Iran is a world war and America must win it

The Strait of Hormuz cannot be left in the hands of the Islamic Republic

Mar 28, 2026

Iran has always held the “Strait of Hormuz” card. During its long, painful war with Iraq in the 1980s, while the U.S. was more focused on arming the Mujahideen in Afghanistan (a.k.a. The Taliban), and trading arms for hostages, Iran attacked hundreds of ships in the strait, mostly Iraqi, Kuwaiti and Saudi, causing insurance rates to spike. It got so bad that the U.S. finally reacted with Operation Earnest Will, Operation Nimble Archer, and Operation Praying Mantis to protect Kuwaiti tankers.

It was a terrible mess for everyone involved. These operations created large convoys, protected by U.S. Navy warships, reflagged Kuwaiti tankers as U.S. ships, and attacked the Iranian navy. In the process, the USS Samuel B. Roberts hit a mine in 1988, blowing a large hole in its hull. We sunk Iranian ships, bombed IRGC bases, and tried (unsuccessfully) to seize a burning oil platform after shelling it. The USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner, Iran Air Flight 655, killing 290 passengers and crew, including 65 children and infants. The regime in Iran endured.

In 1991, we evicted Iraq from Kuwait, in a stunning 100-hour ground war preceded by “shock and awe” airpower. The Iraqis set the oil fields on fire. The Iranian regime breathed easier. During our second Gulf War against Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran continued to harass U.S. Navy ships in the strait, and periodically threatened to close it. After the JCPOA (“Iran Deal”) was signed, they quieted down until President Donald Trump tore that deal up in his first term.

So now, Iran has announced the (more or less) complete closure of the strait. However, they let Chinese, Russian, their own, and other nations friendly to them pass. This has resulted in another spike in insurance rates. John Puri explained this well in National Review, quoting Euronews:

Before the crisis, war-risk insurance for a vessel passing through the Gulf would be at 0.02% to 0.05% of the vessel’s value.
Since the start of hostilities, premiums have reportedly jumped to 0.5% to 1% of the vessel’s value, or even more.
It means that for a tanker valued at $120mn a normal premium of approximately $40,000 would now cost between $600,000 and $1.2mn for a single trip.

If money were the only issue, then our government’s offer to assume financial risk to ships transiting the strait would be welcome. Instead, there are almost no takers. Why? Because it would be like buying a fire insurance policy while The Joker from the Batman series is standing in front of your house with a flamethrower and 25 pounds of C-4. It’s not the risk of something bad happening to the house, it’s the certainty of it. Insurance premiums reflect risk, but shipping companies don’t want to lose hulls. Therefore, no shipping company is going to be crazy enough to send their tankers through no matter who is paying the premium, until they know the ship can be protected. And as of now, nobody knows.

And this is the core reason the Iran war is already a world war.

Currently, 20 percent of global oil and LNG shipments are disrupted; 20 percent of jet fuel, 16 percent of gasoline; 30 to 33 percent of urea fertilizer, including ammonia and petrochemical feedstocks such as propane and naptha; aluminum, ethylene, propylene are disrupted. These have massive downstream effects on the global economy: fertilizer affects crop yields; oil and LNG of course affect energy production; helium is used in semiconductor fabrication; plastics are used in a huge number of products and medical supplies; textiles, packaging; transportation; consumer goods, the groceries we buy, all disrupted.

Basically, closing the Stait of Hormuz affects about half the global economy.

Fertilizer is up over 50 percent. Oil is up over 50 percent. Companies are preparing for large supply disruptions. This will affect the job market, even here in the U.S. President Trump’s historic release of 172 million barrels of oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve may delay some of the effects, but only for a short time, and only if we win the war.

We say Iran is losing the war, but Iran has fought many wars and the regime is still in power. Boiling this down to end games, there are really only two, despite talk of off-ramps and “deals”: either the Iranian regime falls or is disrupted to the point of not having control of the Strait of Hormuz, and the world wins free trade back; or, Iran wins and controls world trade for the foreseeable future.

It is incredibly difficult to take and hold enough ground in southern Iran to keep the strait open while a hostile government controls Iran. I don’t even know how that can be done. The Iranian military, despite losing (most of?) its missile forces, is still well-equipped and in control on the ground. The IRGC, despite losing echelons of leadership, is still firmly in command of the government. The ayatollahs and the Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, whether dead or alive, or in hiding, still control all the levers of power in Iran. The majority of Iranians who would love to see the regime fall, have no weapons, no power, and no leadership to effect regime change.

Were the U.S. to try and seize by force Kharg Island, Abu Musa, Greater Tunb and Leser Tunb, our forces would be subject to possible drone strikes, speedboat-missile attacks, sabotage, and missile barrages, not to mention old fashioned artillery. But the islands themselves don’t control the strait. The U.S. would need to seize, or isolate, the southern city of Bandar Abbas, with a population of over half a million people.

That city is home to major headquarters of both the Iranian armed forces navy (Artesh), and the IRGC navy, along with several Iranian Marine brigades and coastal missile command units. The 1st Marine Brigade of the Artesh is considered an elite unit. The U.S. has claimed strikes on Bandar Abbas, and explosions have been seen in the city, and the Iranian navy has been decimated, but we have no boots on the ground there. Unless we bomb a city into complete rubble, it’s likely the ground forces are more or less intact, even with their headquarters and many of their main supply hubs destroyed. The Iranians had plenty of time to disperse key units, supplies and command structures. And no matter how many MOABs and penetration bombs we have, it’s unlikely we have hit all their hiding places and underground storage. After all, Bandar Abbas has been a Persian trade center since the days of Darius the Great (the one from the Book of Esther).

Let’s be real here: the U.S. cannot take and hold Bandar Abbas, and the islands in the strait, not without massive logistical support and help from our allies. I don’t think Bandar Abbas can be taken at all while the IRGC is still in command, not without a massive sea invasion. And if a military is going to embark on such an invasion, why not go the extra 1,283 kilometers (797 miles, roughly a bit more than St. Augustine, Florida to Washington, D.C.) to Tehran?

I am not a military planner, but I do know that such an invasion and attack would take hundreds of thousands of troops; not just front-line fighters, but logistics, medical, fuels, repair, and everything else an army on the go must have to function. The U.S. Army does not go anywhere without its logistics tail—in fact, the U.S. Army’s navy is larger than most nations’ entire navy. The question is not if the United States has the ability to pull it off: we do. The question is whether the United States (the people) have the will to win.

Winning a war: when a belligerent has the home ground and embedded forces, it is incumbent on the attacker to remove or conquer the enemy. It is not impossible. The U.S., in 1847, invaded Mexico, seized Mexico City, and basically ran the country until the Mexicans signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. We dictated the terms: give us California, plus the land currently making up Nevada, Utah, and parts of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming, and we’ll leave. President James K. Polk sent Nicholas Trist to negotiate the treaty. Polk wanted Baja as well as over half of Mexico’s territory, but Trist let Mexico keep that. It was only the lack of immediate communications that stopped Cabo San Lucas from being a Disney theme park destination.

The fact is, once one nation conquers another nation, the victors set the terms of peace. In World War II, the Allies insisted upon unconditional surrender, both in Germany and in Japan. Germany was partitioned with a special status for Berlin, which was also partitioned. Japan was left with self-government, under the auspices of Gen. Douglas MacArthur. The Japanese still revere MacArthur in a way most Americans cannot comprehend.

It is possible for America to conquer Iran and hand it back to the Iranians, but it will take someone like Douglas MacArthur, and a president like Harry Truman, to pull it off. (You may ask why I don’t mention FDR and it’s a fair question—it’s impossible to know how FDR would have arranged governing Japan and how much authority he would have given MacArthur, but FDR did insist on winning the war on all fronts.)

The biggest problem America has in winning the war is the two people responsible for fighting it: President Trump and Secretary of ~~Defense~~ War Pete Hegseth. Trump doesn’t want to free Iran; he wants to make a deal with someone there for its oil and resources. Hegseth just likes war; he’s the “ate up Major,” or the victim of some self-deluding fantasy of himself as Gen. George S. Patton. Guts, glory, victory, death, that kind of thing.

The people who could win the war and hand Iran over to the Iranians need to be people who hate war, but have the grim determination to win it in order to secure peace for the world. I am not saying that there’s no chance Trump and Hegseth could pull it off; I am saying that they’d be doing it despite themselves.

A hard question is how to make the case to Americans. The case makes itself. Look at history. The way for a conquerer to lose a war is to stop; to take the off-ramp. The British didn’t “lose” the American Revolutionary War because the Continental Army evicted the British from our shores. They left, because Parliament decided it wasn’t worth more blood and treasure to keep us in the Empire versus negotiating a treaty. We won because they stopped fighting (and the French were getting more and more involved, and France was England’s real enemy).

The U.S. failed to turn Afghanistan into a democracy not because the Taliban beat us; we left, and the Taliban had no where else to go so they filled the vacuum of our departure. We never really conquered Afghanistan because it’s not conquerable. However Iran is. Over 50 percent of Iranians would love to see the regime topple. Another 30 percent would be neutral, but wouldn’t stand in the way. That leaves 20 percent—no small number, around 18 million people—who would continue to be a problem. And those people currently control all the movement of money, weapons, and resources of Iran.

We could conquer Iran and put secular people in top positions, stripping power from the IRGC and the Basij, and count on the Artesh to defect to our side. In fact, there’s probably a decent chance of that happening. Then we would leave it to the Artesh and the majority of people who hate the Basij and IRGC to purge them, along with our own efforts. It would be similar to “de-Nazification” efforts in Germany at the end of World War II. But it would cost, in blood and treasure.

But what choice have we?

If we stop short of conquering the current Iranian regime, we hand them the key to 60 percent of world commerce, and tell them to go ahead and tax the world indefinitely. America would lose face, prestige, and trust around the globe. President Donald Trump would be more mocked and despised than he currently is.

Maybe that’s what it’s going to take the finish the job. The American people will soon feel the effects of the Strait of Hormuz closure. Gas prices, food prices, job security, consumer goods, and all manner of services are about to get very, very expensive. The people will demand something be done. President Trump will try to make a “deal” with someone in Iran, but either Israel will assassinate that person (Israel’s goals are regime change, full stop), or the “deal” will be unacceptable due to the tax on global shipping. Perhaps a “deal” will be reached, but Iran will know they can close the Strait whenever they want, in the future, to get a better “deal.” That’s really no deal at all.

The American people, and the rest of the world, will demand that global shipping and commerce and supply be returned to normal, and the only way to do that is to conquer Iran, remove the regime, and dictate terms, while handing the country back to its people. It’s a world war, and we’re in it.

Don’t be fooled into thinking that the Iranian regime seeks power for power’s sake, or the things that most governments and leaders want. It is a uniquely theological regime with deeply held beliefs about eschatology and mission. The IRGC and Basij will die for the regime because they believe in the same religious cause. They believe that Israel must be destroyed so that the Twelfth Imam can return. They will die for that belief, or kill any number of thousands of children of their own, or other countries that stand in their way. The regime will not be deterred by offers of money to buy them off, or stability. They will always return to their core mission.

Jonah Goldberg presents this argument excellently in his latest G-File at The Dispatch (behind a paywall):

One of the cardinal sins in intelligence, war, and foreign policy is called “mirroring” or “mirror imaging.” It’s when you assume that your opponent has the same motives, values, and decision-making processes as you do.
This gets at the main reason I have such contempt for the cartoonish version of “realism” that pervades a lot of left-wing, isolationist, and libertarian foreign policy. It’s systemic, reified mirroring. Many so-called realists think “self-interest” has a universal definition that spans all borders and cultures. This form of realism always had a vulgar Marxist twang to me, because many Marxists assume everyone everywhere is driven by their “class interests” in the same way that realists have a universal definition of “national interests.” Jihadi suicide bombers do not blow themselves up to further the class interests of the proletariat. Vladimir Putin is not sending hundreds of thousands of Russians to their death in Ukraine purely out of some “realist” definition of “national interest.” In international relations theory, the people who believe otherwise are called “suckers.”
Nations care about honor. Some are driven by cultural, theological, or ideological commitments that defy one-dimensional, largely economic definitions of the national interest.

We must be in it to win it. Unfortunately for us, and the way we got into this, without a single consult with Congress, a public case for the war, or public support, it’s going to cost us blood and treasure. We may find that it seems too expensive to continue, but the cost of losing is even higher. This world war will define the next generation in the same way that the Spanish Flu, the Great War, and World War II defined their generations. How do we want that generation to live, under the boot of an Iran-Russia-China hegemony on global trade, or with the power to protect the world’s free economy?

Many raise a serious argument against a major effort at winning, that war may expand, involving Russia and China. This is the thinking that limited President Joe Biden from listening to his own gut regarding Ukraine, and going with his overbearing handlers and staff. But it’s a real question and a valid argument. Here’s why I doubt it will happen. The Chinese are glad to watch us expend our power elsewhere rather than in their back yard. The Russians are busy with Ukraine. And nobody wants the war to teeter on nuclear devastation. But make no mistake, it is a world war, and we are going to have to fight it, either now, or sometime in the near future. It’s possible that Taiwan might end up orphaned because of this war, but we’re in it now, so Taiwan’s fate is also tied to Iran.

Not just Taiwan, and of course Israel, but also Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, the UAE, Qatar, and Egypt (the Suez Canal). Also, European nations that don’t want to be forced to buy from Russia. NATO is threatened. India may swing either way, but Singapore, Malaysia and Vietnam have no interest in living as Chinese vassals.

It is a world war, and eventually other nations will choose a side.

Also, to hell with the political, narrow-minded voices who say that it would be better to lose, because winning would make Trump more powerful, and losing would constrain Trump. It’s not a serious argument. There is no proof that living under the constant threat of Iranian extortion would make Trump weaker at home. There is no proof that winning the war would somehow make him more powerful or popular. Quite the opposite, really. What it will take to win the war will make Trump even more deeply unpopular than he is. But losing it will make him intolerable at home, more than he already is. Regardless of politics, this is Trump’s last term; so “electability” is not a factor. Let’s stick to serious arguments, rather than short-sighted political hackery. We have elections, and I think the results will speak for themselves.

A bigger problem is what if we win and Trump mucks it up? Hopefully, that’s what we have elections for, and I believe we can deal with that, and much more effectively at home if we win this war than if we succumb to TACO (“Trump Always Chickens Out”) and hand him all kinds of invented “emergency” powers during a bona-fide economic emergency.

In any case, the key to a world war is that we must win. We can win. We cannot stop until we win. Trump must be compelled to pursue the war. The pain level it might take to do that will be quite high for Americans, but I think we will all come to the same conclusion, along with the rest of western civilization. It’s a world war, and we must win, because losing to the Islamic Republic, in an axis with Russia and China, is unthinkable. Our petty political hackery at home must be secondary to the larger goal.

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?