the USA responsibility
The United States’ Responsibility for the Strait of Hormuz Crisis and the Opportunity for Peace that Could Bring Trump a Nobel Prize
By:
Myr Agung Sidayu
Indonesian Education Foundation
Special Consultative Status with ECOSOC
United Nations
Introduction.
“We didn’t have a problem with the Strait of Hormuz; that was created by the war that the U.S. Trump administration launched. So they have created a problem, and it is their main responsibility to sort out the problem that they created” — former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt”,
The statement by former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt quoted above is a sharp and highly relevant critique of the current geopolitical dynamics. Bildt, a pragmatic and seasoned European diplomat, asserts that the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz is not an inherent regional problem, but rather a direct consequence of U.S. military policy under the Trump administration. His remarks are not merely an accusation; they represent a moral and strategic imperative: the United States, having created the turmoil, must take the lead in resolving it — rather than leaving the burden to Europe or other nations.
Historical and Strategic Context of the Hormuz Crisis.
The Strait of Hormuz is a vital artery for global energy trade — approximately 20–30% of the world’s daily oil supply passes through this narrow waterway. For decades, tensions in the strait have been linked to the broken U.S.-Iran relationship since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. However, the recent escalation “created” by the war launched under the Trump administration is not a natural continuation of those long-standing tensions.
It is the result of deliberate political decisions: a series of military operations, maximum-pressure sanctions, and direct confrontations that provoked responses from Iran and other regional actors.
As a result, threats to close the strait, attacks on oil tankers, and disruptions to global energy supply chains have become an unnecessary reality. Bildt is correct: Europe had no “problem” with Hormuz before this U.S. intervention. The European Union has long emphasized diplomacy and dialogue over escalation.
Key Pressure Point: The United States Lacks Support from its NATO Allies.
The most critical and often overlooked factor is that the United States has not received support from its NATO allies for this conflict. NATO — the collective defense pact that has underpinned transatlantic security for decades — has firmly declined to become involved.
There has been no NATO resolution supporting U.S. military operations in the Persian Gulf. There are no joint troop commitments, no shared logistics burden, and no political consensus in Brussels. European countries — including Germany, France, and even the United Kingdom — have chosen to remain on the sidelines, viewing the war as a high-risk unilateral American venture that does not align with Europe’s energy interests.
This is not merely a tactical disagreement; it represents a rare strategic isolation of the United States since the Cold War. Trump himself once criticized NATO as “obsolete,” yet ironically, when the U.S. truly needed the alliance’s solidarity to sustain its campaign in the Strait of Hormuz, that support did not materialize. Europe opted to keep its distance, deeming the economic costs (sharp rises in energy prices), risks of migration, and further destabilization of the Middle East too high. Consequently, the United States stands alone — proving that this is not a “NATO war,” but rather a solitary Trump administration project.
The Responsible Way Forward: Peace, an End to the War, and Rebuilding 47 Years of Strained Relations.
The only responsible path is direct peace and an immediate end to the war. The United States must take the initiative to declare a ceasefire, lift the most provocative elements of its sanctions, and open multilateral diplomatic channels involving Iran, the Gulf states, and European and Asian actors. This would not be “surrender,” but rather a responsible acknowledgment of accountability, as emphasized by Bildt.
More profoundly, such a peace would represent a historic opportunity to rebuild U.S.-Iran relations, which have remained deeply strained for 47 years since the severance of diplomatic ties following the 1979 Revolution. For nearly half a century, the two countries have been trapped in a cycle of hostility: sanctions, proxy conflicts, and mutual suspicion. Relations have never been normalized — no embassies, no free trade, no strategic dialogue.
By ending the war it “created,” the United States could open a new chapter: direct talks on Iran’s nuclear program, maritime security in the Strait of Hormuz, and energy cooperation.
This is not utopian; it is pragmatic geopolitical realism. Iran has a clear economic interest in keeping the strait safely open, while the United States could reduce its military footprint in the Middle East and refocus on domestic priorities and strategic competition with China.
Historic Reward: Global Support and a Nobel Peace Prize for Trump.
If President Trump chooses this path — pursuing peace, ending the war, and leading reconciliation — the outcomes would be extraordinary. He would gain overwhelming international support from Europe, Asia, and even war-weary Gulf states, along with monumental global recognition. Such a peace would carry significant potential for Trump to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Why? Because he would be the first U.S. president to successfully resolve a crisis of his own making through visionary leadership: not solely through military power, but through the courage of diplomacy. The world would see this as a bold step that ends 47 years of deadlock, stabilizes global energy prices, and demonstrates that “America First” leadership need not mean isolation or perpetual conflict.
Carl Bildt’s candid statement actually offers the United States an honorable exit. The responsibility lies in Washington. By ending the war it initiated, Trump would not only resolve the Hormuz crisis — he could also become the architect of lasting Middle East peace and a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.
History will record that great leaders are not those who start wars, but those who have the courage to end them for the common good of humanity.
