Hormuz: The Strait of Humiliation

The decision-making processes behind major US foreign policy failures are being re-examined, drawing parallels between the Vietnam War and the current situation with Iran. Robert McNamara, the architect of the Vietnam War's escalation, operated under a rigid, almost scholastic strategic dogma. His insistence on pursuing a seemingly impossible victory year after year remains a subject of intense study.

In contrast, the article portrays President Trump's approach to geopolitics as akin to a 'mafia commercial transaction.' Trump's crucial decisions are driven by impulsive opportunism and fits of rage, making his foreign policy erratic. Unlike McNamara's persistent, albeit flawed, strategy, Trump seeks quick glory, but his amateurish tactics in the face of potential humiliation are leading to a different kind of failure.

The handling of the Strait of Hormuz situation exemplifies this. A hastily negotiated Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Iran, intended as an exit strategy, quickly collapsed. This led to renewed hostilities and Trump's declaration as 'guardian of Hormuz,' imposing tolls. This move is seen as a betrayal of the long-standing US principle of freedom of navigation, a principle that previously led to conflicts and diplomatic actions.

The author contends that Trump's actions have legitimized Iran's objective regarding the strait and endangered the economies of Persian Gulf allies. The predictable reversal of his stance confirms a pattern of unreliability. Facing an election, Trump appears desperate to minimize his perceived dishonorable failure by seeking at least the reopening of the strait, abandoning his maximalist war aims.