The conflict between the United States and Iran has reached a pivotal moment, with President Donald Trump reportedly open to ending the war sooner than expected. According to a late-night report from The Wall Street Journal, Trump and his advisers are wary of a prolonged military campaign—especially one that could stretch beyond a self-imposed timeline of four to six weeks.
At the center of the debate is the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints. A significant portion of global oil flows through this narrow waterway, making it a strategic focal point in the conflict. Yet despite its importance, reopening the strait is reportedly “not [Trump’s] immediate priority,” even as military options remain available.
Instead, the Pentagon has focused on degrading Iran’s broader military capabilities—targeting naval forces, missile and drone stockpiles, and defense infrastructure. The strategy aims to limit Iran’s ability to project power rather than immediately forcing open the strait. If that effort fails, U.S. officials say Washington may push allies in Europe and the Gulf to take the lead.
A High-Stakes Calculation
This approach raises a critical question: what happens if the United States steps back before Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz is broken?
Some analysts warn that such a move could hand Tehran a strategic advantage. One widely discussed scenario suggests Iran could effectively operate a “toll booth” system—charging ships for safe passage. If successful, this could generate billions of dollars in monthly revenue while driving up global energy prices.
Financial Times columnist Gideon Rachman has argued that this outcome would leave Iran “stronger and more dangerous,” capable of intimidating Gulf neighbors and exerting broader influence over global markets. In that scenario, countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates might choose to pay rather than risk direct confrontation.
Skepticism From Energy Experts
Not all analysts agree. Critics argue that the “toll booth” scenario depends on assumptions that may not hold.
Karen Young of Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy has emphasized that Iran has so far avoided crossing key “red lines,” particularly interference with alternative export routes that bypass the Strait of Hormuz. These routes are vital to Gulf economies—and unlikely to be surrendered without resistance.
Several of those alternatives are already operating at scale:
Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline can move up to 7 million barrels per day to the Red Sea
The UAE’s Abu Dhabi pipeline exports oil through the Gulf of Oman
The Iraq-Turkey pipeline connects Iraqi production to Mediterranean ports
Together, these systems reduce dependence on the strait and limit Iran’s leverage.
Global Markets Push Back
Even if Iran attempted to enforce a toll system, market dynamics could work against it. Higher oil prices would incentivize alternative supply routes and energy investments, eroding Tehran’s position.
There is also the question of international pressure—especially from China. While Beijing remains a major buyer of discounted Iranian oil, it also has deep energy ties with Gulf producers. That gives China reason to resist prolonged instability.
A similar dynamic played out in 2024, when China pressured Houthi forces in Yemen to ease disruptions in the Red Sea after shipping lanes were threatened.
Workarounds at Sea
Shipping behavior also complicates Iran’s strategy. Some vessels have already found ways to bypass enforcement.
Greek-owned ships—representing one of the world’s largest commercial fleets—have reportedly transited the strait despite tensions. Others have avoided interference by disguising themselves as Chinese vessels.
Maritime historian Sal Mercogliano explained the economic logic driving such risks: “When you have a charter that’s paying 10 times the normal value, you’re going to pay your crew a little bit extra money, and you’re going to run the strait.”
Such actions weaken the feasibility of any consistent or enforceable toll system.
Iran’s Internal Constraints
Iran also faces internal challenges. Years of sanctions and recent military pressure have strained the regime’s cohesion and capacity.
If Tehran were to demand payments for passage, questions would immediately arise: Who controls enforcement? Can they guarantee safe transit? Would all factions comply?
Without clear answers, shipping companies may hesitate to cooperate—further undermining Iran’s position.
Military Options Remain
Despite current restraint, the U.S. still has significant military options available.
Analysts like John Spencer outline potential steps, including:
Interdicting Iranian oil exports
Seizing key islands used for military operations
Destroying radar, communications, and drone-launch systems
These actions could dismantle Iran’s ability to control the strait altogether. However, they carry risks—including escalation and the possibility of drawing in additional actors like Houthi forces.
A Test of U.S. Strategy
At its core, the decision facing Trump is about more than this conflict—it’s about America’s global role.
For decades, the U.S. has acted as the primary guarantor of free navigation. That role was reinforced during the late 1980s, when Ronald Reagan used military force to ensure the Strait of Hormuz remained open.
If the U.S. now steps back, it could signal a shift. Allies may question American commitments, while adversaries could test limits elsewhere.
What Comes Next
The situation remains fluid. U.S. forces continue to build up in the region, while Iran balances its desire for leverage against the risk of wider confrontation.
The idea that Iran could emerge stronger is possible—but far from certain. Much depends on whether the U.S. maintains pressure or opts for a negotiated exit.
What is clear is that the stakes extend well beyond the Persian Gulf. The outcome will shape global energy markets, military deterrence, and the balance of power in a volatile region.
