Trump’s Iran strategy may hand Tehran the world’s economic choke point - opinion

The president who promised to dismantle Obama’s Iran legacy may be creating something even more advantageous for Tehran.

Today, that comparison may deserve to be revisited.

Indeed, perhaps Tehran should rename a boulevard after him.

The great innovation of the JCPOA was that it gave Iran money. The great innovation of Trump’s new arrangement is that it may give Iran something far more valuable: influence over the arteries of the global economy.

Markets do not require an actual blockade to panic. Even credible threats are enough to send shipping insurance premiums soaring, reroute global trade, and inject volatility into energy markets.

That is precisely what makes the strait such a powerful strategic asset. Its value lies not only in being closed, but in the constant possibility that it could be.

For decades, Iran’s ability to threaten it was treated as a dangerous contingency. A weapon of last resort. A queen kept in reserve because deploying it carried enormous risks.

But why keep such a piece in reserve when the international community appears willing to accept a reality in which Tehran can sit comfortably beside the board, hand hovering permanently over the queen, while everyone else pretends not to notice?

One can already imagine the possibilities.

Western governments criticize Iranian aggression? Tanker traffic slows, and energy markets tremble.

No missiles required. No declarations of war necessary. Just a reminder that the world’s most important maritime choke point remains vulnerable to Iranian pressure.

There is, admittedly, one silver lining for Israel.

For years, Jerusalem struggled to convince the world that Iranian aggression was not merely an Israeli problem but an international one. The response was often a diplomatic shrug. Iran threatened Israel, armed proxies on Israel’s borders, and openly called for Israel’s destruction. Many governments treated it as a regional nuisance rather than a global threat.

Thankfully, that misunderstanding may finally be over.

Under this new reality, the leverage handed to Tehran no longer stops at Israel’s shores. If Iran can use the Strait of Hormuz as a strategic pressure point, every country dependent on global energy markets suddenly becomes a stakeholder. What was once portrayed as Israel’s security problem risks becoming the world’s economic problem.

In that sense, perhaps Trump has succeeded where generations of Israeli diplomats failed. He may have finally convinced the international community that empowering the Islamic Republic carries consequences for everyone.

Nothing unites the world quite like discovering that the ayatollahs have a hand on your wallet as well as on Israel’s throat.

Chess players understand this principle well. The strongest move is often not a check. It is the creation of a position where your opponent knows a check could come at any moment.

That is not deterrence. That is domination.

Before going further, a note of fairness is in order. Many Israelis remain genuinely grateful to Trump. He has taken significant steps in support of Israel, spoken forcefully against antisemitism, and has played an important role in efforts to secure the release of hostages. Those achievements deserve recognition and respect.

Precisely because of that record, this emerging arrangement is so difficult to understand. Friends are not immune from criticism, and strategic mistakes do not become wise merely because they are made by allies.

Trump often invites comparisons between his approach and Obama’s. Fair enough. Let us compare.

Obama’s deal gave Iran sanctions relief in exchange for nuclear concessions.

Trump’s emerging arrangement risks giving Iran sanctions relief, international legitimacy, strategic breathing room, and continued leverage over one of the most critical maritime choke points on Earth.

Obama gave Iran pieces. Trump may be giving it the board.

Supporters will argue that a ceasefire is preferable to conflict. Of course it is. Nobody sane seeks war. Others will argue that Washington must avoid another prolonged military commitment in the Middle East and that Iran has emerged weakened from this confrontation.

Those are serious arguments. Yet none of them changes the central strategic question: what leverage does Tehran retain once the guns fall silent?

Strategy is judged not by how a battle ends, but by what incentives remain afterward.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has spent decades building proxies, threatening shipping lanes, destabilizing governments, and exporting violence across the Middle East. If Tehran emerges from this crisis with greater leverage than it possessed before, the lesson will not be that aggression fails.

The lesson will be that aggression works.

And that lesson will be studied not only in Tehran.

In chess, a player does not need to announce a checkmate. Sometimes it is enough to create a position in which every future move belongs to him.