The Strait of Hormuz: Secure the Present, Build a Different Future

In the late 1980s, I worked at the Office of Naval Intelligence, supporting U.S. naval operations in the Persian Gulf. One of those operations was Earnest Will, the largest convoy escort mission since World War II. American warships protected reflagged Kuwaiti tankers from Iranian mines and small-boat attacks. Despite those threats, the operation succeeded. The Strait remained open, and Iran ultimately backed down.

That success, however, masked a larger failure. We solved the immediate problem but left the underlying one intact. Iran retained the ability to threaten the strait, and the world remained dependent on it. Four decades later, we are paying the price.

Today, the Strait of Hormuz is effectively closed again. Commercial shipping has fallen by more than 90 percent, and millions of barrels of oil per day have been removed from the market. Prices have surged past $100 a barrel, and economies that depend heavily on Gulf energy, particularly in Asia, are scrambling to adjust. This was not an unforeseen development; it was the predictable result of a vulnerability that was never addressed.

After talks collapsed in Pakistan this past weekend, President Trump ordered a naval blockade of Iranian ports and coastal facilities. U.S. forces are beginning mine-clearing operations, and the objective is straightforward: reopen the strait and restore oil flow. That objective is necessary, but it does not resolve the broader problem that made this crisis possible.

There are three levels to solving this problem: winning the current fight, changing the security model, and reducing dependence on the strait. The United States is now engaged in the first, and the blockade is the appropriate short-term response. The global economy cannot absorb a prolonged disruption of this scale, and restoring freedom of navigation is essential.

Winning the Current Fight

Following the collapse of talks in Pakistan, President Trump ordered a naval blockade of Iranian ports and coastal facilities. U.S. forces are beginning mine-clearing operations, with the stated objective of reopening the strait and restoring oil flow. That objective is necessary, but the method reflects a more deliberate shift in strategy.

This is not a traditional blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. The United States is not attempting to shut down the waterway or restrict global commerce. Instead, it is taking a more targeted, strategically effective approach. Transit through the strait to and from non-Iranian ports is being protected, while vessels entering or exiting Iranian ports are being interdicted. That distinction matters.

Iran’s strategy has been to impose costs on the global economy by threatening a shared chokepoint, betting that the resulting disruption would force outside powers to restrain the U.S. or push for concessions. The U.S. response turns that logic on its head. Rather than allowing Iran to hold the broader market hostage, the blockade isolates Iran economically while preserving the flow of energy to the rest of the world.

In practical terms, this creates a powerful asymmetry. Gulf oil producers can resume exports under U.S. naval protection, stabilizing global supply and easing upward price pressure. Iran, by contrast, finds its exports effectively cut off. Its ability to generate oil revenue, already constrained by sanctions, is further reduced to near zero. At the same time, sustaining imports of refined products, industrial goods, and critical materials becomes increasingly difficult amid interdiction. This is economic pressure applied with precision.

It also alters the diplomatic equation. Countries that depend on Gulf energy—particularly in Asia—have a strong interest in seeing the strait reopened and kept open. If the United States can secure transit for those flows while isolating Iran, the burden of disruption shifts from the global economy to Tehran. That is where China enters the picture.

China is the Gulf's biggest oil importer and has longstanding ties with Iran to ensure access to discounted energy. Nonetheless, China’s main priority is stability, not chaos. An extended crisis that jeopardizes regional supply chains, raises shipping dangers, and causes price swings would harm China's interests. With a key summit between President Xi and President Trump upcoming in May, China might urge Iran to resolve the conflict swiftly.

If Iranian exports are effectively shut down while other Gulf producers resume normal operations, China faces a choice. It can continue to support Iran diplomatically, at the cost of ongoing instability, or it can use its leverage to push Tehran toward a negotiated outcome that restores market predictability.

The U.S. blockade is designed to force that choice.

By protecting global flows while isolating the actor responsible for disruption, the United States shifts the center of gravity. Iran no longer holds the primary leverage. Instead, it becomes the party under pressure—economically constrained, diplomatically exposed, and increasingly dependent on outside support that may not be sustainable under prolonged stress.

This does not guarantee a quick resolution. It will take several days, if not longer, to position U.S. naval forces to execute the mission. The mission itself carries risks, including attacks upon U.S. ships, as occurred in the 1980s, escalation, and the challenge of sustained enforcement. But it represents a clear attempt to move from a reactive posture to one that selectively imposes costs and reshapes the incentives of all parties involved.

Changing the Security Model

A more sustainable approach to preventing a recurrence of Iranian belligerence begins with a shift in responsibility once the blockade is in place. The countries with the greatest stake in keeping the strait open are the Gulf states and the major energy importers in Asia. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, and others depend on the strait for economic survival, while China, India, Japan, and South Korea rely on it for energy security. Yet the long-term burden of maintaining open access has largely fallen to the United States.

That imbalance should be addressed through a more formal multinational framework. Building on existing cooperative structures, a Gulf-led maritime security arrangement, supported by the United States, European partners, and major Asian economies, would better align responsibility with interest. Such a framework would not eliminate risk, but it would distribute the burden more effectively and enhance the legitimacy and durability of the effort.

Legal clarity should emphasize that this framework is firm. The Strait of Hormuz, as an international waterway governed by established law, cannot be obstructed by any nation. While this principle is generally acknowledged, enforcement remains inconsistent. Persistent diplomatic, economic, and military pressure can increase the consequences of defiance and reinforce compliance with this standard.

At first glance, the countries most directly affected by a disruption in the Strait of Hormuz are the Gulf states and the major energy importers in Asia. That is where most of the oil flows, and those are the economies most visibly exposed.

But that view overlooks a more important reality. Oil is a global commodity, and its price is set in a global market. It does not matter whether a barrel is shipped to China, India, or Europe. When supply is disrupted at scale anywhere, prices adjust everywhere.

A loss of several million barrels per day from the Gulf does not remain confined to the region. It tightens global supply, drives up prices, and forces every consuming nation to compete for a smaller pool of energy. The result is higher fuel costs, increased transportation expenses, and broader inflationary pressure across economies that may not import a single barrel directly from the Persian Gulf.

This is why disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz have historically had global economic consequences. The impact is not regional. It is systemic.

That reality also explains why responsibility for securing the strait cannot rest solely with the countries that depend on it. Asian economies have the most immediate exposure, so it is reasonable for them to contribute more directly to maritime security. But Europe and the United States have a clear and enduring interest as well.

The issue is not merely access to Gulf oil. It is the stability of the global energy market and the principle of free navigation through international waterways. If a regional power can successfully threaten a critical chokepoint and impose costs on the global economy, that model will not remain confined to the Persian Gulf. It will be studied, adapted, and applied elsewhere.

Ensuring that international waterways remain open is therefore not an act of regional support. It is a core function of maintaining a stable global economic system.

These measures can stabilize the current situation, but they do not address the core issue. The underlying vulnerability is structural, and resolving it requires reducing global dependence on the strait.

Reducing Dependence on the Strait

A specific, measurable goal could be to reduce reliance on Persian Gulf oil by 50% by 2035. Previously, around 20 million barrels per day flowed through the strait, representing a large portion of global consumption. Such a volume meant that any disturbance could cause immediate and widespread impacts. Cutting that amount to roughly 10 million barrels daily would significantly alter the risk landscape, making potential disruptions easier to handle and less likely to cause instability.

Achieving that outcome requires progress across several areas. Expanding bypass infrastructure is the most direct step. Existing pipelines in Saudi Arabia and the UAE already allow some oil production to bypass the strait, and additional capacity could be developed over time. While the investment required is substantial, it is small relative to the economic damage caused by repeated disruptions.

Increasing production outside the Gulf is equally important. Growth in the United States, Brazil, Guyana, Canada, and Argentina has already shown that significant supply can come from regions not exposed to this chokepoint. Supporting continued development in these areas reduces risk concentration and limits the leverage of any single region.

Reducing demand pressure also plays a role. Over time, shifts in transportation, efficiency gains, and the gradual adoption of alternative technologies can lower global oil demand. Expanding nuclear energy can further stabilize the broader energy system by reducing reliance on other fossil fuels and easing pressure on hydrocarbon markets.

None of these steps offers a quick solution, and each requires sustained commitment. However, they rely on existing technologies and known capabilities rather than on speculative breakthroughs.

This crisis has clarified both the problem and the available solutions. The world remains highly dependent on a single chokepoint vulnerable to disruption by a regional power, but the tools to reduce that dependence are already in place.

The blockade will likely succeed in reopening the strait, and when it does, there will be a natural tendency to treat that outcome as a resolution. History suggests that would be a mistake. The events of the late 1980s show that restoring access without addressing underlying vulnerabilities merely defers the problem.

Energy security is not a one-time achievement but an ongoing structural challenge. The current crisis offers an opportunity to move beyond temporary fixes and pursue a more durable solution.

The path forward is clear. Secure the present through military action where necessary, build a more balanced and cooperative security framework, and reduce dependence on the strait over time. Whether this moment becomes a turning point or a missed opportunity will depend on whether those steps are taken after the immediate crisis passes.

------

SHARING: Please consider sharing these blog posts via social media or email if you find them interesting by providing a link to either https://www.libertytakeseffort.com or https://libertytakeseffort.substack.com

DISTRIBUTION: Liberty Takes Effort shifted its distribution from social media to email delivery via Substack as a Newsletter. If you would like to receive distribution, please email me at libertytakeseffort@gmail.com. To see archived blog posts since 2014, visit www.libertytakeseffort.com.

DISCLAIMER: The entire content of this website and newsletter are based solely upon the opinions and thoughts of the author unless otherwise noted. It is not considered advice for action by readers in any realm of human activity. Its purpose is to stimulate discussion on topics of interest to readers to further inform the public square. Use of any information on this site is at the sole choice and risk of the reader.

Birthright Citizenship: A Personal Take on the Supreme Court Arguments

This week, I listened to the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Barbara, et al.—a case that could redefine birthright citizenship in America. Both sides presented serious legal interpretations, and anyone claiming certainty about the outcome is probably allowing politics to influence their thinking. We should expect a ruling by the end of the Court’s term in June.

My interest in this case extends beyond academic curiosity. I minored in law during college and seriously considered law school, but I ultimately pursued a career as a Naval Intelligence officer. While serving in Washington, D.C., I lived just a few blocks behind the Supreme Court building and the Capitol and spent years witnessing how law and policy function in real-world situations—often in more complex ways than they appear from an outsider's perspective. This case is just as complex.

Some History Worth Knowing

The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, ratified between 1865 and 1870, aimed to rebuild the nation after the Civil War and ensure equal rights for formerly enslaved people. The 14th Amendment, in particular, granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” while also securing due process and equal protection.

That language was clear in its immediate purpose but left room for interpretation—especially the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” That ambiguity is precisely what the Court is now being asked to resolve.

Book Announcement: Brotherhood and Borders

 After more than a decade of writing about immigration and political division, my new book is now available on Amazon:

Brotherhood and Borders: Immigration, Compassion, and the Rule of Law in America

Immigration is not simply a border issue. It is a moral issue, a structural issue, and ultimately a credibility issue.

This book examines:

• Why reform efforts repeatedly fail

• How political incentives distort outcomes

• Why enforcement moved from controlled settings into public confrontation

• And what success would actually look like

It is written for readers who want structure instead of slogans.

Available now in hardcover and Kindle at this link:  https://a.co/d/0dNb2L9I

Please consider purchasing the book and if you find it informative and helpful in moving us closer to resolving this issue, share the link with friends, family, and influential people on this issue in Congress and in your state and local government.  Thank you, Dan Gallagher

Wake Up, America: Minneapolis and the Escalation We Pretended Wouldn’t Come

The death of Renée Nicole Good in Minneapolis is tragic. A life ended suddenly and violently, and no decent person should be indifferent to that. Almost immediately, the country split into familiar camps, each racing to advance a narrative before the facts had settled. As usual, nothing was learned, and tensions only rose.

Whatever the final legal findings say, one thing is already clear: this event did not occur in isolation. It fits a pattern that has been building for years. We can keep pretending these are isolated incidents, or we can face what the evidence is telling us. The divide over immigration enforcement is producing predictable—and preventable—tragedies.

The Data Tells a Story

Immigration enforcement happens in two fundamentally different ways. In cooperative jurisdictions, when local police arrest someone for an unrelated crime, ICE can lodge a detainer—a request to hold that person briefly so ICE can take custody when local charges are resolved. The transfer happens inside a jail, controlled and administrative. In non-cooperative sanctuary jurisdictions, local authorities refuse these detainers. This forces ICE to locate and arrest people in the community—at homes, workplaces, during traffic stops, and on streets. One method happens behind secure walls. The other happens in public—where crowds form, tensions escalate, and split-second decisions can turn deadly.

Between January 20 and October 15, 2025, ICE made more than 217,000 arrests in the country’s interior (Prison Policy Initiative analysis of ICE data). The majority of those arrested had either prior criminal convictions or pending criminal charges, while approximately 33% were arrested for immigration status violations only. It is not known how many individuals in this latter category were arrested in conjunction with another arrest or were subject to final deportation orders.

After Maduro: The Test of U.S. Power, Restraint, and Competence

This is Part III of a three-part series examining the Trump Administration's Venezuela strategy. Part I established why the Western Hemisphere became a U.S. national security priority. Part II explained how that strategy translated into Operation Southern Spear and the military force posture now in the Caribbean.

In the early hours of January 3, 2026, the United States conducted military strikes across Venezuela and captured President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, transporting them to the USS Iwo Jima before transfer to face narcoterrorism charges in the Southern District of New York. Operation Absolute Resolve succeeded with no U.S. casualties or equipment losses.

For readers of this series, the question was never whether this would happen—it was when, and what would follow.

In a press conference today, President Trump provided the answer. Asked who would govern Venezuela, he stated simply: "We are going to run it." He clarified that the United States has no intention of executing this operation only to hand authority immediately to officials who may lack capacity or support. The U.S. will establish stability, begin reconstructing the oil industry, and only then identify Venezuelan leadership capable of assuming power.

This represents direct U.S. interim administration—not immediate transfer to Venezuelan opposition figures. It is a significant departure from recent interventions and raises profound questions about execution, timeline, and exit strategy.

From Strategy to Enforcement: What the U.S. Is Doing in the Caribbean

This is Part II of a three-part series examining the Trump Administration's Venezuela strategy. Part I established why the Western Hemisphere became a U.S. national security priority.  Part III examines the removal of Nicolas Maduro and its implications for the future of Venezuela.

The current U.S. military presence in the Caribbean cannot be understood in isolation. What some observers perceive as a sudden escalation is, in fact, the operational expression of a strategic shift articulated years ago and formalized in the 2025 National Security Strategy. 

From Policy to Force Posture

Operation Southern Spear is the most visible manifestation of this change. Announced shortly after President Trump’s January 2025 inauguration, Southern Spear is led by U.S. Southern Command and the Navy’s Fourth Fleet. While it builds on earlier counter-drug and maritime security efforts, including experimentation with manned and unmanned systems, it has undergone a significant expansion in scope, persistence, and enforcement authority over the past six months.

What the Force Is—and Is Not

The U.S. has now assembled a substantial joint force under Joint Task Force Southern Spear: a carrier strike group, an amphibious ready group with a Marine Expeditionary Unit embarked, supporting surface combatants, special operations elements, and forward-deployed airpower operating from Puerto Rico and regional bases.

This is not an invasion force. It is a control force—designed to deny freedom of movement, disrupt logistics, impose costs, and shape outcomes without occupying territory.

America's Neighborhood: Why the Western Hemisphere Is Now a U.S. National Security Priority

This is Part I of a three-part series examining the Trump Administration's Venezuela strategy. Part II explains how that strategy translated into Operation Southern Spear and the military force posture now in the Caribbean. Part III describes the issues of power transition following the removal of Nicolas Maduro from power.

For decades, U.S. national security strategy treated the Western Hemisphere as largely settled terrain. Serious threats were assumed to lie elsewhere—in Europe, the Middle East, or Asia. Problems closer to home were treated as diplomatic, economic, or law-enforcement matters rather than core security concerns.

That assumption no longer holds.

The Trump Administration's 2025 National Security Strategy marks a clear reprioritization. The Western Hemisphere is now described as America's near strategic environment—a region where instability directly affects U.S. security, public health, and geopolitical influence. Migration, drug trafficking, transnational crime, and foreign state penetration are no longer treated as secondary issues. They are treated as strategic threats.