Qasem Nourbakhsh – Researcher in Political Philosophy and International Relations
In this analysis, drawing upon data from Kelley Beaucar Vlahos’s article (Responsible Statecraft, April 12, 2026) and referencing the views of political philosophers from Thucydides to Michel Foucault, I will demonstrate why Trump made such a decision, why this decision is doomed to failure, and why the logic of force is inherently self-destructive.
Why Did Trump Make Such a Decision? (Three Philosophical Roots)
- The “Thomas Hobbes” Theme: Fear of Chaos and the Temptation of Absolute Ruler
In the text of his threat, Trump states: “Leaders of countries, especially leaders of America, can never be pressured.” This statement evokes Chapter XIII of Hobbes’s Leviathan, which describes the “state of nature” as “a war of all against all.” Trump perceives himself as an “absolute sovereign” who must curb chaos through displays of power. However, Hobbes also issued this warning: a ruler who relies solely on “fear” will ultimately be overthrown by those same subjects.
- The Nietzschean Origin: “Will to Power” and the Contempt for Diplomacy
In Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophy, the “will to power” is the driving engine of history. By contemptuously dismissing diplomacy (which he regards as a sign of weakness) and resorting to “pure coercion”—namely, blocking the Strait of Hormuz—Trump commits precisely the same Nietzschean error. That is, he forgets that real power requires “representation” and “legitimacy,” not merely destruction.
- The “Zero-Sum” Logic Derived from Offensive Realism
John Mearsheimer, a theorist of offensive realism, argues that states continually seek to maximize their relative power. Trump thinks along similar lines: “If Iran closes the strait, we will close it too.” However, Trump forgets that in today’s interconnected world, “relative power” loses its meaning when all actors simultaneously become losers.
Why Is Trump’s Decision Mistaken? (Three Practical Fallacies)
- The Fallacy of “Self-Sanctioning”: Shooting Oneself and One’s Allies in the Foot
Vlahos’s article, citing Sarang Shidore, Director of the Global South Program at the Quincy Institute, states: “The Philippines, a US treaty ally, sources 98 percent of its energy resources from the Strait of Hormuz.” Additionally, Kratik Sankaran warns: “US weapons components will also be caught up in this blockade.”
Let us recall how, in the 1970s, the United States, by imposing an oil embargo on Saudi Arabia, not only failed to strike a blow against the Soviet Union but instead prompted Japan and Western Europe to pursue diplomacy independent of Washington. This time, blocking the Strait of Hormuz directly targets China, India, and Pakistan. As Trita Parsi warns: “This competition is turning into a US-China proxy war that does not benefit the United States.”
- The Fallacy of “Hubris Without Foundation” in Ancient Greek Tragedy
In Sophocles’ tragedy, Ajax is destroyed because, due to arrogance and pride, he positions himself against the gods. Trump, by threatening that “any Iranian who fires at us will be blown to hell,” commits the same error as Ajax. That is, he underestimates Iran’s military capabilities while disregarding the political and economic costs of a blockade.
In 1956, Britain and France, during the Suez Canal Crisis, believed they could regain control of the canal through the use of force. What was the result? The United States and the Soviet Union exerted pressure on them, and the British Empire forever lost its stature as a global power. If Trump implements this blockade, he will not only fail to contain Iran but will also push China toward a “parallel payment system” and “alternative trade routes.”
- The Fallacy of the “Vicious Cycle of Violence” (Michel Foucault)
Michel Foucault, in Discipline and Punish, demonstrated that state violence not only fails to reduce crime but rather reproduces and intensifies it. Trump states: “If Iran lays mines, we will destroy the mines.” However, this logic can easily encourage Iran to engage in more extensive and sophisticated mine-laying. The issue is that, as Trita Parsi has warned, if the United States blocks the Strait of Hormuz, Yemen’s Ansar Allah will also resume its attacks in the Red Sea, and “another 12 percent of the world’s oil will be removed from the market, pushing oil prices to $200 per barrel.” Therefore, this cycle of coercion, rather than concluding, will escalate.
The Destructive Outcome and Self-Destruction of the Logic of Coercion
- Short-Term: Oil Shock and Global Recession
Current data indicates that, prior to Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz, “one-fifth of the world’s oil and LNG transited through the strait.” Should the United States impose a naval blockade, gasoline prices in America would rise by “at least one dollar,” and American farmers would be unable to secure chemical fertilizers. US experts emphasize: “Uncertainty regarding the trajectory of war and diplomacy will worsen the situation.”
- Medium-Term: Shift of the International System Toward “Currency Bloc Formation”
China, which purchases 90 percent of Iran’s oil, will have multiplied incentives to eliminate the dollar from energy transactions. Shidore, an energy expert, states: “This blockade gives China incentive to strengthen Iran’s security.” The outcome of such a situation is the creation of an alternative international financial system to the dollar—meaning this system will move toward national digital currencies and bilateral barter arrangements.
- Long-Term: The Decline of US Hegemony in the Manner of History
Thucydides, the ancient Greek historian, demonstrated in his History of the Peloponnesian War how Athens, by relying on coercion and contempt for Sparta and its allies, ultimately destroyed itself in a war of attrition. Today, the United States, by repeating the same pattern—contempt for diplomacy, reliance on blockade, and disregard for interdependence—is following Athens’ path.
Trita Parsi has portrayed a realistic outlook on this situation as follows: “The most likely scenario is a new status quo without agreement, wherein Iran retains control of the strait, the United States exits the war, and Israel may continue the war alone.” This means the United States will have achieved none of its objectives and will have incurred only substantial economic and political costs.
Self-Destruction as the Destiny of Hegemony
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, in The Phenomenology of Spirit, discusses the “dialectic of lordship and bondage” thus: a lord who relies solely on coercion is never recognized and is ultimately drawn into servitude. By choosing a naval blockade, Trump plays a role equivalent to a “lord” who has become ensnared in the trap of interdependence.
However, perhaps the most profound analysis comes from the German-American philosopher Hannah Arendt in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem, where she states: “The greatest crimes in history occur not from the ‘evilness’ of perpetrators, but from ‘thoughtlessness.'” Instead of calculating the systemic consequences of a naval blockade on a wide spectrum of people and countries—from American farmers to Philippine port workers—Trump reacts merely out of anger and contempt.
Many American experts also concede that “no one will win in this deadly race toward the abyss.” If the United States does not reverse course from this path today, it will not only fail to defeat Iran but will also repeat the inevitable fate of all coercion-based hegemons—from Athens to Britain: a slow, humiliating, and self-inflicted collapse.
Sources and References:
- Vlahos, Kelley Beaucar. “Trump: US to block Hormuz, shooting ourselves & allies in foot.” Responsible Statecraft, April 12, 2026
- Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan (1651)
- Nietzsche, Friedrich. Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883)
- Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish (1975)
- Arendt, Hannah. Eichmann in Jerusalem (1963)
- Thucydides. History of the Peloponnesian War (c. 400 BCE)
No comments:
Post a Comment