Pete Hegseth just discovered what his predecessors already knew: promising war is easier than waging it. Read more: hegseth plays gulf By announcing yesterday that "the American military would prevent Iran from strangling the Strait of Hormuz," the new Defense Secretary delivered exactly what we expected from him: spectacle without substance.
Behind this thunderous declaration lies a gaping strategic void. No details on means, no timeline for escorting civilian ships, no explanation of how Washington plans to proceed. As the New York Times reports, Hegseth settled for a shock formula without an instruction manual. This is exactly the kind of foreign policy by tweet we thought we'd left behind.
The Strait of Hormuz is not a playground for apprentice strategists. This 34-kilometer-wide waterway sees 21% of the world's oil transit through it. When Tehran threatens to close it, prices panic instantly. When Washington promises to open it by force, escalation is guaranteed. Between the two lies that outdated thing we once called diplomacy.
Read more: breaking analysis hegsethsBut here's the problem: this Trump 2.0 administration seems convinced that geopolitics boils down to a contest of macho declarations. On one side, it eases restrictions on Russian deliveries—a gesture meant to calm oil markets. On the other, it rattles sabers against Iran. Predictable result: prices remain volatile and tensions rise. When you navigate by sight alone, you end up hitting the reefs.
The irony of the situation deserves attention. Here's an administration that campaigned on "America First" and finds itself promising to escort oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. Here's a president who denounced "endless wars" whose Defense Secretary implicitly threatens to trigger a new one. Consistency was never Trump's strong suit, but here we're reaching new heights.
After all, what does "preventing Iran from blocking the strait" actually mean? Must we permanently maintain a war fleet there? Preemptively bomb Iranian naval bases? Establish a no-fly zone? Hegseth doesn't say, and for good reason: each of these options involves astronomical costs and uncontrollable escalation risks.
Iran, for its part, isn't fooled. Tehran knows perfectly well that Washington is bluffing. The Revolutionary Guards have spent decades perfecting their naval guerrilla strategy in these waters they know by heart. Their fast boats, underwater mines, and coastal missiles can turn the strait into a death trap for any fleet. You don't need to be Sun Tzu to understand that the tactical advantage belongs to them.
But the most revealing aspect of this affair is the complete absence of long-term vision. What will happen when Iran tests American resolve? What will Washington do if Tehran settles for isolated "incidents," mysterious breakdowns, unexplained delays? Total war over a few hours of blockade? Gradual escalation to the point of no return? Hegseth says nothing about this, because he probably knows nothing about it himself.
This politics of gesticulation mainly reveals the infantilization of American strategic debate. As if voters were incapable of understanding the nuances of geopolitics. As if promising simple solutions to complex problems had become the norm. Iran threatens? We threaten harder. Prices rise? We promise to bring them down. Never mind if reality resists these incantations.
Most worrying is that this hollow rhetoric ends up creating its own constraints. By constantly promising firmness, the Trump administration finds itself trapped by its own declarations. If Iran calls the American bluff—and it will—Washington will have to either lose face or escalate. Either way, failure is guaranteed.
Because ultimately, this crisis reveals the impasse of contemporary American foreign policy. Prisoner of its own myths, incapable of thinking beyond the electoral cycle, it oscillates between isolationism and interventionism without ever finding balance. Hegseth is the perfect symbol: a man who promises war without knowing how to fight it, or even if it's necessary.
The Strait of Hormuz will remain open, as it always has. Not thanks to Washington's bluster, but because its closure would harm Iran as much as the rest of the world. Geopolitics, unlike tweets, still obeys the laws of physics.