In Separate Deals, US Consolidates Influence Over Three Global Straits

In moments of crisis, relationships reveal their true character. People or nations that once stood shoulder to shoulder either reaffirm their commitments or expose their underlying hollowness and fragility.

NATO’s refusal to support the United States in the war with Iran has revealed for many Americans the imbalance in the relationship and the organization’s lack of loyalty.

At almost the same moment last week that Trump was announcing the terms of a deal reached with Iranian negotiators, British Prime Minister Starmer and French President Macron were touting the results of a NATO-led summit concerning the Strait of Hormuz.

The announcement from these two NATO leaders could not have been more ironic at that moment: “A multinational force,” they declared, would “open the Strait of Hormuz.”

This was after the strait was already open and the fighting, for the moment at least, had ceased.

To dispel any notion that NATO countries would join the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports aimed at securing the Strait, Starmer made it clear there would be no such military action. This was not Europe’s war, he said, and NATO would not be dragged into it.

The new multinational mission would be activated, Starmer said, “as soon as conditions allowed” –meaning, only after active fighting and bombardment had ceased.

A senior European official told Fox News Digital that the proposed force would be “strictly defensive” – involving “no blockade, no toll, nothing that blocks the fluidity of what is going through the Strait of Hormuz.”

Critics mocked the announcement, noting it highlighted NATO’S lack of military muscle.

Military analyst Barak Seener, speaking on Fox News, minced no words. “Britain and France are playing at being relevant in international affairs,” he said. “It’s laughable that a European coalition that is only willing to act once hostilities have ended can even speak of protecting its shipping lanes.”

“Saying ‘we’re not getting dragged into the war’ disguises the embarrassing fact that the Royal Navy has been so hollowed out and diminished, a British initiative can only be ‘defensive’,” the military analyst commented. “France’s navy is also facing structural and budgetary pressures that strain its ability to conduct high-tempo operations.”

A European proposal regarding the Strait that is not backed by American military power is essentially worthless, he said.

Iranian Ship Seized by U.S. Forces

The vital role of American military power was laid bare early this week, when a massive Iranian cargo ship attempted to breach the U.S. blockade. During a six-hour standoff, the vessel ignored repeated warnings and pressed forward—until a U.S. warship disabled it with a precise strike on its engine room.

“Once the 900-ft cargo ship, Touska, was disabled and drifting in the ocean, U.S. Marines boarded it and took it into custody,” U.S. Central Command announced.

According to the Financial Express, the Touska is operated by the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, an IRGC-owned company. Far from being a benign commercial company, Western intelligence reports claim the ship is the primary means of transport for the IRGC’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs.

The Touska is believed to have previously smuggled into Iran explosive materials like sodium perchlorate, a key propellant for the production of ballistic missile fuel, coming from ports in China. For years, the Iranian ship managed to evade international sanctions and blacklists. Under Trump’s Middle East foreign policy, that era of laxity has come to an end.

On the heels of the Touska seizure, Iran initially refused to attend a second round of U.S.-brokered talks in Pakistan this week, the NY Post reported. But according to Pakistani sources, Iran’s show of defiance was “empty bluster; mere posturing for the best deal possible,” the paper said.

As of this writing, the verdict is still out on whether the talks will actually take place and how they will play out.

Coming just days after the announcement from Starmer and Macron about a “multinational force that would open the Strait,” the Touska incident underscored a blunt reality that no one could miss: control of the Strait of Hormuz ultimately hinges on American power.

It exposed the limits of any NATO initiative in the region that lacks U.S. backing—demonstrating that without U.S. military muscle, such efforts are largely doomed.

Man Without a Plan?

Democrats and their media allies have relentlessly slammed Trump’s “war without a plan.” But that narrative is beginning to unravel as results from the U.S. blockade of Iran’s ports come into focus, and as observers begin to connect the dots in the broader strategic picture.

Even the most left-wing, Trump-hating outlets such as the New York Times are grudgingly conceding that the U.S. blockade is having an impact. “Some analysts said that whatever the risk of more disruptions to the world’s energy supplies, Mr. Trump was right to try to turn the tables on Iran,” the NY Times wrote last week.

The Times quoted energy expert Clayton Seigle, who has long urged negotiating an end to the crisis from a position of strength. In a March 25 op-ed titled “This Should Be Trump’s Next Move With Iran,” he called for a naval blockade of Iranian oil shipments—precisely the course President Trump adopted less than three weeks later.

“The Trump administration should flip the script on Iran, depriving it of revenue unless the regime restores security in the Gulf,” Siegle urged. “The best approach to curbing Iran’s oil exports is to impose a naval blockade of tankers carrying Iranian oil.”

“A similar operation helped Washington easily take control of Venezuela’s oil exports last December with no reported U.S. losses. The cordon could be established in the Arabian Sea, beyond the range of most Iranian weapons systems, with minimal risk to U.S. personnel,” the energy expert wrote.

Another expert on Iran, Miad Maleki, was quoted in the paper saying, “I can’t think of a better option to increase pressure on the Iranian regime.”

The NY Times seems to be betting that readers won’t notice the glaring contradiction between its clashing perspectives. On the one hand, the Times’s routine castigation of Trump’s policies as “reckless” and “unhinged,” on the other, the citing of experts who applaud the very same Gulf strategy the paper has debunked.

Critics agree the current U.S. blockade is sharply constricting Iran’s oil lifeline and straining its financial system to the brink. Under mounting pressure, Iran is being forced back to the negotiating table—despite the belligerence and posturing of IRGC hardliners who insist the regime will never yield to U.S. demands.

The pressure on the regime from being blocked in its oil exports—its lifeline to continued power—is likely to become unbearable, Siegle told the NY Times. “And it could impose economic hardship for Iran for years. You can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube.” Meaning, oil clients will have likely turned elsewhere.

Even more threatening to the regime, Iran’s storage facilities are quickly filling up and could reach capacity within as few as two weeks as a result of the U.S. blockade. If the extraction equipment were shut down as a result, the damage could be irreparable, severely impairing Iran’s oil production for years to come, experts say.

Flipping Around Iran’s Playbook

Fox News host Jesse Waters broke down the dynamics of Trump’s game plan. First, in six weeks of military fighting, the United States and Israel crushed Iran’s grip on the Strait. Tehran has been threatening to shut the Strait every few years since the 1980s, brandishing the same “nuclear option” whenever tensions flare.

Trump flipped that strategy around, turning Iran’s own chokepoint into a noose around its economy. After achieving operational control of the Strait, he opened it to all traffic except Iranian traffic.

U.S. warships can anchor, safely out of Iran’s reach, on the far side of the Strait and stop ships headed to or from Kharg Island, where 90% of Iranian oil exports originate—which is what has been happening over the past week.

The blockade has a disastrous effect on the oil wells themselves. “When oil wells are not continuously pumped, they start deteriorating, the Fox News host explained, quoting Iran International, an opposition political party based in London.

“Forced shutdowns could permanently eliminate 300,000 to 500,000 barrels per day of production capacity – equivalent to $9–15 billion in annual revenue lost forever,” Iran International said. “An extended blockade would effectively zero out Iran’s export revenues within days and trigger cascading effects across its financial system.”

What the Critics Missed—Trump’s Long Game Revealed

Consider one more piece of the puzzle—one that suggests the blockade is not an isolated move but part of a broader strategic plan on Trump’s part. It concerns a major defense cooperation agreement with Indonesia, reported in Al Jazeera but somehow overlooked by major news outlets.

“Indonesia, U.S. Sign Major Defense Cooperation Agreement,” the Al Jazeera headline read. Indonesia adjoins another of the world’s most critical oil arteries, the Strait of Malacca—a passage vital to China’s energy and industry lifeline.

Officials have long highlighted the Strait of Malacca as a critical vulnerability for China. They have even coined the label “China’s Malacca Dilemma” to refer to China’s heavy reliance on the narrow Strait of Malacca for energy imports and trade.

The Malacca Dilemma also refers to Beijing’s fear that rivals could blockade this chokepoint, choking off 80% of its oil imports and crippling its economy.

Experts regard the Strait of Malacca, controlled by Indonesia, as one of the world’s most vital maritime passages—even more consequential than the Strait of Hormuz. The Strait of Malacca carries roughly 25-30% of global traded goods—including oil (20 million barrels daily), manufactured products, and coffee. It serves as the shortest route linking Asia’s manufacturing hubs (China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan) to the Middle East and Europe.

With Hormuz under blockade, the United States now appears to be tightening its grip on a second critical artery, the Strait of Malacca. One would expect such a high-stakes move to command far more media attention, yet it barely registered.

Revealing Timeline

Equally overlooked is the unusual sequence of recent moves, all within a 30-day window, that have steadily deepened ties between the United States and Indonesia.

On March 18th, twenty days after the Iran war began, AP reported on a new US trade deal with Indonesia. “A new trade pact between Indonesia and the United States has recast their economic ties,” the article said, “binding Jakarta’s resource wealth and energy future more closely to Washington’s strategic needs.”

Next, on March 26th, a month into the war, Indonesia joined President Trump’s Board of Peace.

Finally, on April 13th, Indonesia signed the aforementioned major military agreement with the United States.

What can explain Indonesia’s sudden eagerness for closer ties with the United States? A headline from an April 1 article in Jakarta Post suggests the answer: “Indonesia Rations Fuel as Prices Soar Over Mideast War.”

The article reveals that Indonesia, with its massive population, must import a significant amount of its oil. Their current energy crisis is so severe that at the end of March, the government announced public fuel rationing and ordered all non-essential government employees to work from home.

The U.S. has stepped forward to help, coordinating trade deals in February and March that lowered Indonesia’s tariff rate to 19%, and to zero on its key exports of palm oil, coffee, cocoa, spices and rubber.

Indonesia, in turn, agreed to buy American planes and invest $10 billion in the United States, AP reported. The U.S. also agreed to sell Indonesia oil and natural gas, help the country build modular nuclear reactors, and buy its rare minerals, which reduces the U.S.’s reliance on China.

U.S. Extends Influence Over a Third Global Artery

Consider a third Trump deal made within days of announcing a new economic and military accord with Indonesia: this one with Morocco, a country that shares a coastline with another critical waterway, the Strait of Gibraltar.

The partnership was cemented during high-level meetings in Washington, D.C., from April 14–16, bringing together U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and a senior Morocco delegation, according to a government website.

“Morocco, U.S. Strengthen Military Ties with Decade-Long Defense Partnership,” a headline in Hespress, Morocco’s leading news outlet announced.

Why would the United States be seeking closer ties with Morocco? Morocco’s coastline runs the entire length of the Strait of Gibraltar— a tiny channel that controls all access to the Mediterranean Sea, with its northern border bounded by Spain, a NATO member.

The expansion of U.S. military ties with Morocco perhaps signals a broader message to NATO—particularly to Spain, whose government has denounced the United States over its war with Iran, and has acted with virulent hostility toward Israel. The message? The United States does not need you.  

The Trump Administration thus appears to be positioning itself around not one but three of the world’s most important energy chokepoints; the straits of Hormuz, Malacca, and now Gibraltar. All these moves took place in the same 30-day period.

A coincidence? Not likely, say experts.

If Trump controls Hormuz and has leverage over Malacca as well as the Strait of Gibraltar, China’s entire energy supply might end up depending on American goodwill, experts point out. That’s much more than a trade war. That’s an existential chokehold.

***

Europe’s Lack of Backbone Erodes Western Strength

“NATO proudly defines itself as a defensive organization. Fine. But let’s be clear about what ‘defense’ actually means in 2026,” wrote former U.S. Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland in a Fox News op-ed.

“It does not mean waiting politely until the next missile hits or the next proxy attack kills Americans or Israelis,” Sondland argued. “Defense, in the real world, includes deterrence, disruption and, when necessary, decisive action against actors who have spent decades making their intentions clear.”

The article went on to describe Iran’s 47-year war against America which took the form of dead American soldiers, attacks on shipping, “and a relentless campaign against Israel, one of the West’s most important allies.”

“This isn’t theoretical. It’s not episodic. It’s sustained hostility,” the author wrote.

“So when the United States moves to degrade that threat, even in a limited and targeted way, the expectation from Washington — particularly from Trump — isn’t that NATO jumps into the fight.”

“It’s far simpler than that,” the former ambassador to the EU reasoned. “Let us use bases. Give us airspace. Provide political cover. Stand with us publicly.”

“And yet, time and again, the response from parts of Europe is waffling, hesitation, legal hand-wringing and carefully calibrated distance.”

“NATO blinked on Iran,” the author emphasized, “And Trump has every right to be furious.”

***

Trump Threatens to Pull Out of ‘Piper Tiger’ NATO

President Donald Trump has said he is strongly considering pulling the United States out of NATO after allied nations rejected his request to assist the United States in the Iran war.

“I was never swayed by NATO,” Trump said when asked if he would reconsider the U.S.’ membership after the conflict. “I always knew they were a paper tiger, and Putin knows that too, by the way.”

In mid-March, Trump warned NATO allies of negative consequences should they refuse to help secure the Strait of Hormuz—crucial for Europe’s energy lifelines. But European countries either refused outright to send warships to the vital strait, or let silence and inaction convey their answer.

Trump criticized the nations for not stepping up, insisting his call for action had been a “test.”

“We’ve been there automatically for them, including Ukraine. Ukraine wasn’t our problem. We were there for them, but they were not there for us,” he told the Telegraph, a British newspaper.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in an interview with Fox News, echoed the president’s sentiments, saying the United States may need to “re-examine” its relationship with NATO once the war ends.

“We are going to have to re-examine alliance,” he said. Has it become a one-way street where America is simply in a position to defend Europe, but when we need the help of our allies, they’re going to deny us the right to use their bases, and they’re even going to deny us overflight (the right to fly warplanes over their airspace)?

Though Rubio did not name specific countries, Trump has repeatedly singled out Britain for its initial refusal to allow U.S. forces to use British bases for strikes on Feb. 28. Spain has also denied the United States permission to use jointly-operated bases to attack Iran, and earlier this month closed its airspace to U.S. planes involved in the war.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also addressed the Trump Administration’s frustrations with NATO.

“A lot has been laid bare, a lot has been shown to the world, about what our allies would be willing or not willing to do for the United States,” he told reporters Tuesday. “When we ask for additional assistance… we get questions, or roadblocks, or hesitations.”

“You don’t have much of an alliance if you have countries who are not willing to stand with you when you need them,” he added.