Hormuz: Trump and Europe in Stalemate
The embattled U.S. president looks to London for allies, but the Old Continent has no answers.
For the 38th time, Donald Trump has announced that an agreement with Iran is nearly ready, according to CNN. And for the 38th time, Tehran has replied that no such agreement exists. The U.S. president claims that negotiations are set to resume today. In the meantime, we are still seeing images of bombing from both sides, interspersed with images from the Spanish enclave of Ceuta. War and humanitarian crises do not take a vacation.
The U.S. leader is struggling on all fronts, which explains the lack of a clear resolution. For the past five months, Trump has fluctuated between an impulse to wipe out the ayatollah regime and a more rational willingness to engage in negotiations. Sometimes the laws of physics apply even to international politics: Two equal and opposite forces result in a stalemate. For the first time, even the administration appears to be uncertain and divided. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is pushing for a major military offensive, echoing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s calls during White House meetings. Vice President JD Vance and especially Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine have advised against such a military offensive. For months, Trump has been searching for a middle ground that suits him best: making forceful threats to compel his adversary to negotiate on his terms.
There is an increasingly common perception, whether true or not, that Trump simply does not know what to do. Polls reflect growing public distrust. According to Gallup, the nation’s most reputable polling organization, only 37% of Americans approve of the president’s job performance. The only president to fare worse was Richard Nixon, just days before resigning over the Watergate scandal. Trump’s credibility is plummeting, perhaps because Abraham Lincoln was right when he said: “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.” Naturally, this is the worst possible scenario for the president, with the Nov. 3 midterm elections approaching.
Meanwhile, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps appears to have made a calculated assessment: Trump has no real intention of launching a full-scale war that might sink Iran but would also certainly cripple much of the global economy. From Tehran’s perspective, everything else is just talk — the kind of announcements CNN has been counting. Admittedly, this is still a risky gamble. For now, however, Iran has taken control of the Strait of Hormuz and has no intention of restoring freedom of navigation. At this point, there appear to be only two options. The first is to offer some form of compensation to the Revolutionary Guard. Not an actual toll on every ship passing through, but a similar solution. This would be a crushing defeat for the rules of international law — yet another such defeat, unfortunately.
The Gulf monarchies, however, largely favor such an arrangement. Indeed, Tehran’s strategy essentially amounts to extortion. For the time being, though, it is better to pay than to deal with idle oil tankers and warehouses overflowing with goods. Diplomatic circles also suspect that some of these countries might be quietly preparing to funnel money to Iran in hopes of avoiding drone and missile attacks by the Revolutionary Guard. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — the region’s two leading monarchies — are already developing alternative routes to transport oil, fertilizers, raw materials and other goods without passing through Hormuz. Additionally, all of them have begun investing heavily in defense. From their standpoint, the conflict with Iran has made one thing clear: U.S. military protection is insufficient to ensure security in the region.
The other option involves us Europeans. Over the past 10 days, Defense Secretary Hegseth has ramped up pressure on his colleagues in the Old Continent. On Friday, July 24, Hegseth spoke with British Defense Secretary Wes Streeting, just days after the Labour government led by Andy Burnham took office on Monday, July 20. Hegseth and his advisers concluded that the time had come to revive the idea of a multinational naval mission in the Strait of Hormuz. Streeting did not dismiss the proposal. In fact, he suggested convening a summit in London with some 40 countries to gauge their willingness to participate. One phone call, however, was apparently enough for the British defense secretary to realize he had underestimated the challenges involved. On July 27, Hegseth and Streeting spoke with French Defense Minister Catherine Vautrin. The discussion ended without a breakthrough, and Vautrin reiterated France’s position: Paris is prepared to take part in a naval mission, but only after hostilities have ceased.
Italy has taken the same position. As a result, no summit took place in the British capital last week. We will see what happens in the coming days, although the assault by Moroccan migrants on the Spanish enclave of Ceuta, which left dozens dead at sea, is straining relations within the European Union, particularly between Rome and Madrid. Not to mention the suspicion that Washington may have encouraged the Moroccan government to allow the 50,000 desperate migrants to proceed, all to challenge Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez after he denied the use of U.S. bases in Spain for military operations against Iran. Here, too, the result is a stalemate, because Europe has its own dilemma. No one wants the conflict to continue. No one wants to deploy naval forces before a ceasefire is in place. No one wants to pay a toll to the Revolutionary Guard. On these points, everyone agrees.
So, what remains? It would certainly be unrealistic to expect any initiative from the United Nations. China and Russia are watching with satisfaction as the United States struggles in the trap that has become the Strait of Hormuz. One final question remains: Are European leaders capable of putting a serious mediation proposal on the table? In other words, can they come up with a framework that goes beyond the memorandum signed by the United States and Iran on June 17 — one that addresses the Strait of Hormuz, the nuclear program and security guarantees for the entire Middle East? It would certainly be difficult. But there is a precedent: In 2015, France, the United Kingdom and Germany contributed to the agreement on Iran’s nuclear program. This time, Italy could get involved.
For the 38th time, Donald Trump has announced that an agreement with Iran is nearly ready, according to CNN. And for the 38th time, Tehran has replied that no such agreement exists. The U.S. president claims that negotiations are set to resume today. In the meantime, we are still seeing images of bombing from both sides, interspersed with images from the Spanish enclave of Ceuta. War and humanitarian crises do not take a vacation.
The U.S. leader is struggling on all fronts, which explains the lack of a clear resolution. For the past five months, Trump has fluctuated between an impulse to wipe out the ayatollah regime and a more rational willingness to engage in negotiations. Sometimes the laws of physics apply even to international politics: Two equal and opposite forces result in a stalemate. For the first time, even the administration appears to be uncertain and divided. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is pushing for a major military offensive, echoing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s calls during White House meetings. Vice President JD Vance and especially Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine have advised against such a military offensive. For months, Trump has been searching for a middle ground that suits him best: making forceful threats to compel his adversary to negotiate on his terms.
There is an increasingly common perception, whether true or not, that Trump simply does not know what to do. Polls reflect growing public distrust. According to Gallup, the nation’s most reputable polling organization, only 37% of Americans approve of the president’s job performance. The only president to fare worse was Richard Nixon, just days before resigning over the Watergate scandal. Trump’s credibility is plummeting, perhaps because Abraham Lincoln was right when he said: “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.” Naturally, this is the worst possible scenario for the president, with the Nov. 3 midterm elections approaching.
Meanwhile, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps appears to have made a calculated assessment: Trump has no real intention of launching a full-scale war that might sink Iran but would also certainly cripple much of the global economy. From Tehran’s perspective, everything else is just talk — the kind of announcements CNN has been counting. Admittedly, this is still a risky gamble. For now, however, Iran has taken control of the Strait of Hormuz and has no intention of restoring freedom of navigation. At this point, there appear to be only two options. The first is to offer some form of compensation to the Revolutionary Guard. Not an actual toll on every ship passing through, but a similar solution. This would be a crushing defeat for the rules of international law — yet another such defeat, unfortunately.
The Gulf monarchies, however, largely favor such an arrangement. Indeed, Tehran’s strategy essentially amounts to extortion. For the time being, though, it is better to pay than to deal with idle oil tankers and warehouses overflowing with goods. Diplomatic circles also suspect that some of these countries might be quietly preparing to funnel money to Iran in hopes of avoiding drone and missile attacks by the Revolutionary Guard. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — the region’s two leading monarchies — are already developing alternative routes to transport oil, fertilizers, raw materials and other goods without passing through Hormuz. Additionally, all of them have begun investing heavily in defense. From their standpoint, the conflict with Iran has made one thing clear: U.S. military protection is insufficient to ensure security in the region.
The other option involves us Europeans. Over the past 10 days, Defense Secretary Hegseth has ramped up pressure on his colleagues in the Old Continent. On Friday, July 24, Hegseth spoke with British Defense Secretary Wes Streeting, just days after the Labour government led by Andy Burnham took office on Monday, July 20. Hegseth and his advisers concluded that the time had come to revive the idea of a multinational naval mission in the Strait of Hormuz. Streeting did not dismiss the proposal. In fact, he suggested convening a summit in London with some 40 countries to gauge their willingness to participate. One phone call, however, was apparently enough for the British defense secretary to realize he had underestimated the challenges involved. On July 27, Hegseth and Streeting spoke with French Defense Minister Catherine Vautrin. The discussion ended without a breakthrough, and Vautrin reiterated France’s position: Paris is prepared to take part in a naval mission, but only after hostilities have ceased.
Italy has taken the same position. As a result, no summit took place in the British capital last week. We will see what happens in the coming days, although the assault by Moroccan migrants on the Spanish enclave of Ceuta, which left dozens dead at sea, is straining relations within the European Union, particularly between Rome and Madrid. Not to mention the suspicion that Washington may have encouraged the Moroccan government to allow the 50,000 desperate migrants to proceed, all to challenge Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez after he denied the use of U.S. bases in Spain for military operations against Iran. Here, too, the result is a stalemate, because Europe has its own dilemma. No one wants the conflict to continue. No one wants to deploy naval forces before a ceasefire is in place. No one wants to pay a toll to the Revolutionary Guard. On these points, everyone agrees.
So, what remains? It would certainly be unrealistic to expect any initiative from the United Nations. China and Russia are watching with satisfaction as the United States struggles in the trap that has become the Strait of Hormuz. One final question remains: Are European leaders capable of putting a serious mediation proposal on the table? In other words, can they come up with a framework that goes beyond the memorandum signed by the United States and Iran on June 17 — one that addresses the Strait of Hormuz, the nuclear program and security guarantees for the entire Middle East? It would certainly be difficult. But there is a precedent: In 2015, France, the United Kingdom and Germany contributed to the agreement on Iran’s nuclear program. This time, Italy could get involved.
Previous article![]( "Morocco Is Spending Millions To Win the Battle against Spain in Washington*")