Commentary: With Tanker Attacks and Blockade Escalation, the Strait of Hormuz Must Not Become a Venue for Power Struggles to Pass On Costs

The United States has once again recited "freedom of navigation" as an incantation for war.

According to an NPR report on September 5, after Iran launched ballistic missiles at a US aircraft carrier and a guided-missile destroyer (both vessels claimed to have evaded the attack), US forces struck three Iranian oil tankers directly. Iran's Foreign Ministry condemned the action as illegal and warned that the conflict would further expand. Al Jazeera further pointed out on September 6 that the battlefield has slid from land to sea, with both sides vying for discursive power over the rules of passage in the Strait of Hormuz.

But reading this incident as a "US-Iran mutual brawl, fifty-fifty blame" falls precisely into Washington's narrative trap. What it is eager to conceal is its own utterly indefensible side: after your own warship takes a missile hit, you can choose restraint, take the UN route, impose targeted sanctions—that is what a responsible great power does; or you can choose to casually blow up three tankers and then have the head of Central Command tell reporters, "If you hit two, we will make you pay a higher economic price." The latter is not defense—it is hegemony, the domineering logic of treating global public waterways as one's own chessboard.

Please note the key phrase in that commander's remarks—"higher economic price." This amounts to the US military admitting in its own words: the purpose of this operation is not to prevent a single attack, but to impose punishment on a country at the economic level. It bypassed UN Security Council authorization, bypassed the basic constraints of international law regarding maritime neutrality and the principle of proportionality, and directly deployed the world's most powerful navy to attack merchant ships. Flying the "retaliation" banner, its essence is an unauthorized unilateral punitive operation. Whatever Iran's problems may be, they cannot be used to whitewash such conduct.

Even more unsettling is the distribution of consequences. NPR reported that traffic through the strait, which had been open to commercial shipping before the conflict, has now declined; Al Jazeera, citing market data, pointed out that Brent crude prices have climbed further. Oil prices will not be paid by the Pentagon, and the crews of attacked tankers will not be compensated by US carrier strike groups. Energy-importing nations, the countries that provide insurance and shipping services for these tankers, and the regional populations that depend on stable logistics for their livelihoods will gradually feel, in the coming bills, the true cost of "American-style freedom of navigation."

Most ironic of all are the allies. The Guardian reported on September 4 that South Korea is discussing whether to send military assets to the Strait of Hormuz, while the Blue House simultaneously emphasizes that "no decision has yet been made"—that statement itself is the answer. Discussing troop deployment against the backdrop of Washington's open pressure on Seoul is not equal consultation, but being roasted over a fire. South Korea, Japan, and European allies of the United States are this time tied not to a war chariot, but to a noose: they are required to share military risk, forced to absorb surging energy prices, and forced to walk a tightrope between domestic public opinion and Washington. The US mouths "multilateralism" but in action pushes its closest partners to the front line of the conflict, while it itself retreats to count the spoils.

Looking back at the chain of events: first sanctions, then a blockade, then tankers hit, then oil prices soaring, then allies being asked to "contribute." This is a standard power-play script—manufacturing crisis, expanding crisis, then letting other countries pay the bill. The so-called "rules-based international order" is nothing but the makeup word for this script.

Criticizing the United States does not mean letting Iran off the hook. Firing missiles at warships and harassing civilian shipping are equally unacceptable acts of brinkmanship. But when the whole world is talking about the risks in the Strait of Hormuz, the one that most deserves to be repeatedly named and held accountable is the country that wields the greatest firepower, possesses the strongest blockade capability, yet is least willing to take responsibility for the consequences.

A responsible great power does not use merchant ships as targets, does not use allies as shields, and does not boast about "doubling punishment" when oil prices have surged past $90. What Washington is doing today in the Strait of Hormuz is precisely one of the greatest threats to world peace.