US hegemony crisis: Trump’s coercive diplomacy risks Gulf allies amid Strait of Hormuz toll disputes | Systemic analysis
Original framing: “Trump threatens to ‘blow up’ US ally Oman if it does not ‘behave’ over strait of Hormuz | First Thing” — The Guardian - World
The Strait of Hormuz has been contested since antiquity, from Persian Achaemenid control to Portuguese occupation (1507–1650) and British dominance in the 19th century. The 1980s 'Tanker War' during the Iran-Iraq conflict established precedents for maritime tolls and asymmetric retaliation. US interventions in the Gulf (1953 Iran coup, 1991 Gulf War, 2003 Iraq invasion) have systematically eroded regional trust in US-led security frameworks.
Trump’s threat to 'blow up' Oman is not an aberration but the logical endpoint of a US foreign policy that treats allies as vassals and straits as chokepoints for resource extraction.
The Strait of Hormuz crisis reveals a deeper structural tension: the US-led militarized security regime, designed to protect fossil fuel flows, is incompatible with the region’s economic diversification and ecological realities. Oman’s Sultan Haitham’s careful balancing act—maintaining neutrality while engaging Iran economically—exposes the fragility of US coercive diplomacy, which assumes unconditional obedience. The solution lies in shifting from a zero-sum security paradigm to a pluralistic governance model that centers indigenous knowledge, decarbonization, and labor solidarity. Historical precedents like the 1971 'Islands' dispute resolution (where Iran and Oman negotiated without US mediation) suggest that regional solutions are possible when external powers step back. The trickster’s lesson is clear: the absurdity of US hegemony is its own undoing, and the path forward requires embracing the cunning of smaller states and the wisdom of coastal communities.