The United States is currently playing the role of the world’s most expensive, least appreciated security guard. Senator Marco Rubio recently suggested that countries affected by a closure of the Strait of Hormuz should "help" the U.S. reopen it. This is the "lazy consensus" of modern foreign policy: the idea that global stability is a shared responsibility where Washington leads and everyone else chips in for gas money.
It is a fantasy. Worse, it is a strategic trap.
The premise that we must ensure the "free flow of commerce" at any cost is an outdated relic of the 1970s. By begging for "help" to secure a chokepoint that benefits our competitors more than ourselves, we aren't showing leadership. We are subsidizing our own decline.
The Chokepoint Subsidy
The Strait of Hormuz is a 21-mile-wide jugular vein through which 20% of the world’s liquid petroleum flows. Conventional wisdom says if Iran shuts it down, the global economy collapses, and the U.S. must ride in on a white horse to save the day.
Here is the data the "consensus" ignores:
- The Pivot of Dependence: In 1977, the U.S. was a desperate importer. Today, thanks to the Permian Basin and hydraulic fracturing, the U.S. is a net exporter of crude oil and petroleum products.
- The Real Victims: China, Japan, and South Korea are the primary destinations for the oil flowing through Hormuz. China alone imports roughly 10 million barrels per day.
- The Cost of Protection: The U.S. Fifth Fleet, headquartered in Bahrain, costs billions annually to maintain.
When Rubio asks these nations to "help," he is asking the police to request a donation from the neighborhood to keep patrolling. If the U.S. provides the security, China gets the energy, and the American taxpayer gets the bill. This isn't diplomacy. It's a massive, unintended foreign aid package to Beijing.
The Myth of Shared Responsibility
The idea of "multilateral cooperation" in the Persian Gulf is a polite way of describing a group of people watching one person do all the work. History shows that when the U.S. asks for "help," it gets symbolic gestures. Maybe a frigate from the UK or a logistical officer from Italy.
This happens because the incentives are skewed. As long as the U.S. guarantees the safety of the Strait, no other nation has a reason to build a real blue-water navy or invest in the massive diplomatic capital required to stabilize the region.
Imagine a scenario where the U.S. Navy simply leaves.
The immediate reaction is a spike in Brent Crude prices. But the secondary reaction is a panicked realization in Beijing. Without the U.S. shield, China’s energy security is zero. They would be forced to negotiate directly with Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. They would have to spend their own trillions on naval power projection. They would have to take the political risks that we currently absorb for free.
By staying, we prevent our rivals from feeling the natural consequences of their own energy dependence.
Oil Prices and the Great American Fear
The standard rebuttal to a U.S. withdrawal is the "Gas Pump Terror." Politicians fear that a Hormuz closure would lead to $10-a-gallon gas and a domestic riot.
This fear is grounded in a misunderstanding of modern energy markets. Oil is a global fungible commodity, yes. But the U.S. is now the largest producer in the world. In a true Hormuz crisis, the U.S. and Canada are the most insulated major economies on the planet.
A price spike would be a temporary shock to the U.S., but it would be a terminal event for the manufacturing-heavy economies of East Asia. Why are we sacrificing American lives and treasure to protect the supply chain of the factories that are hollowing out our own industrial base?
The Strategic Value of Chaos
We have been conditioned to believe that "stability" is always the goal. It isn't.
Strategic friction is a tool. If Iran closes the Strait, they aren't just attacking "global trade." They are attacking their own customers. They are forcing the hand of every nation that relies on that oil.
If the U.S. steps in to reopen it, we give Iran exactly what it wants: a direct confrontation with the "Great Satan" that allows them to play the victim and galvanize regional support. If we stay out, Iran has to explain to China—their largest buyer—why they are starving Chinese factories of energy.
Let them have that conversation.
The Failure of "Help"
Rubio’s call for countries to "help" is a weak-willed middle ground. It acknowledges that the U.S. shouldn't do it alone, but refuses to accept the logic that the U.S. shouldn't do it at all.
When you ask for help, you remain the primary stakeholder. You remain responsible for the outcome. If the mission fails, it’s a U.S. failure. If a ship gets hit, it’s a U.S. crisis.
The smarter move is to redefine the Strait of Hormuz as a regional problem for regional stakeholders and primary consumers.
- De-prioritize the Fifth Fleet: Shift assets to the Indo-Pacific where they can actually deter a peer competitor rather than chasing speedboats in the Gulf.
- End the Security Guarantee: Publicly state that the U.S. will protect its own flagged vessels and nothing else.
- Let the Market Price the Risk: Insurance premiums for tankers would skyrocket. This would finally force China and India to pay the true cost of their energy, rather than having it subsidized by American sailors.
The downside to this approach is obvious: short-term market volatility and a loss of "prestige." But prestige doesn't pay for infrastructure or rebuild the American middle class. Managing a chokepoint for the benefit of your rivals is not "leadership." It is a strategic error of the highest order.
Stop asking for help. Start leaving. If the Strait of Hormuz is so vital to the world, let the world figure out how to keep it open.
The U.S. has its own oil. It’s time we acted like it.
