
I've sat in rooms where "groundbreaking" deals were proposed based on the idea that everyone is a rational economic actor. They aren't. Iran is a revolutionary actor. Trump is a disruptive actor. Neither of these personalities is built for the quiet, bureaucratic maintenance required for a joint maritime security force.
The Hidden Cost of Stability
If Trump were to pursue this "partnership," he would effectively be subsidizing the Iranian economy. Securing the Strait lowers the insurance premiums for Iranian tankers. It legitimizes their navy. It provides them with a seat at the table they haven't earned.
The smarter play—the one that fits the "America First" ethos—is to force the regional players to pay for their own security. If Saudi Arabia and the UAE want the Strait open, they should be the ones on the front line, not American sailors in a "partnership" with their sworn enemies.
The Fallacy of the "Big Plan"
Journalists love the "Big Plan" trope. It suggests there is a master blueprint sitting in Mar-a-Lago that solves forty years of Middle Eastern animosity with one clever naval agreement.
The reality is messier. Foreign policy under Trump is about leverage and theater. A "partnership" talk is likely just a feint to see how much the Iranians are willing to give up while they are under the boot of sanctions. It’s a negotiation tactic, not a governance strategy.
We see this pattern constantly:
- Talk of a "historic deal."
- Extreme demands that the other side can't possibly meet.
- A walk-away that leaves the opponent more isolated than before.
The Pivot to Reality
Stop asking how the U.S. will work with Iran to secure the Strait. Start asking why we are still pretending the Strait is our responsibility.
The true disruption isn't a partnership; it's an American withdrawal from the role of global maritime policeman. If the Strait of Hormuz closes, the lights go out in Beijing, not Boston. Trump knows this. His "partnership" talk is likely a way to troll the globalist establishment while he prepares to hand the bill for Middle Eastern security to the people who actually live there.
The "partnership" mentioned in headlines is a ghost. It’s a placeholder for a vacuum of power that no one is ready to admit exists. If you are betting on a new era of U.S.-Iran cooperation on the high seas, you aren't just reading the wrong map—you're in the wrong ocean.
The Strait of Hormuz will remain a flashpoint because tension is more valuable to the Iranian regime than peace could ever be. Peace requires them to govern. Tension allows them to survive. Trump isn't going to fix that with a "partnership" deal, and he likely has no intention of trying.
He knows that in a fight between a "partnership" and a blockade, the one who doesn't need the oil wins.
Get ready for more volatility, not a handshake. The era of the U.S. guaranteeing the safety of its enemies' trade routes is ending. That is the real plan.
Stop looking for a deal and start looking for the exit.
