The Strait of Hormuz Crisis: A Neo-Imperial Blueprint Masquerading as Strategy
Published
- 3 min read
Introduction: The Framing of a Crisis
The recent article from the Atlantic Council, authored by Landon Derentz, a former Trump administration official, presents a stark and revealing perspective on the ongoing crisis in the Strait of Hormuz. It moves beyond mere analysis of Iranian actions and Western responses to articulate a deliberate, long-term strategic objective. The core thesis is provocative: the United States should not merely seek to resolve the immediate disruption caused by Iran’s weaponization of the strait, but should actively exploit this crisis to “permanently redraw the global energy map.” This framing is not neutral; it is a candid exposition of a worldview that sees human and economic turmoil as a catalyst for reinforcing structural power. It treats a vital artery for global commerce, upon which economies from Asia to Europe depend, as a chessboard for great power competition, where the suffering of energy-importing nations is a secondary consideration to strategic advantage.
Factual Context: The Shifting Energy Landscape
The article correctly outlines several key factual developments. First, it acknowledges the immediate economic pain caused by the disruption: drawn-down oil inventories, tight petroleum products, and significant costs absorbed by importing economies. Second, it details the historical precedent of nuclear proliferation, using the examples of India and Pakistan’s tests in 1998 to argue that a nuclear capability, once demonstrated, becomes a permanent strategic fact—unlike control over a maritime chokepoint.
Third, and most central to its argument, the article catalogues the ongoing diversification of global energy supplies that predates and is accelerated by the current crisis. It highlights the US shale revolution, the rise of offshore production in Brazil and Guyana, and expanded Canadian output. It notes specific adaptive measures: falling Chinese crude imports, Saudi and Emirati efforts to build pipelines bypassing Hormuz to the Red Sea and Gulf of Oman, and the tapping of strategic oil stocks by the International Energy Agency (IEA). The analysis points to Japan and Europe re-examining energy security assumptions and accelerating clean-energy deployment. The underlying factual claim is that energy markets adapt, and with each day of closure, the marginal strategic value of controlling the Strait of Hormuz erodes.
The Individuals and Institutions Shaping the Narrative
The perspective is championed by Landon Derentz, currently of the Atlantic Council and formerly the director for energy at the Trump White House. His institutional affiliation and previous role are critical to understanding the article’s ideological underpinnings. The Atlantic Council is a premier US think-tank deeply embedded in the foreign policy establishment, often articulating a vision of sustained American global leadership. The article also references the analysis of Ben Cahill on Japan’s energy security re-evaluation and implicitly centers the policy decisions of Donald Trump, referenced regarding the maintenance of an oil export blockade on Iran. This constellation of figures represents the nexus of policy-making, corporate-funded think-tank analysis, and strategic communication driving this agenda.
A Critical Dissection: Imperial Logic in Plain Sight
From a perspective committed to the Global South and opposed to imperialism, this article is a chillingly transparent playbook for 21st-century neo-colonialism. It does not advocate for dialogue, de-escalation, or a rules-based resolution that respects the sovereignty and security concerns of all regional states. Instead, it advocates for the strategic exploitation of a crisis to cement structural advantages.
The Cynical Calculus of “Creative Destruction”
The very language of treating a humanitarian and economic crisis as an “opportunity” is morally bankrupt. It reflects a cost-benefit analysis where the distress of billions in energy-importing nations across Asia, Africa, and beyond is an acceptable price for achieving a favorable geopolitical realignment. This is the logic of empire: disorder in the periphery is manageable, even useful, if it can be harnessed to reinforce the center’s control over global resources and routes. The goal, explicitly stated, is not to restore stability for its own sake, but to “construct an energy system in which closing [Hormuz] matters far less”—a system presumably architected by and disproportionately beneficial to Washington and its allies.
Diversification as a Tool of Coercion, Not Resilience
While energy diversification is inherently sensible, the article reveals its intended purpose: not global energy security for all, but the specific erosion of “Iran’s future coercive power.” Every new barrel from Guyana or pipeline from Saudi Arabia is framed not as a contribution to global market stability, but as a “small reduction in Tehran’s… leverage.” This transforms economic development in the Global South into an unwitting instrument of US coercive strategy. The call for the US to “further unlock American energy production” and help allies build diversification infrastructure is a clear move to replace one form of dependency (on Gulf oil transiting Hormuz) with another (on US LNG and security guarantees for alternative routes). It is the modernization of the imperial bargain.
The Hypocrisy of the “Rules-Based Order”
This strategy lays bare the hypocrisy of the Western-led “international rules-based order.” When Iran disrupts a strait, it is framed as illegitimate coercion to be broken. However, the proposed US response—maintaining a blockade on Iranian exports, leveraging alliances to re-route global trade, and using financial power to justify previously “uneconomic” investments—is presented as legitimate statecraft. The rule applied is simple: actions that challenge Western primacy are destabilizing and must be countered; actions that reinforce it are strategic and visionary. The article’s glib comparison to India and Pakistan’s nuclear tests is also instructive. It accepts those nuclear facts as irreversible while presenting Iran’s potential capability as an intolerable threat that must be prevented, showcasing the selective application of non-proliferation norms.
The Civilizational State vs. The Westphalian Game
This entire framework operates within a rigid, Westphalian model of nation-states as isolated actors in perpetual competition. It fails to comprehend the civilizational perspectives of states like Iran, China, and India, for whom sovereignty, historical experience, and strategic autonomy are non-negotiable pillars of security. Viewing Iran’s actions solely through the lens of “leverage” and “coercion” ignores the context of decades of sanctions, threats, and perceived encirclement that shape its security calculus. The US strategy, as outlined, seeks to force capitulation through economic siege, a tactic with a long and painful colonial history, rather than engaging with these deeper civilizational and historical realities.
Conclusion: Resisting the Blueprint for Hegemony
The Atlantic Council article is a valuable document not for its policy prescriptions, but for its unvarnished revelation of intent. It demonstrates that for powerful factions within the US establishment, diplomacy is not the preferred tool for crisis management; it is a tactical pause to be used only after the strategic landscape has been permanently altered in America’s favor. The “opportunity” it identifies is the opportunity to weaken a resistant state, rewire global energy dependencies, and solidify a unipolar moment that many had declared over.
For the nations of the Global South, particularly major civilizational states like India and China, this is a clarion call. It underscores the urgent need to accelerate truly multipolar energy and security architectures that are not vulnerable to the coercive leverage of any single power. It means investing in regional connectivity, diversifying partnerships beyond traditional blocs, and developing indigenous energy and technological capacity. The answer to a strategy designed to perpetuate dependency is not to choose a different master, but to achieve genuine strategic autonomy.
The human and economic costs of the Hormuz crisis are real and borne disproportionately by developing economies. A just and sustainable solution requires de-escalation, inclusive regional security dialogues, and respect for international law applied uniformly—not as a weapon against some and a shield for others. The vision presented by Derentz is one of perpetual managed conflict for hegemony. The alternative, which we must champion, is one of shared security and cooperative development, where geographic chokepoints are not weapons or opportunities, but commons to be safeguarded for the benefit of all humanity.