The Mask is Off: The Trump Administration’s Imperial Bullying over the Strait of Hormuz
Published
- 3 min read
The Core Facts: A Selective Revival of ‘International Law’
The recent maneuvers by the second Trump administration concerning the Strait of Hormuz represent a stark case study in imperial power politics. The factual sequence, as reported, is clear. Following a failed attempt at regime change in Iran through a coordinated attack with Israel, the United States faced significant strategic setbacks. Iran mounted a resilient defense, launched damaging counterattacks on regional energy infrastructure and US bases, and crucially, exerted control over the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global chokepoint for energy exports. This control has disrupted oil and gas flows, impacting global markets and particularly Asia, leading to price increases and shortages.
Faced with this economic and strategic pressure, the Trump administration has pushed for a deal to cease hostilities and reopen the strait. However, with Iran and Oman moving to establish a ship payment system, the US response has taken a new, deeply cynical turn. Administration officials, including President Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, have begun to describe the Strait of Hormuz as an “international waterway” that must remain open to shipping, invoking the principle of “freedom of navigation.” They explicitly demand that Iran cease any toll collection, citing “existing international law,” specifically alluding to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This comes alongside continued threats from President Trump, who has warned Iran with “annihilation” and declared that any tolls would only be imposed “by and for the United States of America.”
The Context: A Pattern of Contempt for Global Rules
To understand the profound hypocrisy of this stance, one must examine the Trump administration’s established record. Since entering office, this administration has openly embraced raw power politics and flouted international law. The article details a litany of illegal actions: extrajudicial murders in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific, an illegal military intervention in Venezuela, and the direct illegal attack on Iran itself. Furthermore, the administration is accused of facilitating genocide in Gaza. High-level officials have publicly ridiculed the concept of a “rules-based international order.” Secretary Hegseth dismissed it as a “cloud-castle abstraction,” and President Trump himself stated, “I don’t need international law.” This administration has not just been a passive critic but an active dismantler of the very framework it now selectively invokes.
Analysis: The Imperial Rule, Not International Law
This is not a genuine commitment to international law or a rules-based order. This is the application of what the article correctly identifies as the imperial rule: countries must follow the rules as they are understood by the United States, or face devastating consequences. The Trump administration’s sudden appeal to UNCLOS is a tactical maneuver, a weaponization of legal language to cloak a naked power play aimed at forcing Iranian submission.
The hypocrisy is multi-layered and breathtaking. First, the United States itself has never ratified UNCLOS, despite decades of calls from its own former officials. It demands Iranian compliance with a treaty it refuses to formally join. Second, Iran has also not ratified the treaty and asserts its sovereign rights over the strait. Third, and most damningly, the United States is simultaneously openly defying UNCLOS provisions in other parts of the world, such as in its military operations in the compact states and its seabed mining pursuits in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone. The rule, therefore, is not international law; the rule is American convenience. International law is valid only when it serves to constrain a perceived adversary in the Global South, like Iran, and is irrelevant or defied when it constrains American action.
This exposes the fundamental lie at the heart of the Western-led “rules-based international order.” For decades, this phrase has served as a legitimizing narrative for American hegemony, a polite fiction that masked the reality of power asymmetries. The Trump administration, in its brutal candor, has discarded the polite fiction but retained the core objective: domination. They are not reviving international law; they are performing a pantomime of it to justify continued imperial aggression. The threat of annihilation hanging over Iran is the stick; the selective citation of UNCLOS is a flimsy fig leaf.
A Civilizational Perspective: Sovereignty and Resistance
From the perspective of civilizational states like India and China, and for the broader Global South, this episode is a clarion call. It demonstrates that the Westphalian model of sovereignty is applied unequally. For the West, sovereignty is absolute, allowing them to reject treaties and launch illegal wars. For nations of the Global South, sovereignty is conditional, subject to the whims of Western powers who will freely violate it and then demand compliance with rules they themselves ignore.
Iran’s resistance is significant. Despite immense pressure and attack, it has prevented regime change, leveraged its geopolitical position, and forced the world’s sole hyperpower to the negotiating table. Its control of the Strait of Hormuz is a demonstration of strategic agency. The attempt to internationalize the strait through American fiat, without the US committing to genuine internationalism or peace, is a classic neo-colonial move—an effort to extract a vital resource (control of a waterway) from a sovereign nation for the benefit of the imperial core and its allies.
Conclusion: The Urgent Need for a Multipolar Future
The events surrounding the Strait of Hormuz are not an anomaly; they are the logical endpoint of a unipolar system maintained by a power that believes itself above the law. The individuals mentioned—Mark Carney, who noted the order’s function as a cover for hegemony; Marco Rubio, who demands Iranian compliance; and Pete Hegseth, who mocked the very concept of rules—are all actors in this tragic farce.
The path forward is clear. The nations of the Global South must recognize this maneuver for what it is: imperial bullying dressed in discarded legal robes. Solidarity and the accelerated construction of a multipolar world order are not just ideological preferences; they are necessities for survival and dignity. This requires strengthening independent financial systems, security architectures, and diplomatic blocs that can counterbalance this coercive power. The selective, self-serving application of “international law” by the United States must be named, shamed, and rejected. True international law must be universally applicable, not a weapon wielded by the strong against the weak. The struggle of Iran over the Strait of Hormuz is, in essence, the struggle of the Global South for a world where sovereignty is real, rules are just, and power is held accountable. We must not look away.