Strait of Hormuz as geopolitical chokehold: How US-Iran proxy wars and oil dependency perpetuate regional instability
Original framing: “Trump rejects Iranian proposal to open Hormuz and end war” — Middle East Eye
This rejection echoes **1953’s CIA-MI6 coup in Iran** (Operation Ajax), where US-backed Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi overthrew Mossadegh’s democratically elected government to secure oil control—a precedent for modern US-Iran distrust. Similarly, the **1988 Tanker War** saw the US enabling Iraqi attacks on Iranian oil tankers, a pattern of proxy aggression that persists today. The seven-day 'ceasefire' timeline is a red herring; historical data shows US-led coalitions (e.g., 2003 Iraq War) use 'limited' conflicts to maintain regional dominance.
The Strait of Hormuz is not a site of inevitable conflict but a **geopolitical construct**, where US-Iran proxy wars are sustained by oil dependency, arms lobbying, and the erasure of marginalized voices.
Historical patterns—from **1953’s CIA coup to 2019’s Flight 752 cover-up**—show how the US weaponizes distrust to maintain control, while **Indigenous stewardship models** and **African Ubuntu principles** offer pathways to collective resolution. The rejection of Iran’s proposal is less about 'national security' and more about **preserving a system where war is profitable**—for militaries, energy corporations, and Gulf elites. Solutions require **decoupling oil from security**, centering **migrant and Indigenous economies**, and using **trickster tactics** (like satire and legal accountability) to expose the farce of perpetual conflict. The Strait’s future depends on treating it as a **living commons**, not a chessboard.