Can the US alone keep the Strait of Hormuz open?
Even if willing allies were found, the task of keeping the strait open would be formidable; its narrowest point spans just 21 nautical miles, leaving ships exposed to missiles, drones, sea mines, and fast-attack boats
As the US-Israel war with Iran enters its third week, the international response — or lack thereof — to American President Donald Trump's call for a naval coalition to secure the Strait of Hormuz has exposed Washington's isolation.
The Strait, a 39-kilometre chokepoint through which roughly 20% of the world's oil transits, has been effectively closed off by Tehran in retaliation for US and Israeli airstrikes.
With oil prices already exceeding $100 a barrel and commercial shipping stranded, the Trump administration's reliance on allies is facing a stark reality: most of the world is unwilling to commit to a combat role in the Gulf.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
Trump has reportedly warned that NATO faces a "very bad" future if allies fail to assist. In an interview with the Financial Times, he said, "It's only appropriate that people who are the beneficiaries of the strait will help to make sure that nothing bad happens there. If there's no response or if it is a negative response, I think it will be very bad for the future of NATO."
Yet, the rhetoric has met a wall of caution, and in some cases outright refusal, from nations he expected to share the burden.
And Trump, after months of ignoring and sidelining traditional US allies, is now urging them to join in a war which many commentators are dubbing as without any legal justification.
Allies draw the line
The United Kingdom, France, Japan, Australia, and Spain have all declined to send warships to the region. Downing Street has offered only mine-hunting drones, while UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband described options "to help secure the Strait of Hormuz without escalating the conflict".
Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden told Times Radio, "There's a lot of rhetoric, always, in this presidency. Underneath that, there is a good and close relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States. But that doesn't mean that we will always have to support every intervention and every action that the United States chooses to take."
That is a very bold statement coming from the UK.
"It's a very unforgiving environment to sail with this type of wartime threat. Especially difficult under missile threats and these asymmetric potential mines or unmanned systems that could damage or destroy ships. The US might have the firepower, but even that may not be enough without partners willing to risk direct confrontation with Iran."
Japan is not far behind. The country, which imports around 90% of its oil from the Middle East, has begun releasing oil reserves to mitigate immediate supply risks.
Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi told parliament that Tokyo is "continuing to examine what Japan can do independently and what can be done within the legal framework".
Australia has outright refused participation, while South Korea is "closely reviewing" the US request.
China, the world's largest energy importer, has expressed concern about global energy stability but has made no commitment to deploy naval assets.
Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said, "All parties have the responsibility to ensure stable and unimpeded energy supply… the two sides remain in communication regarding President Trump's visit to China."
The European Union has echoed caution. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas noted, "It is in our interest to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, and that's why we are also discussing what we can do in this regard. But it is out of NATO's area of action."
Germany's Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul added, "Will we soon be an active part of this conflict? No."
Even with pressure from Trump's Truth Social posts, phone calls and direct meetings, the coalition Trump envisions remains more aspirational than operational. Analysts have described the effort as a "Coalition of the Cautious," reluctant to become directly involved in a war that has already escalated dangerously.
Military reality in the Gulf
Even if willing allies were found, the task of keeping the Strait open would be formidable. The strait's narrowest point spans just 21 nautical miles, leaving ships exposed to missiles, drones, sea mines, and fast-attack boats.
Iran's asymmetric naval capabilities, honed over decades, give it a clear advantage in these waters. And the Iranians know it well.
So, Brigadier-General Ali Mohammad Naini, spokesman for Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, taunted Washington, noting, "Didn't Trump say that Iran's navy has been destroyed? If so, let him send his ships into the Persian Gulf if he dares."
Escorting tankers through such a confined environment would require sustained naval deployments, combat air patrols, and likely, strike operations on coastal launch sites.
Jennifer Parker, founder of Barrier Strategic Advisory and a veteran of the Royal Australian Navy, notes that "without significantly degrading Iran's UAV and USV capability, escorts alone are unlikely to enable the safe transit of large numbers of tankers."
Mine clearance, historically slow even in peacetime, becomes exponentially more dangerous under fire, as MIT political science professor Caitlin Talmadge points out.
Internationally, Trump's credibility has been tested. Threatening NATO over a failure to respond risks alienating the very allies whose cooperation is essential. With China and European powers signalling restraint, the proposed coalition risks being largely US-led, undermining its legitimacy and operational effectiveness.
The Trump administration may announce a coalition in the coming days, but the combination of allied hesitancy, operational challenges, and Iran's asymmetric advantage casts doubt over the plan's viability.
With the Strait of Hormuz effectively under Iranian control, the US is confronting the uncomfortable reality that it cannot secure the waterway alone without risking escalation.
As energy prices soar and the conflict shows no sign of abating, the strategic and economic stakes for Washington — and for the world — have never been higher.
In the words of Alexandru Hudisteanu, a maritime security expert, "It's a very unforgiving environment to sail with this type of wartime threat. Especially difficult under missile threats and these asymmetric potential mines or unmanned systems that could damage or destroy ships. The US might have the firepower, but even that may not be enough without partners willing to risk direct confrontation with Iran."
Shadique Mahbub Islam is a journalist.
