As global oil prices surge and tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz grinds to a halt, President Trump faces a familiar challenge: restoring freedom of navigation in one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints without committing the United States to a costly ground war on Iranian soil.
Iran began actively disrupting shipping in the Strait following U.S.-Israeli airstrikes that commenced on February 28, 2026. Using anti-ship missiles, drones, armed speedboats, and naval mines, Tehran has effectively paralyzed commercial traffic through the narrow waterway that normally carries about 20 percent of the world’s oil supply. While Iran insists the Strait is not formally “closed,” insurance rates and shipper caution have achieved much the same result.
A full-scale U.S. invasion of mainland Iran remains off the table. The country’s mountainous terrain, large population, and dispersed military forces would turn any such campaign into a protracted and bloody quagmire. Instead, Trump has a range of proven, lower-risk options centered on naval power, targeted strikes, selective amphibious operations, and international pressure.
Naval Escort and Maritime Security Operation
The most straightforward and historically successful approach is a robust multinational naval escort program modeled on Operation Earnest Will during the 1987–1988 Tanker War. In that conflict, the U.S. Navy reflagged Kuwaiti tankers and escorted them through the Gulf while conducting direct strikes on Iranian naval targets.
Key elements of this strategy include:
- Persistent aerial and naval reconnaissance to detect Iranian missile launchers, drone swarms, and mine-laying vessels.
- Combat air patrols equipped to neutralize low-cost drone and speedboat threats.
- Layered defense by U.S. destroyers and allied warships to protect commercial convoys from missiles, unmanned surface vessels, and swarming attacks.
- Minesweeping operations once Iranian naval capabilities are sufficiently degraded.
The United States can execute this unilaterally with carrier strike groups and surface combatants already in or near the region. However, Trump has repeatedly called on other nations—particularly China, Japan, South Korea, the United Kingdom, France, and Gulf states—to contribute warships. A broad coalition would distribute the operational burden, share intelligence, and send a powerful diplomatic signal that freedom of navigation is an international interest, not solely an American one.
This approach stays entirely within the maritime domain and international waters, avoiding any occupation of Iranian territory.
Targeted Seizure of Strategic Islands
A higher-leverage but still limited option involves the temporary seizure of key islands at the southern entrance to the Strait. Iran has controlled Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb since seizing them from the United Arab Emirates in 1971. These small but strategically located islands provide ideal positions for launching missiles and drones against passing tankers.
U.S. Marine Expeditionary Units, supported by naval aviation and amphibious ships, are well-suited for a precision assault on these offshore outposts. Because the targets are not part of mainland Iran, such an operation would not constitute an invasion of Iranian sovereign territory in the classic sense. Once secured, the islands could serve as forward operating bases for patrols or be transferred to the UAE, delivering both a military and political victory.
Parallel strikes on Iranian coastal missile sites, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) naval bases, and drone production facilities would further degrade Tehran’s ability to sustain its campaign of disruption.
Economic and Diplomatic Leverage
Trump’s position is strengthened by American energy independence. The U.S. imports relatively little oil from the Gulf, giving Washington freedom to apply pressure that Europe, Japan, South Korea, and especially China cannot easily ignore. By publicly insisting that these nations deploy their own naval forces, Trump frames the crisis as a shared global problem rather than an exclusively American responsibility.
Back-channel diplomacy—possibly facilitated by third parties such as China or European governments—could offer Iran a face-saving exit. Limited sanctions relief or other incentives might be exchanged for verifiable guarantees of safe passage through the Strait. At the same time, the credible threat of expanded strikes on Iranian oil infrastructure, such as additional pressure on Kharg Island, serves as powerful leverage.
Realistic Outlook and Challenges
Reopening the Strait will not happen overnight. Iranian forces rely on mobile, hard-to-detect launchers, low-cost swarms, and pre-positioned mines, all of which require sustained effort to neutralize. Even after threats are reduced, commercial insurers and shipping companies may remain cautious until a track record of safe transits is established.
Nevertheless, the combination of overwhelming U.S. naval superiority, precision strikes, selective amphibious actions against offshore targets, and coalition diplomacy offers a viable path forward. This playbook worked during the Tanker War and aligns with Trump’s preference for decisive but limited military engagement backed by maximum international burden-sharing.
By focusing on the sea and coastal periphery rather than Iran’s interior, the United States can restore the free flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz while avoiding the strategic and human costs of a full-scale invasion. The coming weeks will test whether this calibrated approach can compel Iran to stand down without triggering a wider war.
About The Author
