Iran - Enemies of the Strait: Former NATO General discusses US blockade threats • FRANCE 24

Key Concepts

• Strait of Hormuz: A critical maritime chokepoint for global oil transit.
• De Facto Blockade: A situation where Iran controls vessel passage, effectively dictating who can transit the strait.
• War of Position: A military strategy focused on occupying territory and establishing a presence rather than engaging in direct, full-scale kinetic warfare.
• Poker Game/Brinkmanship: The strategic use of threats and posturing to gain leverage in negotiations without escalating to total war.
• NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization): A military alliance currently being leveraged by the U.S. to exert pressure on Iran and test the commitment of European allies.

---

1. The Strategic Situation in the Strait of Hormuz

General Jean-Paul Palomeros characterizes the current U.S. posture under President Trump as a high-stakes "poker game." Despite the threat of a U.S. military blockade, the General argues that the U.S. is not currently prepared for a full-fledged war. Instead, the blockade threat is a tactical maneuver designed to:

• Gain Leverage: Force a stalemate in negotiations to break in the U.S.'s favor.
• Challenge Iran’s Control: Directly contest Iran’s ability to decide which vessels (specifically those from China and Southeast Asia) are permitted to transit the strait.
• Internationalize the Issue: By threatening to stop ships that pay tolls to Iran, the U.S. is expanding the scope of the conflict from a regional dispute to a broader defense of international waters.

2. Military Posturing and Asset Deployment

The presence of U.S. naval vessels—specifically the USS Frank E. Petersen and USS Michael Murphy (guided-missile destroyers)—is analyzed not as a standard minesweeping operation, but as a "war of position."

• Technical Clarification: The General notes these are destroyers, not specialized minesweepers. Their presence serves as a physical claim to the territory, signaling to Iran that the U.S. is prepared to assert control over the strait.
• Objective: The goal is to establish a permanent, legitimate presence in the region, forcing Iran into a position where any aggressive action against these vessels would be viewed as an unprovoked attack on international forces.

3. The Role of NATO and European Allies

President Trump’s rhetoric regarding NATO involvement in the Strait of Hormuz is described as a "stress test" for the alliance.

• The "NATO" Misnomer: The General clarifies that the Strait of Hormuz is not an official NATO area of responsibility. When Trump speaks of "NATO," he is referring to individual member states (such as France) rather than the alliance as a formal entity.
• Coalition for Peace: France and other nations have expressed interest in a coalition to ensure freedom of navigation. The U.S. is leveraging this willingness to force these countries to commit to a more active, potentially confrontational role.

4. NATO’s Internal Stability and U.S. Rhetoric

The General provides a perspective on the tension between the U.S. administration and the military reality of NATO:

• Military Commitment: He asserts that military personnel within NATO remain "rock solid" in their commitment to the alliance, viewing it as essential for global stability since 1949.
• The "Spoiling" Effect: While a full U.S. withdrawal from NATO is unlikely due to Congressional requirements, the General warns that the President can "spoil" the alliance by withdrawing troops or withholding critical capabilities, such as anti-ballistic missile defense systems, which are primarily provided by the U.S.
• Notable Quote: Regarding the President’s tactics, the General stated: "Playing with that card is very awkward but this is how Mr. Trump plays his game."

5. Synthesis and Conclusion

The situation in the Strait of Hormuz is currently defined by strategic posturing rather than active combat. The U.S. is utilizing a combination of naval presence and diplomatic pressure on NATO allies to challenge Iran’s de facto control of the strait. While the General believes a full-scale war is not imminent, he warns that the President’s aggressive rhetoric and the "poker game" approach create significant risks, particularly regarding the long-term cohesion of the NATO alliance and the potential for miscalculation in international waters. The primary takeaway is that the U.S. is attempting to "reconquer" the strait through a war of position, testing the resolve of both adversaries and allies alike.