Original Title: The Smartest Move That Won't Work
Original Author: Garrett
Translation by: Peggy, BlockBeats

Editor's Note: On April 12, after 21 hours of ongoing negotiations between the U.S. and Iran broke down, Trump announced that the U.S. Navy would block all vessels entering and exiting the Strait of Hormuz. Subsequently, the U.S. Central Command confirmed that the measures would take effect at 10 AM Eastern Time on Monday, covering all Iranian ports and applying to all nations. At this moment, the world's most crucial energy chokepoint underwent a power shift.

Tactically, this was a "smart" move: without the need to occupy or destroy, the U.S. directly seized Iran's most effective tool—control over the Strait of Hormuz—that had been used for the past six weeks and transformed it into a means of reverse pressure. The blockade thus reset the narrative, allowing the U.S. to regain the initiative.

However, this is not a war that can end with a single "smart operation." The blockade, while undermining Iran's income, also compresses the space for negotiations. As the exchangeable bargaining chips decrease, the conflict is more likely to escalate.

A deeper change lies within the order aspects. For decades, the U.S. built trust in the global trade and energy system based on "keeping the waterways open"; yet this time, it chose to actively close the channels. When the "gatekeeper" starts to weaponize the waterways, the risk pricing logic of markets and nations also changes accordingly.

Therefore, the blockade might alter short-term benefits, but it is unlikely to affect the fundamental constraints of the conflict. A more probable outcome is a longer war of attrition and continually accumulating tail risks.

The following is the original text:

Trump "seized" the Strait of Hormuz.

Not through a peace agreement, nor by reopening the waterways, but rather the opposite—he chose to personally impose the blockade.

On Sunday night, after 21 hours of negotiations in Islamabad collapsed, Trump posted on Truth Social: "Effective immediately, the U.S. Navy will initiate procedures to block all vessels attempting to enter or exit the Strait of Hormuz." The U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) later confirmed that the measures would take effect at 10 AM Eastern Time on Monday, covering all Iranian ports and applying to all nations without exception.

This crucial global energy chokepoint thus changed hands.

For the past six weeks, Hormuz had been Iran's weapon. Tehran charged a toll of $2 million for every vessel that passed, allowing allies through while blocking opponents. While exports from neighboring countries plummeted by 80%, Iran earned $139 million per day from oil.

And now, this chokepoint is under the control of the U.S. Navy.

This is Trump’s smartest tactical move in this war, but it is all but certain—will not succeed.

Transfer of Weapons

A concept can accurately explain everything that has just happened: the "chokepoint effect." In a global network, whoever controls key nodes has the ability to exert pressure on all participants dependent on it.

Before the war, the U.S. was the guardian of Hormuz. Since World War II, the U.S. Navy has kept the strait open, allowing oil to flow and the global economy to operate. This role constituted the foundation of "Pax Americana," and for this reason, Southeast Asian nations trusted Washington's "freedom of navigation" operations in the South China Sea, and Gulf monarchies were willing to allocate sovereign wealth into U.S. Treasury bonds.

Iran rewrote this set of rules on February 28. At the moment when the U.S. launched airstrikes on Iranian territory, Tehran chose to close the strait—not entirely, but selectively and strategically controlling passage. This just 21-mile waterway became the world’s most expensive "toll road."

In these six weeks, Iran controlled this critical node, thus gaining coercive power.

And Trump just took it back.

Compared to directly seizing Kharg Island (Iran's oil export hub), this is a smarter choice. Theoretically, the seized oil cargo can be resold on the open market, excluding Tehran from its own revenue chain. The entire strategy can be summarized as: blockade, intercept, and pressure.

From a logical standpoint, this strategy is very clear: Iran earns more in wartime than before, while its neighbors bleed economically. The only way to turn Iran's economic advantage into a burden is to take away its "weapons."

Thus, Trump did just that.

Why This is a Move of Genius

Objectively, this action has two extremely clever tactical points.

First, it reversed Iran's economic structure.

Before the blockade, Iran exported about 1.7 million barrels of oil daily. At wartime high oil prices, this meant daily revenues of $139 million, even exceeding pre-war levels. Meanwhile, Iraq's exports plummeted by 80%, and Saudi Arabia was forced to reroute through pipelines operating near full capacity.

In the entire Gulf region, Iran was almost the only oil-producing nation that continued to profit from this war. If the blockade were to be enforced, this revenue would be directly reduced to zero.

Second, it is lower cost than an invasion.

If the choice were to seize Kharg Island, it would mean that ground troops must be stationed in hostile territory for an extended period, within range of Iranian missiles. Meanwhile, an offshore blockade allows for "out-of-sight operations." Currently, the U.S. military has deployed three carrier strike groups and more than 18 missile destroyers in the region, with infrastructure already in place.

So, this strategy seems to have almost no downsides. But, don't be in a hurry to conclude.

Real Changes

Before discussing the issue, it is necessary to see a change at a level higher than tactics.

In the past six weeks, the U.S. has remained in a passive state. When Iran closed Hormuz, America called for negotiations; when Iran set toll fees, America expressed dissatisfaction; when Iran decided who could pass and who could not, America could only watch. The ceasefire framework was set by Iran, the negotiation venue chosen in Pakistan was also Iran's preference, and the "10-point proposal" was an initial condition proposed by Tehran.

This blockade breaks this pattern.

Since February 28, it is Washington's first active setting of the rules of engagement, rather than responding to Tehran. This is more important than it appears.

Control over a "chokepoint" has never been just about who has vessels on the sea; more crucially, it is about who the world believes is in control of the situation.

In the past six weeks, all shipping companies, insurance agencies, and oil traders priced risks based on one premise: Iran decides who can pass through Hormuz. And starting at 10 AM Eastern Time on Monday, this "pricing anchor" was completely reversed, with decision-making power returned to the U.S.

As for whether the blockade will have loopholes (which is almost certain), that is a secondary issue. The real key is the reset of the narrative. Markets, allies, and opponents will adjust their behavior based on "who holds the initiative." And at this moment, for the first time in this war, the initiative has returned to Washington.

This point deserves serious attention.

In the past six weeks, America appeared more like a superpower that had initiated war yet could not control the situation. Every round of "TACO cycle"—extreme pressure, temporary concessions, and empty "ceasefires"—reinforced an impression: Trump is improvising rather than strategically advancing.

This blockade is the first time it appears to be a "strategic" move rather than a "reaction." It is also the first time that America is setting the rhythm rather than passively following.

This is not trivial.

In a conflict where "cognitive decisions also determine the paths of escalation," having the initiative itself is a variable that affects the market. It alters how allies hedge, changes China's calculative logic, and influences debates among factions in Tehran regarding the next steps.

However, controlling the initiative does not equate to winning the war. The cost of this proactive move may be greater than the action itself.

Why It Won't Succeed

The issue is actually quite simple: the premise of this blockade is that economic pressure will force Iran back to the negotiating table.

But the reality is, it will not.

Iran has a population of 88 million, a long-standing revolutionary guard, capabilities close to nuclear threshold, and a network of proxies from Lebanon to Yemen to Iraq. This is not a regime that will yield due to economic pressure.

There are four reasons.

1. Iran Will Not Compromise, Only Escalate

Bloomberg Economics Research made a judgment within hours of the news release: Iran will view the blockade as an act of war. The so-called "two-week ceasefire" has effectively expired. Hardliners within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) are likely to consider attacking U.S. vessels as an "irresistible option."

The IRGC's own statement confirms this: any military vessel approaching Hormuz "by any name" will be considered a violation of the ceasefire and "will face severe retaliation." Supreme Leader Khamenei wrote on Telegram: "Iran will take the management of the Strait of Hormuz into a new stage."

This is not language used by a regime preparing to compromise.

2. China Will Not Allow Iran to Be "Choked"

China imports 80% of Iran's oil and cannot stand by while its key alternative oil source is "choked off" by the U.S. Navy. Bloomberg Economics Research points out the most direct countermeasure: China can leverage its dominant position in the rare earth supply chain to exert pressure on Washington.

China just participated in facilitating a ceasefire agreement, with investments in the Middle East totaling $270 billion. What they most do not want to see is Trump controlling the distribution of global oil.

A more realistic judgment is that China will find ways to keep Iranian oil flowing, whether through shadow fleets, ship-to-ship transfers, or land transport via Pakistan or Turkey. These methods have appeared in every round of past sanctions against Iran.

The blockade will only increase difficulty, but not stop the flow.

3. The Blockade Itself Has Loopholes

Even in the statements from CENTCOM, there was already an "exit" sewn in.

The original wording stated: "CENTCOM forces will not impede the freedom of navigation for vessels traveling between non-Iranian ports via the Strait of Hormuz." This means that a Chinese oil tanker departing from Oman, traveling through Hormuz to Shanghai? It will not be intercepted.

The U.S. is blocking Iranian ports, not the entire strait. This distinction is crucial. Iranian-affiliated vessels flying "convenience flags," loading at non-Iranian docks, transshipping through third-party ports—all these evasion routes truly exist.

Oil exports from most countries are highly concentrated and easy to strike; while Iran's export system is more dispersed and has already been operating a "gray market" system for six weeks.

4. The Ladder of Escalation is Bidirectional

This is the truly unsettling part. If the blockade actually starts to harm Iran's revenues, Tehran's means of retaliation extend far beyond Hormuz.

In the Red Sea direction, Iran’s Houthi forces in Yemen have already demonstrated the capability to disrupt key points at the southern end of the Red Sea—specifically, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. Between 2023-24, Houthi attacks forced global shipping to reroute around Africa. Bloomberg Economics Research warns: "The blockade could trigger Houthi action in that region." Recently, Saudi Arabia just resumed its Red Sea oil pipeline, making the timing particularly unfavorable.

Regarding Gulf infrastructure, Iran has repeatedly targeted regional energy facilities. The 2019 attack on Saudi Aramco's Abqaiq facility used drones at a cost far lower than "Patriot" interceptors, destroying half of Saudi production capacity. If Iran decides "no one can sell oil," its tools are both cheap and mature.

As for nuclear breakout, this is the core reason for the breakdown in negotiations. Vance once stated that Iran refuses to commit to not developing nuclear weapons. If Iran believes it will face economic blockade regardless, accelerating toward nuclear weapons becomes a more attractive option.

The logic is cold but clear: a regime cornered and stripped of everything it can lose will not negotiate—only escalate.

The Paradox

For the market, the real concern is the reversal logic here.

The blockade was designed to compress Iran's economy and speed up the end of the war. But the most likely outcome is precisely the opposite; it will prolong the war, as it eliminates Iran's motivation to negotiate.

Before the blockade, Iran had both bargaining chips (Hormuz) and income (oil exports). It had the ability to negotiate and things to exchange.

But after the blockade, Iran lost income without gaining any new bargaining chips. Hormuz is no longer a resource it can put forward for negotiation. The only remaining bargaining chips it has left are its nuclear program and network of proxies.

However, these two were never things Tehran would willingly give up. The diplomatic space did not expand; instead, it shrank.

There is a deeper paradox.

By blockading Hormuz, the U.S. has effectively violated a principle it has been upholding for the past 80 years.

This can be framed more directly: if the U.S. can close Hormuz when its own interests require it, then what is stopping the U.S. Navy from taking a further step in the South China Sea? And what is preventing other nations from following suit? The U.S. is not "failing to keep Hormuz open" but is actively choosing to close it. These are entirely different, and the consequences of the former are far more profound.

In the past, the U.S. was the "lock"; now, the U.S. has become the "key." Once the world sees the nation responsible for safeguarding maritime passages willing to weaponize it, that perception cannot be erased.

Four Scenarios

We do not make predictions; we prepare. Next is the decision matrix for this game.

Scenario One: Iran Concedes. Probability 10%, oil price $70–80, observation signals include high-ranking changes in the IRGC, restoring direct communication channels within 72 hours, appearance of written nuclear concession statements;
Scenario Two: Long-Term Stalemate (baseline scenario). Probability 50%, oil price $95–120, observation signals include appearance of loopholes in the blockade, China continues buying Iranian oil, oil prices remain high without spiking significantly, war transitions to "background noise," and the cycle extends from weeks to months;
Scenario Three: Iran Escalates (Red Sea + Infrastructure Strikes). Probability 25%, oil price above $150–200, observation signals include Houthi attacks in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, strikes on Saudi/UAE energy infrastructure, accelerated progress on nuclear programs, and a shift in logic to "if we can't sell oil, then no one can sell";
Scenario Four: Blockade Fails (TACO Mode). Probability 15%, oil price $90–100, observation signals include weakening implementation force within 1–2 weeks, Trump announces "a phased victory," negotiations restart, but core issues remain unresolved.

Our baseline judgment is: Scenario Two—long-term stalemate.

Iran will not concede because it cannot. Concessions on nuclear and Hormuz issues would be tantamount to the regime's self-termination. China will maintain its economic lifeline through various workaround methods. The blockade will only become an additional layer of pressure, not a decisive blow. Oil prices will stay in the $95 to $120 range, while the war continues to drain resources and extend.

But for positioning, it is more critical: although Scenario Three only has a 25% probability, it holds 3 to 5 times the market impact of the baseline scenario. It is this asymmetry that keeps us long on crude oil, gold, and defense sectors. The expected value of tail scenarios is higher than the baseline scenario.

This Week's Key Points of Focus

· Monday at 10 AM Eastern Time: The blockade officially takes effect. Key observation is the execution data from the first 24 hours—how many vessels were intercepted? Did China test the boundaries?

· Iran's Reaction: The Revolutionary Guard has declared that any a

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。