Trump, Hormuz, and the Coalition of the Reluctant

Over the past forty years, the regime of the mullahs in Tehran has posed, for Western countries—and for the international community as a whole—a fourfold problem, growing ever more acute over time: its absolute determination to make no concessions on its military nuclear program; its vast arsenal of tens of thousands of ballistic missiles and drones; its policy of destabilizing the entire Middle East through its Shiite militias or “proxies” in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and Yemen; and, finally, its use of terrorism as a routine instrument of foreign policy.

With the air war launched on February 28 by the United States and Israel, Iran has now added a fifth challenge—this time to the entire world: Hormuz, the jugular vein of the global economy, has been cut off.

This was not how things were supposed to unfold…

After much hesitation, and taking advantage of Iran’s internal and external weakening in the aftermath of October 7, the American-Israeli air campaign against the mullahs’ regime was meant to decapitate it, break it militarily, and, if possible, bring it down, thereby opening the prospect of a pacified Middle East.

Yet history shows that a regime cannot be forced to capitulate through airstrikes alone—especially when dealing with an extremely fanatical and violent system, one that glorifies martyrdom as a national virtue, is well-versed in warfare and terrorism, and rules through fear over a country of 90 million people, three times the size of France.

After three weeks of unprecedented bombing, the regime still stands—and it is now the one controlling the escalation, pursuing a deliberate scorched-earth strategy: attacking Western bases in the region, striking Israel hard, but also targeting all its Arab neighbors and, above all, taking the entire global economy hostage by closing the Strait of Hormuz and attacking gas and oil production sites throughout the region.

The result: fear has changed sides, and the situation is becoming untenable in Europe, where stagflation looms, as well as in Asia—the Gulf’s primary customer—and in America.

Hence the dilemma in which Trump has trapped himself: continuing the bombing without succeeding in toppling the mullahs’ regime risks becoming politically damaging for him and his chances in the November midterm elections; conversely, exiting the war while proclaiming a “military victory” but leaving the Tehran regime in place would be just as self-defeating. For the Iranian regime, hungry for revenge, would emerge strengthened, having forced America and its Israeli ally to retreat.

So Trump hesitates and multiplies contradictory statements: one day promising to strike even harder, the next announcing the opposite—a reduction of American involvement—even as the Pentagon deploys a third carrier strike group and several thousand Marines to the Gulf.

Faced with the urgent need to reopen Hormuz, Trump suddenly discovers he needs allies—the very ones he had neglected to inform before launching his air offensive against Iran. China itself, along with Japan and South Korea, the main recipients of Gulf hydrocarbons, have been called upon for support.

But this time, the Europeans, unanimously, have said no. “You break it, you fix it,” seems to be the shared message across European capitals. As Emmanuel Macron put it: “France did not choose this war; we are not a party to this conflict… France will never take part in operations to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.” Trump did not appreciate this, denouncing the ingratitude of “allies” who have long benefited from the “generous protection of the United States.” “In any case,” he added, “we don’t need anyone.”

The split is therefore complete and now unfolds along reversed lines compared to the other major conflict of the moment: Ukraine. That war is supposed to be “our” war, for us Europeans, united in a “Coalition of the Willing,” while Trump prefers to act as a neutral mediator. But in the Gulf, the situation is the opposite: the Europe of the “reluctant” chooses neutrality and lets Trump bear alone the cost of a possible quagmire, while hinting that it might contribute to “efforts” aimed at securing the strait…

All this chaos will inevitably have consequences for the future of an increasingly uncertain Atlantic Alliance. It will also affect Europe’s interests in the Middle East.

For how can we claim neutrality when our bases and allies in the region are under attack, when European capitals are within range of Iranian missiles? And is it reasonable to leave Hormuz entirely in Iranian hands, knowing that this regime—if it manages to remain in power—will be eager for revenge? It will not hesitate to crush its Arab neighbors and to impose on the world the constant blackmail of another kind of nuclear weapon: the blockade of the strait.

Once peace returns, Hormuz will undoubtedly need to be governed by an international agreement similar to the 1936 Montreux Convention on the Bosphorus… But we are far from that today.

Pierre Lellouche
March 19, 2026