Sinking the empire: How Western militarism surrendered the arteries of global trade

For decades, the architects of foreign policy in Washington and Tel Aviv operated under a remarkably persistent yet fundamentally flawed conviction. They assumed that overwhelming military supremacy could permanently dictate regional architecture and bludgeon sovereign actors into compliance. Yet, a dispassionate reading of history consistently demonstrates that when imperial ambition detaches entirely from political reality, aggressive intervention produces the exact opposite of its intended design. Today, this systemic failure exposes itself across the Middle East’s two most critical maritime arteries. Rather than diminishing the strategic reach of adversaries or safeguarding unhindered global commerce, months of relentless military escalation cemented a deeply uncomfortable reality. Washington’s coercive calculus simultaneously handed control of both the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab Al-Mandeb strait directly to its opponents. The attempt to project power merely highlighted its modern limitations.

To fully comprehend this historic strategic reversal, observers must critically examine the foundational miscalculations that have long governed Western approaches to the Gulf. For years, successive US administrations pursued an unyielding campaign of economic strangulation and maximum pressure. Policymakers operated under the naive assumption that financial isolation and constant naval posturing would inevitably force Tehran to capitulate. Instead, this maximum pressure framework rapidly accelerated indigenous defence resilience. It drove the development of advanced domestic capabilities and decisively fortified Iranian leverage across the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway through which a vast share of global petroleum consistently flows. The core premise that economic warfare and kinetic intimidation could somehow fabricate a compliant, pro-Western political landscape proved entirely bankrupt.

Military force possesses an undeniable capacity to demolish infrastructure, assassinate leaders and inflict widespread civilian suffering, but it remains utterly incapable of generating sustainable, legitimate political order.

Washington’s inability to grasp this distinction guarantees that every attempt to impose external will only deepens the region’s resistance to foreign presence. When this initial containment framework inevitably began to fray, Washington and its regional partners simply doubled down on militarisation. They foolishly opted to extend the theatre of confrontation southward into the Red Sea. Here, the strategic miscalculation metastasised into a global crisis. The absolute desire to maintain control blinded them to the shifting dynamics of regional deterrence.

Ansarallah’s highly calculated campaigns and decisive manoeuvres, most notably epitomised by its strategic posture around Perim Island at the very gateway of the Bab Al-Mandeb strait, shattered the long-held myth of Western naval invulnerability. Decades of destructive foreign intervention in Yemen, heavily backed by Western arms, intelligence and diplomatic cover, failed entirely to crush the movement. Instead of pacifying the country, the relentless bombardment forged a battle-hardened, heavily armed administration that currently dominates one of the world’s most critical maritime bottlenecks.

By attempting to police regional waters through unilateral, brute force, Western capitals inadvertently catalysed a two-front geopolitical leverage point that effectively upends centuries of unchallenged Western maritime hegemony.

READ: Strait of Hormuz disruptions lead to worst threat to global trade in 80 years: WTO chief

The profoundly interconnected nature of these waterways means that pressure applied in one region invariably activates corresponding counter-pressures in another. By squeezing vital trade routes and attempting to blockade sovereign economic actors, Washington and Tel Aviv provoked a highly synchronised, region-wide defensive reaction. Today, roughly 12 per cent of all global commerce traversing the Bab Al-Mandeb strait and the Red Sea faces continuous, calculated disruption. This unprecedented pressure forces international shipping lanes to divert widely around the Cape of Good Hope, which massively inflates global supply chain costs and delays vital shipments. The economic reverberations reach far beyond the immediate conflict zones, affecting consumers and industries worldwide.

Western naval coalitions, hastily assembled and deployed to patrol these waters, publicly demonstrate their own severe operational limits. They currently burn through millions of dollars on high-tech interceptors while entirely failing to secure safe passage for commercial vessels tied to Israeli supply chains or allied interests. The asymmetry of this conflict remains glaring; armed forces launch multimillion-dollar Western missiles to intercept vastly cheaper, locally manufactured drones and projectiles. This mathematical equation proves unsustainable for the US Department of Defence over the long term. Consequently, the current US administration finds itself hopelessly trapped in a geopolitical cul-de-sac, defined by two deeply unpalatable choices.

On one hand, Washington could choose to escalate toward a much wider, open-ended regional war. This reckless prospect risks catastrophic economic fallout and terminal military overextension. The appetite for another endless war barely exists among the domestic public, yet the political establishment pushes dangerously close to the precipice. On comedy, policymakers can accept the humbling, inevitable reality of diminished hegemony, acknowledging that regional adversaries now command permanent, unassailable leverage points across both ends of the Middle East energy corridor. Both options essentially confirm the total collapse of Washington’s original strategic objectives. The frantic drive to preserve global primacy merely accelerated its inevitable decline.

Ultimately, the unfolding crisis from Hormuz to Bab Al-Mandeb highlights the terminal structural decay of contemporary Western foreign policy. Short-sighted political calculations and unconditional alignment with aggressive, expansionist regional agendas drive a militarism that actively dismantles stability rather than securing it.

As long as Washington and Tel Aviv continue to prioritise kinetic dominance over diplomatic parity, justice and respect for regional sovereignty, they remain prisoners of their own making. They must now watch helplessly as the maritime arteries of global trade slip permanently from their imperial grasp.

OPINION: No equal talks under siege: The contradiction at the heart of US policy on Iran

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.