With the escalation against Iran, US President Donald Trump wanted above all to demonstrate strength and create deterrence – calculated, limited, controlled. But instead of a quick political effect he set a dynamic in motionwhich is beyond his control.

Trump wanted to demonstrate power, he got a conflagration

Iran responded not where the US is militarily superior, but where the global order is vulnerable: in the energy system.

The virtual blockade of the Strait of Hormuz turned Trump’s show of force into a geoeconomic conflagration. Oil and gas prices skyrocketed, insurance companies withdrew, and markets reacted in panic.

What was intended as a targeted escalation developed its own momentum – with direct repercussions on US domestic policy. Deterrence turned into self-harm.

Trump has it exactly triggered what he wanted to avoid: rising energy prices, inflationary pressure and growing political costs at home. The ghosts of energy and market forces cannot be banished by tweets or threats.

They are following their own logic – and are now forcing Washington to seek international help to contain the consequences of a self-inflicted escalation.

Trump’s motives: energy prices, domestic politics and the election campaign

With his call for international support, Donald Trump is primarily pursuing a domestic political goal. His narrative of affordable energy and economic strength is a central pillar of his political agenda.

But rising energy prices resulting from a blockage of the Strait of Hormuz could fuel inflation and reduce the purchasing power of American consumers – a risk that Trump is keen to avoid ahead of the upcoming 2026 congressional elections.

He has already announced several times that the USA would “secure the free flow of energy at all costs”, even with military means if necessary.

Military and Practical Limits: Challenges Facing the U.S. Navy

There is also a military problem behind Trump’s call for international participation. The US Navy is currently unable to provide comprehensive protection for all tankers.

According to US Energy Secretary Chris Wright, American forces are currently focused primarily on destroying Iranian offensive capabilities, not on long-term escort missions.

A broad international naval presence could help stretch resources, distribute political responsibility and reduce the risk of further escalation specifically for the US.

Trump’s call for international participation

Trump argues that securing the Strait of Hormuz cannot be the responsibility of the United States alone. Countries in particular that benefit from oil deliveries – including China, Japan, South Korea and European countries – would have to take responsibility themselves.

In doing so, he remains true to his well-known line that security payments should no longer be free, but should be compensated for through burden sharing or political considerations.

His approach: The costs and risks of a military escort should be spread across as many shoulders as possible.

Reactions from allies: reluctance and legal hurdles

The response to Trump’s initiative has so far been muted. Germany explicitly ruled out military involvement, while Japan and South Korea point to high legal hurdles. Britain and France are reacting cautiously and stressing the need for de-escalation.

China, which is repeatedly publicly mentioned as a beneficiary of oil deliveries, has not yet shown any clear commitment.

Trump is in danger of losing a battle in the energy war against China

Beijing is holding back for good reasons: Just like the elimination of the Venezuelan leadership, the attacks on Iran are also part of the American energy conflict with China. What at first glance appears to be an escalation of regional conflicts follows a larger geopolitical logic.

The US attacks on Venezuela and Iran are not only directed against unpopular regimes in Latin America and the Middle East. They are part of an indirect strategy against the United States’ real main adversary: ​​China.

Trump’s trivial calculation doesn’t add up

US strategists have identified China’s dependence on energy imports as a weak point. Its economic model, its industrial performance and, not least, its political stability depend to a large extent on reliable energy supplies.

The logic behind it is simple: If oil becomes more scarce and more expensive, growth suffers, domestic political pressure increases and the scope for action in foreign policy shrinks.

The hoped-for signal turned into a geoeconomic boomerang

But Trump’s calculations didn’t work out. Similar to the military action against the leadership in Venezuela, he expected a quick, decisive strike in Iran and underestimated the second-strike capacity of the Iranian regime, which expanded the conflict and caused oil prices to skyrocket by blocking the Strait of Hormuz – which also made energy costs more expensive in the USA and thus also caused Trump high political costs.

A supposedly controlled military signal became a geoeconomic boomerang. Instead of demonstrating strength, Trump generated political costs at home.

The escalation hit not primarily the Iranian regime, but its own voter base – and ultimately forced Washington to call for international support to contain a self-inflicted energy shock.

Trump’s strategy: shifting responsibility instead of cooperation

Donald Trump’s desire for international support in the Strait of Hormuz is less an expression of a new appreciation for multilateral cooperation than a pragmatic attempt to shift costs, risks and responsibility onto others.

Given the cautious reactions, it remains to be seen whether Trump will succeed in involving international partners to a greater extent.

However, one thing is clear: the developments in the Strait of Hormuz remain a benchmark for the US’s global energy and security policy – and Trump’s course is being watched like a hawk.