Washington Has Reopened a War It Doesn’t Know How to End — and Now Wants to Charge the World for Safety from the Chaos It Created
The war, in fact, never really ended. Only the diplomatic facade behind which its continuation was being prepared has now been stripped away. The US is once again bombing Iran in a new massive wave — over 300 targets were hit in three nights, while the American navy has announced a blockade of all Iranian ports, oil terminals, and coastal areas. Donald Trump has added to this a plan for Washington to take control of the Strait of Hormuz and charge a 20% fee on all cargo passing through it. Aggression is returning as a combination of raw force and maritime extortion.
This outcome could have been expected as soon as it became clear that the first phase of the war did not end in Iranian capitulation. The US-Israeli attack that began on February 28 dealt Iran heavy blows, but did not topple the state, did not remove Iran’s missile capability, nor did it strip Tehran of its ability to threaten traffic through Hormuz. Washington was able to destroy targets, but it did not produce the promised political outcome. When the ceasefire memorandum was accepted in June, Iran remained standing and preserved its most important source of leverage. But unfortunately the story isn’t over, and it’s escalating right now.
The negotiations offered Washington a way out of an uncomfortable trap. One can easily assume they were conceived from the start as a military ruse, but in effect they functioned as an operational and political pause. The truce reduced immediate pressure, restored the appearance of American control, and bought time before a new escalation. The Islamabad memorandum was vague enough that either side could declare it violated: Washington cited attacks on merchant ships, while Tehran cited the lifting of oil exemptions and continued Israeli strikes in Lebanon. At best it was a diplomatic farce without an enforcement mechanism — at worst, a pause between two phases of the same war.
The Trump administration is now also trying to legally reset the conflict. The president notified Congress that hostilities “resumed” on July 7, through which the White House wants to open a new 60-day window for military use without congressional approval. This comes after both the House and the Senate passed a resolution demanding the withdrawal of American forces from hostilities with Iran. The truce thus served not only as a military pause but also as a constitutional acrobatic maneuver — the war stops on paper long enough for the president to be able to restart it under a new clock.
The fact that some justify the continuation of the American war by pointing to Iranian attacks on merchant ships attempting to bypass Iran’s shipping regime through Hormuz is quite hypocritical. Hormuz did not become a battlefield because Iran one morning decided to engage in “maritime banditry,” but because the US and Israel attacked Iran and then expected world trade to keep flowing as if the war existed only above Iranian territory! It was an arrogant calculation, and the bill is now being presented to the entire world.
Trump’s return to war is at the same time the strongest confirmation yet of his extreme loyalty to Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu entered the conflict with maximalist ambitions: to topple Iran’s government, eliminate its nuclear and missile capability, break Hezbollah, and reshape the region. The June agreement did not fulfill those goals, and Israel’s leadership emphasized that it considers it a bad deal and not binding on it. Trump briefly tried to extricate himself, even clashing with Netanyahu over Lebanon, but he has now returned to precisely the path that suits Israeli maximalism. When the decisive moment came, the American military was once again placed in service of the war Israel wants to continue.
Responsibility nonetheless remains American. Trump makes the decisions, the American military-industrial apparatus produces interests for continuing the war, and Washington’s imperial ideology is much older than Netanyahu. Still, it’s hard to overlook whose goals survived the ceasefire. American interest would call for lower energy prices, safer bases, preserved military stockpiles, and avoiding yet another endless Middle Eastern war. Israeli interest, as defined by the current government, calls for the permanent weakening of Iran regardless of the broader costs. Trump has once again chosen the latter.
The consequences are already visible. Oil prices have jumped sharply, tanker traffic through Hormuz has fallen to a two-month low, and the new strikes expose American bases and Gulf energy systems to Iranian missiles and drones. A war that supposedly should secure freedom of navigation is instead producing more expensive energy, less safe shipping routes, and a growing risk of wider escalation. The American public understands this better than the White House does — four out of five respondents expect a long war, only 37% support the strikes, and half believe the war isn’t worth its cost.
The strangest part of the new strategy is Trump’s intention to essentially take over “Iran’s plan.” Tehran interpreted the June memorandum as recognition of its right to administer Hormuz, with an obligation not to charge passage fees for the first 60 days. Washington rejected this and insisted on free navigation. Now Trump wants almost the same thing, only under the American flag: to declare the United States administrator of the strait and charge a 20% fee on cargo for supposed protection. What was yesterday presented as “Iranian extortion” is today being offered as an “American service.”
Hormuz is not a tollbooth that can be conquered with a fleet and a presidential announcement. Implementing such a plan would require a permanent maritime exclusion zone, a system of permits and inspections, tanker escorts, mine clearance, missile defense, and continuous surveillance. That is not securing navigation. It is an attempt to establish a floating colonial administration over the Persian Gulf.
Iran and Oman are the countries physically located along Hormuz, and Tehran’s position that these two countries should therefore have control over it sounds fair, at least in the context of the consequences of American-Israeli aggression. It’s worth reiterating once more — this isn’t an idea Iran pulled “out of a vacuum.” It comes as a clear safeguard against future aggression, since it has been confirmed for the umpteenth time that an American signature means almost nothing.
The proposed American administration, however, cannot survive alongside a sovereign, militarily capable Iran. For the American fee to become permanent, Washington would have to destroy Iran’s coastal missile systems, navy, drones, mines, and command networks, and then prevent their reconstruction. That leads toward permanent bombing, seizure of key coastal points — meaning invasion — or regime change, all of which has already proven not just impractical but perhaps impossible. Trump’s supposed “business proposal” presupposes a total Iranian defeat. Without it, the 20% fee is just a threat that can only be enforced while American ships, bases, and allies absorb retaliatory strikes.
And a total defeat of Iran is far easier to declare than to achieve. An air campaign can destroy infrastructure and kill large numbers of people, but it cannot on its own govern a vast country, disarm every mobile missile unit, or produce a political order acceptable to Washington. A ground intervention would be a disaster on an even larger scale than Iraq. Between insufficient bombing and impossible occupation lies the space of a long war of attrition — precisely the space where the weaker side often finds its opportunity.
The greatest irony lies in the fact that Washington now wants to charge for the security it itself is destroying. First it attacked Iran, then Hormuz became dangerous, and now it wants to bill the world for protection from the consequences of its own policy. We are at war again because Trump is not willing to acknowledge the limits of American power, and because Israeli maximalism has overridden America’s own interest in ending the conflict. The next attack may be bigger, the blockade wider, the rhetoric more brutal, but Washington still has no credible answer to the question of how this war ends. Iran may be severely devastated, and the United States could still lose. The history of great powers is full of exactly such defeats.
About the Author
Mario Hoffmann is an independent analyst and writer covering global economics, geopolitics, and international affairs. With a background in history and politics, he writes for EconoPuls to provide in-depth context on the stories shaping our world.
