Published on: Mon, 13 Jul 2026 13:20:31 GMT
Original Story: Trump says US likely to take control of Hormuz, expects other countries to contribute financially – Anadolu Ajansı

Hormuz: US Control, Global Wallet, Same Old Tune

By The Editor-in-Chief

Alright, folks, buckle up. Just when you thought you’d heard every possible variation of the “America First, but you pay for it” foreign policy doctrine, Donald J. Trump has once again managed to deliver a fresh, yet eerily familiar, take. The latest gem dropped courtesy of Anadolu Ajansı, has our former (and potentially future) Commander-in-Chief musing about the United States taking control of the Strait of Hormuz. And, because why break with tradition, he fully expects “other countries” to pony up the cash for this grand endeavor. Colour us shocked. Truly.

It’s like that terrible cover band that keeps playing the same three songs, just with slightly different instrumentation. The melody is unmistakable, the lyrics are predictable, and you’re left wondering if anyone in the audience actually asked for this encore. The audacity, honestly, to repeatedly pitch global security as a protection racket where the US is the muscle and everyone else is just an ATM with a flag.

The Strait of Hormuz: Not Just a Pretty Name on a Map

Let’s get down to brass tacks, shall we? The Strait of Hormuz isn’t some obscure fishing channel. This isn’t about protecting a handful of shrimp boats. This narrow, strategically vital waterway connects the Persian Gulf to the open ocean, and it is, quite frankly, a jugular vein for global energy markets. We’re talking about roughly one-fifth of the world’s total oil consumption and a third of its liquefied natural gas (LNG) passing through this chokepoint every single day. Every. Single. Day. Think about that for a second. Tankers, laden with enough crude to fuel entire continents, navigate these waters. Any significant disruption here, and you can kiss stable gas prices goodbye faster than you can say “supply chain crisis.”

Historically, the US Navy, through its Fifth Fleet, has played a significant role in ensuring freedom of navigation in the region, largely as a stabilizer against Iranian aggression and piracy. This isn’t some new concept; it’s been a cornerstone of US foreign policy for decades, aimed at protecting global commerce – including, you know, our own. The idea of “taking control” isn’t entirely novel in theory (though the practicalities are a different beast), but the immediate, explicit demand for other nations to foot the bill? That’s the signature Trumpian twist.

The ‘America First, You Pay’ Doctrine: A Greatest Hits Album

This isn’t an isolated incident, is it? This is less a policy proposal and more a reflex. A deep, ingrained belief that America’s global contributions are transactional, best monetized, and that everyone else is just freeloading off the generosity of the American taxpayer. It’s a worldview that reduces complex geopolitical realities to a simple ledger sheet, and surprise, surprise, the US is always in the red, apparently.

Historical Echoes: The NATO ‘Freeloader’ Gambit

Remember 2016? Of course, you do. It was the year Trump burst onto the national scene, and among his many, many talking points, a constant refrain was the alleged “freeloading” of NATO allies. He railed, repeatedly and vociferously, about how European nations weren’t contributing their “fair share” to the alliance, leaving the US to shoulder an undue burden. He threatened to reduce US commitments, even withdraw from NATO entirely, if allies didn’t meet the 2% of GDP defense spending target.

For instance, during a 2016 campaign rally, he explicitly stated, “They’re not paying their bills. We’re protecting them, and they’re not paying their bills. We can’t afford to do it anymore.” Fast forward to 2018, at the NATO Summit in Brussels, he again publicly excoriated allies for their defense spending, demanding immediate increases. The message was clear: if you want America’s protection, you better open your wallets. It was a consistent, unambiguous stance: American power, European payment. Now, translate that same financial shakedown to the Strait of Hormuz. It’s the same song, different stage, but the tune remains stubbornly, predictably the same.

The Mexico Wall That Wasn’t (Paid For)

And let’s not forget the border wall. The infamous, never-fully-built border wall. The bedrock promise of “Mexico will pay for the wall!” was another classic example of this financial outsourcing fantasy. Mexico, predictably, never did. The American taxpayer ended up footing the bill for what was constructed. It’s a pattern, not a glitch. A deep-seated conviction that other nations owe the US for its perceived magnanimity or strategic importance.

Practicalities? What Practicalities?

So, let’s unpack this “take control” and “pay up” idea for Hormuz. Who exactly are these “other countries” he expects to contribute? The oil-importing nations? The oil-exporting nations? Both? And what form would this “contribution” take? A direct cash payment to the US Treasury? A levy on every barrel of oil shipped through the strait? Would this be enforced by the US Navy, turning a protective presence into a toll booth? The logistical, diplomatic, and international law implications are, to put it mildly, a colossal nightmare.

Imagine the G7 or G20 meeting where the US demands a protection fee for a waterway considered international territory. How would China, a massive energy importer, react to being asked to pay the US for transit? What about India? Japan? The EU? The global economic order, already teetering on a knife’s edge, would likely revolt. This isn’t just about sovereignty; it’s about the fundamental principles of free navigation and international cooperation. To suggest the US can unilaterally “take control” and then impose a global protection tax is a recipe for chaos, not stability.

Economic Implications: Who Really Pays?

If such an audacious plan were somehow implemented, the economic reverberations would be felt far and wide. Any additional cost imposed on shipping through Hormuz would, inevitably, be passed on to the consumer. Higher shipping costs mean higher oil prices. Higher oil prices mean everything else gets more expensive – transportation, manufacturing, goods, services. So, while Trump might envision other nations directly funding the US operation, the ultimate burden would likely fall on global consumers, including, you guessed it, American consumers.

It’s a classic case of thinking you’re playing 3D chess when you’re really just knocking over the pawn you’re holding. The global economy is far too interconnected for such a blunt, transactional approach to not boomerang back onto the US itself. This isn’t just about the “tariff tracker” as a category; it’s about the fundamental misunderstanding of how global trade and security actually operate, mistaking shared interests for exploitable weaknesses.

The Center Point Daily Perspective

At thecenterpointdaily.com, we’ve seen this movie before. The plot is thin, the acting is questionable, and the ending is always a cliffhanger where the audience is left wondering who will clean up the mess. Trump’s latest pronouncement about Hormuz is a perfect encapsulation of his foreign policy philosophy: grand, unilateral gestures backed by an expectation that everyone else will pick up the tab. It’s a vision where American power isn’t a global public good, but a service to be bought and sold, with the US holding exclusive rights to the cash register.

The consistent thread is the demand for financial contributions from allies or other nations for actions that are often in the broader global interest, or even the US’s own strategic interest. From NATO to a border wall, and now to a critical energy chokepoint, the mantra remains unchanged: America First, but the world pays for it. It’s a transactional approach to international relations that has consistently proven to be disruptive, alienating, and ultimately, far more complex and costly than the soundbite suggests.