Trump Says He May Declare the Strait of Hormuz U.S. Territory as His Iran War Lurches Into Another Crisis
President Donald Trump escalated an already volatile confrontation with Iran on Friday by suggesting the United States could soon declare the Strait of Hormuz American territory, an extraordinary claim involving one of the world’s most strategically important waterways and the latest example of a U.S. foreign policy that has repeatedly swung between threats, ceasefires, declarations of victory and renewed military action.
Speaking in Garden City, New York, Trump said that after the United States finishes “defeating Iran,” he would soon declare the Strait of Hormuz “a territory of the United States.” Trump also claimed the United States effectively controls passage through the strait because of its naval blockade. The comments followed a Truth Social post two days earlier in which Trump asserted that Washington had “total control” of the waterway and called the American naval presence a “WALL OF STEEL.” Iran, meanwhile, says exactly the opposite and insists it controls passage through the strait.
The statement is not merely another provocative Trump sound bite. The Strait of Hormuz sits between Iran and Oman and historically carries roughly one fifth of global oil supplies. Its legal geography is also considerably more complicated than Trump’s remarks suggest. Iran claims territorial waters extending from its side of the strait, while Oman controls territorial waters on the southern side. International maritime law recognizes navigation rights through international straits. A U.S. president cannot simply announce that a waterway thousands of miles from American territory has become part of the United States and thereby erase the sovereignty claims of neighboring states.
More importantly, Trump’s declaration comes nearly six months into a war that his administration has repeatedly portrayed as approaching victory, resolution or peace, only for the conflict to restart, mutate or escalate again.
Trump Has Already Declared Victory in a War That Is Still Going
The United States and Israel launched the current war against Iran on February 28. By early April, Trump was telling Americans that the military operation was nearing completion. His administration went considerably further after an April ceasefire, publicly describing the campaign as an overwhelming American victory. Trump called it a “total and complete victory,” while Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth described Operation Epic Fury as a historic battlefield victory.
The problem is obvious in August: the war did not end.
On April 7, Trump agreed to suspend attacks on Iran for two weeks following mediation by Pakistan. In his own announcement, Trump said the United States had “already met and exceeded all Military objectives” and claimed Washington was “very far along” toward a definitive agreement establishing long term peace with Iran and the Middle East. The declaration came on the same day Trump had threatened catastrophic destruction if Iran failed to meet his demands.
That April ceasefire was extended as negotiations continued. Then, on June 17, Trump signed a preliminary agreement with Iran designed to establish a path toward ending the war. The agreement permitted Iran to resume oil exports and established a 60 day period for additional negotiations.
Once again, the peace didn’t hold. On July 7, military action formally restarted after attacks on commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz. Three days later, Trump notified Congress that U.S. military action against Iran had “commenced” again on July 7. Trump then declared the ceasefire “over,” while maintaining that negotiations could continue.
So How Many Times Has Trump Actually Stopped and Restarted This War?
There has been one major formal suspension and resumption cycle: the April ceasefire paused major U.S. attacks, diplomacy eventually produced the June preliminary agreement, and U.S. military action formally resumed July 7. But politically, the whiplash has been far greater. Trump and his administration have repeatedly moved between declaring victory, predicting imminent peace, threatening devastating attacks, signing agreements, abandoning agreements and returning to military pressure. Calling every rhetorical shift a separate “restart” would exaggerate the historical record. Calling the strategy consistent would be equally difficult to defend.
Trump’s Iran Claims Have Repeatedly Collided With the Evidence
Trump’s rhetoric surrounding Iran has also produced a substantial fact checking record. When launching the February war, Trump argued that Iran was rapidly approaching capabilities that threatened Americans. FactCheck.org found arms control experts disputed his assertion that Iran would soon possess missiles capable of reaching the United States and said there was insufficient evidence for his claim that Tehran had attempted to rebuild nuclear enrichment facilities damaged by previous American strikes.
In his April 1 address, Trump again claimed that three Iranian nuclear sites targeted during earlier U.S. attacks had been “totally obliterated.” Experts and classified American intelligence assessments instead concluded the facilities had been damaged and Iran’s nuclear program set back, but not completely destroyed. Trump also said Iran had been on the doorstep of obtaining a nuclear weapon, another characterization disputed by arms control experts.
Trump also claimed Iran was responsible for the February 28 bombing of an Iranian girls’ school. Reporting based on video, satellite imagery and expert analysis indicated the United States was likely responsible, and FactCheck.org concluded Trump provided no evidence supporting his accusation against Iran. Then came the peace agreement.
Trump had publicly insisted he would not provide Iran with upfront sanctions relief or unfreeze Iranian assets as part of an agreement. Yet the June memorandum immediately granted waivers allowing Iran to resume petroleum exports, potentially providing Tehran with billions of dollars in revenue. Trump also initially dismissed reports of a proposed $300 billion Iranian reconstruction fund as false; the fund subsequently appeared in the memorandum itself.
This is why simply counting Trump’s Iran “lies” is less useful journalistically than examining the documented record. Some statements are demonstrably false, others unsupported, others exaggerated, and still others are predictions or political boasts that subsequently collapsed under events. What is clear is that independent fact-checkers have repeatedly found major discrepancies between Trump’s public description of the conflict and the available evidence.
Now Trump Says America Owns the Strait It Hasn’t Reopened
Trump’s newest claim is especially remarkable because the administration’s supposed “total control” of Hormuz has not translated into anything resembling normal commercial navigation. Before the war, more than 130 ships reportedly moved through the strait each day. Current traffic has fallen to only a handful of vessels, according to Reuters. Iran continues to insist it will not fully reopen the waterway until the United States lifts sanctions, releases frozen assets and meets other demands.
In other words, Washington can possess overwhelming naval firepower around Hormuz without possessing political control over the consequences of the conflict. Trump says America has “total control.” Iran says Iran controls the strait. Commercial shipping remains severely disrupted. Oil markets remain under pressure. Negotiations remain unresolved. That isn’t total control in any conventional meaning of the phrase.
The Market Question Is Serious, But “Manipulation” Requires Evidence
Trump’s erratic Iran announcements have unquestionably moved financial markets. Whether they constitute deliberate stock market manipulation is a much more serious allegation, and there is not currently sufficient public evidence to state that as fact. The distinction matters.
When Trump announced the April ceasefire, oil prices fell and stock futures rose. When he declared the Iran agreement “over” in July, oil jumped roughly 5% to around $78 per barrel, European stocks declined, bond yields increased and the dollar strengthened.
The market remains extremely sensitive to Hormuz. On Friday, Brent crude rose $1.45 to $88.52 per barrel while West Texas Intermediate gained $1.15 to $82.40 amid tanker attacks and stalled negotiations. Brent was on track for a weekly increase of roughly 6%, with WTI up about 5.4%.
Wall Street has also responded directly to changing expectations surrounding the conflict. On August 11, fading optimism for a peace agreement helped push the S&P 500 down 0.32%, the Nasdaq down 0.6% and the Dow down 0.34%, while the energy sector gained as oil prices increased.
There is therefore no serious dispute that presidential statements about Iran and Hormuz can affect trillions of dollars in financial assets. But proving market manipulation would require something else, evidence that Trump or people acting with knowledge of his forthcoming announcements intentionally traded or structured transactions to profit from market movements created by those statements. No such evidence has been established publicly regarding Friday’s Hormuz declaration.
What can be said is that the situation creates an unusual market environment. A president with the authority to order military operations is simultaneously capable of moving oil, equities, currencies and bonds with a social-media post or an unscripted remark. Some of those pronouncements occur when major U.S. cash markets are closed, leaving futures and overseas markets to absorb the information before Wall Street’s next opening.
Interestingly, research cited by Axios suggests traders have increasingly learned to tune out much of Trump’s social-media commentary. JPMorgan analysts examining his Middle East posts found most produced little extraordinary movement in Treasury volatility, although a handful coincided with moves far beyond normal short-term volatility. The market may, in other words, be developing its own Trump filter. Hormuz is harder to ignore.
Trump’s Own War Has Become an Affordability Problem
The economic consequences are now colliding directly with one of Trump’s most important domestic political promises: lowering prices.
Before the February war, the national average gasoline price was approximately $2.98 per gallon. It has since climbed above $4 as disruption in the Strait of Hormuz pushed global energy prices higher. Trump has acknowledged the increase while defending it as a necessary price for confronting Iran. That is a remarkable political reversal for a president who has spent years making gasoline prices a symbol of presidential competence.
Trump previously assured Americans that gasoline prices would decline rapidly once the war ended. Energy analysts told FactCheck.org that even after hostilities stop, returning to prewar prices could take months and potentially longer than a year depending on infrastructure, shipping, insurance and supply conditions.
The war has therefore created a brutal feedback loop. Fighting disrupts Hormuz. Disruption increases oil prices. Higher oil increases gasoline prices and inflation. Inflation complicates Federal Reserve policy. Higher rates threaten consumers, mortgages and economic growth. Domestic political pressure then increases on Trump to end the war. That economic pressure may help explain why Vice President JD Vance has recently emphasized lowering oil and gasoline prices as a central administration priority even while Washington continues its military confrontation with Tehran.
The USS Abraham Lincoln Is Paying the Human Price
Behind Trump’s rhetoric are thousands of American sailors who have been carrying out the policy. The USS Abraham Lincoln has spent more than 240 consecutive days at sea during the Iran operation, setting a modern record, according to the Associated Press. Reports from families and lawmakers have raised concerns about exhaustion, mental health and conditions aboard the carrier. The Navy disputes reports suggesting an increase in suicidal ideation but has not publicly released all underlying data.
Asked Friday about concerns surrounding the sailors, Trump responded that their deployment was “not nearly long enough.” He also said the Lincoln would be relieved, with the USS George Washington being sent to replace it. The comment is particularly striking given Trump’s longstanding political identity as the president who would supposedly keep America out of endless wars. The United States is now rotating another aircraft carrier into a conflict approaching its sixth month while the president publicly jokes about annexing the waterway at the center of the war.
The Foreign Policy Problem Is Bigger Than One Outrageous Statement
Trump’s critics frequently characterize his foreign policy as uninformed, impulsive or chaotic. Those are political judgments. The factual record, however, provides plenty of material for a serious critique without resorting to diagnosing the president or simply calling him names. His administration said military objectives had been exceeded in April. The war continued. His administration declared overwhelming victory. The war continued. Trump signed a preliminary peace agreement in June. Military action resumed in July. Trump promised Americans gasoline prices would rapidly decline when the conflict ended. The conflict didn’t end.
Now, in August, with commercial shipping still severely restricted, gasoline above $4, sailors enduring extraordinary deployments and negotiations stalled, Trump is suggesting the United States may simply claim the Strait of Hormuz as American territory. That is not evidence of a coherent strategic victory. It is evidence of a conflict whose objectives and public justification have repeatedly changed while the costs continue accumulating.
America Cannot Govern the Middle East Through Social Media Posts
Presidential unpredictability can sometimes be strategically useful. Richard Nixon famously cultivated the “madman theory,” attempting to convince adversaries that he might behave irrationally enough that they should avoid testing him. But unpredictability is only an asset when it serves a recognizable strategy.
When allies, adversaries, military commanders, energy traders and ordinary Americans cannot determine whether the president’s latest statement represents actual policy, negotiating leverage, a temporary threat or something he said spontaneously, unpredictability begins looking less like strategic ambiguity and more like strategic instability.
The Strait of Hormuz illustrates the difference perfectly. Trump can call it American territory. He can say the United States has total control. He can threaten Iran, negotiate with Iran, declare victory over Iran, sign an agreement with Iran and restart military operations against Iran. But reality eventually gets a vote.
As of August 14, Iran has not capitulated. The Strait has not returned to normal commercial operation. Oil remains elevated. American sailors remain deployed. Another aircraft carrier is heading toward the conflict. Negotiations remain unresolved. And the president who promised to end America’s endless wars is now publicly contemplating an American territorial claim over the most dangerous maritime chokepoint in the Middle East. Whatever that is, it isn’t peace.
Sources
NBC News — Meet the Press NOW report
Reuters — Hormuz traffic and escalating economic pressure
Reuters — U.S. and Iranian claims over control of Hormuz
Reuters — Oil prices and stalled Iran negotiations
Associated Press — Iran ceasefire and war timeline
Associated Press — USS Abraham Lincoln deployment
FactCheck.org — Trump’s Iran nuclear and missile claims
FactCheck.org — Fact-checking Trump’s Iran address
FactCheck.org — Trump’s preliminary Iran agreement versus his rhetoric
