The narrative of a White House ‘in control’ is unravelling in real time. While President Trump insists his administration has the situation with Iran ‘under absolute control’, the physical reality of the Gulf suggests otherwise. A full-scale war with Iran would not be a surgical strike but a multi-front crisis, one that could choke the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world’s oil passes daily.
That is a thermodynamic event, not a political one. The Strait is only 33 kilometres wide at its narrowest point, and Iranian anti-ship missiles, along with swarms of fast attack craft, could turn the water into a choke point of burning fuel. The US 5th Fleet, based in Bahrain, would be on the front line, and its entire battle group would be vulnerable to saturation attacks from mobile launchers hidden in the Zagros mountains.
This is not a battle of wills. It is a battle of physics. The British naval presence, while modest, has provided a stabilising effect.
HMS Montrose and HMS Defender are in the region, part of the UK’s enduring commitment to freedom of navigation. Their presence acts as a tripwire. An attack on a British warship would trigger NATO Article 5, immediately drawing in the alliance.
This changes the calculus for Iran and for Washington. The question is not whether the US can control the situation. The question is whether any nation can control the aftermath.
A conflict with Iran would release a cascading set of consequences: a global oil price shock comparable to 1973, a refugee crisis across the Levant, and the collapse of the JCPOA’s verification regime. The International Atomic Energy Agency has already noted Iran’s enrichment levels exceed 60% purity, a technical threshold for weapons-grade material. The physical reality is that this region is a powder keg, and the US president is handling it with a blowtorch.
The calm urgency of the situation demands that policymakers stop talking about ‘maximum pressure’ and start talking about minimum risks.
