US escalates tension in the Gulf and increases risk of regional war

After the failure of ceasefire negotiations held in Islamabad, Pakistan, United States President Donald Trump announced that the American Navy will begin blocking all ships that attempt to enter or leave the Strait of Hormuz. The statement was made in a post on social media, in which Trump stated that the measure comes into force “with immediate effect”.

Donald Trump’s statement about a possible blockade of the Strait of Hormuz represents a qualitative leap in the crisis. This is a measure that, in addition to lacking support in international law, would imply the interruption of one of the most important energy routes on the planet — through which around 20% of the world’s oil transits.

By proposing to prevent the circulation of ships, Washington assumes a stance of global coercion, affecting not only Iran, but the entire international economy. The measure, in practice, constitutes a form of economic blockade with the potential to trigger direct confrontation.

Contradictions in the US narrative

The North American discourse reveals evident inconsistencies. While claiming to seek “freedom of navigation”, the US government precisely proposes to restrict it. The rhetoric of combating supposed “Iranian extortion” contrasts with the very initiative of military control of an international route.

Furthermore, the insistence on the nuclear issue appears dissociated from concrete negotiations. Although Washington points to the Iranian program as a central focus, its recent actions prioritize military and economic pressure, shifting the diplomatic axis.

China, Russia and the dispute for multipolarity

The threat to block the Strait of Hormuz is not an isolated measure, but part of an offensive to reconfigure the power map in the Persian Gulf. By trying to prevent Iran from “tolling” or conditioning the transit of vessels, the US is actually seeking to ensure that no rival power — especially China and Russia — can use the route as an instrument of geopolitical influence.

The presence of China and Russia in the Middle East has grown steadily. Beijing is the biggest buyer of Iranian oil and has signed 25-year cooperation agreements with Tehran, including investments in infrastructure and energy. Moscow, in turn, maintains military and technological partnerships with Iran, in addition to coordinating positions in forums such as the BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

Iran reinforces sovereignty and distrust

On the Iranian side, the response is marked by the reaffirmation of sovereignty and the rejection of any external interference. Authorities such as Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf highlighted that trust in the United States was definitively broken after successive failed negotiation attempts.

Tehran maintains that control of the strait is a national strategic issue and rejects proposals for joint administration with foreign powers. The Iranian position is anchored in the argument of territorial defense and the history of external interventions in the region.

International support and geopolitical rearrangement

The crisis also accelerates movements on the international board. Contact between Vladimir Putin and the Iranian president signals a strengthening of relations, with Moscow defending a ceasefire under terms closer to Tehran’s interests.

The claim that Iran does not have the legitimacy to control or condition the flow of ships in the Strait of Hormuz ignores fundamental elements of international law:

This alignment indicates that the escalation promoted by the US can strengthen alternative blocs, deepening geopolitical divisions and reducing the space for multilateral solutions.

Iran’s legitimacy: sovereignty, defense and international law

• Territorial sovereignty: The Strait of Hormuz is made up of territorial waters and exclusive economic zones of Iran and Oman. According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), coastal states exercise sovereignty over their territorial waters and can regulate the passage of vessels, as long as the right of innocent passage is respected.
• Legitimate defensive measure: Iran’s closure of the strait was a response to more than 40 days of military attacks by the US and Israel, which included bombing civilian infrastructure, assassinating officials and attempting to destabilize the regime. It is, therefore, a self-defense measure in the face of armed aggression, supported by Article 51 of the UN Charter.
• Illegality of the US blockade: Unlike the Iranian action, the economic and energy blockade imposed by the US on Iran is in direct violation of international law. Unilateral sanctions with extraterritorial effect, threats to use force and interception of ships in international waters constitute acts of aggression, not self-defense.
• Proportionality and selectivity: Iran did not indiscriminately close the strait, but made passage conditional on the payment of “tolls” or compliance with security rules — a common practice on maritime routes under national jurisdiction. The US announces that it will intercept “all vessels that have paid tolls to Iran”, criminalizing legitimate acts of commerce and navigation.

Sovereign resistance against imperialist siege

The dispute over the Strait of Hormuz is, therefore, not a technical issue of freedom of navigation, but a central chapter in the struggle to reconfigure the world order. On the one hand, US imperialism, in relative decline, resorts to military force and control of energy routes to contain rivals and maintain hegemony. On the other, Iran — a strategic ally of China and Russia — exercises its sovereign right to defend its territory and national interests.

The legitimacy of the Iranian action lies precisely in this: it is not about “extortion”, as Trump claims, but about legitimate resistance to an illegal siege. As the US threatens to block a vital route for global trade, Iran reaffirms that sovereignty over its waters is not negotiable under coercion.

Risk of expanded war

The threat of blocking the Strait of Hormuz not only intensifies the current crisis, but raises the risk of a larger conflict. By opting for forceful measures over diplomacy, Washington contributes to a scenario of prolonged instability.

In this context, the Iranian stance — centered on defending its autonomy and resisting external pressure — gains support among countries that see US action as a repetition of interventionist patterns. The impasse, far from being resolved, points to an escalation whose consequences could reach beyond the Gulf region.