US bid to control the Strait of Hormuz exposes entrenched geopolitical rivalries, global oil dependence, and regional security inequities
Original framing: “Trump says the US should control the Strait of Hormuz and get paid for it - Reuters” — Reuters (via Google News)
Control of narrow waterways has long been a lever of empire, from the British dominance of the Suez Canal to the Cold War contest over the Bosporus. The current proposal echoes these patterns, reproducing a legacy of external powers extracting rent from transit routes while local actors are sidelined.
The push to militarise and monetize the Strait of Hormuz reproduces historic patterns of external powers exploiting narrow maritime corridors, while sidelining Gulf communities whose indigenous knowledge and cultural ties to the waterway are ignored.
By foregrounding regional governance, equitable revenue sharing, and a transition to renewable energy, the narrative can shift from rent‑seeking to collaborative stewardship. Integrating scientific risk assessments, artistic critiques, and trickster insights reveals the paradox of seeking security through domination, underscoring the need for inclusive, future‑oriented policies that respect both global trade and local livelihoods.