By Qamar Bashir
Press Secretary to the President (Rtd)
Former Press Minister, Embassy of Pakistan to France
Former Press Attaché to Malaysia
Former MD, SRBC | Michigan, USA
President Donald Trump’s declaration that he may soon designate the Strait of Hormuz as territory of the United States is more than another provocative statement. It raises fundamental questions about sovereignty, international law and whether overwhelming military power can transform a globally shared waterway into an American possession.
Speaking in New York on August 14, Trump said that after defeating Iran, he would declare the strait American territory. He argued that the United States already controls passage because its forces decide which ships can move through it. Yet military presence is not sovereignty, enforcing a blockade is not ownership, and the capacity to disrupt navigation does not confer legal title over another country’s territorial waters.
Washington cannot lawfully acquire the strait through a presidential announcement. A legitimate territorial transfer would ordinarily require the consent of the sovereign states concerned, a treaty and constitutional approval within the United States. Neither Iran nor Oman has offered its territory, and no internationally recognized agreement exists.
The more disturbing question, however, is not whether Trump’s declaration is lawful. The real question is who possesses the power to stop him if he attempts to enforce it militarily.
The United Nations General Assembly could condemn the action and mobilize international opposition. But its resolutions would not automatically compel an American withdrawal. Binding action by the Security Council could be blocked by the United States through its veto. International courts depend heavily upon state consent and cooperation, while governments opposing unilateral annexation would hesitate before entering a military confrontation with a nuclear superpower.
The absence of an immediate reaction from world leaders is therefore highly significant. Apart from Iran, no major government or international organization initially issued a clearly attributable response specifically addressing Trump’s territorial declaration. Oman, despite sharing jurisdiction over the waterway, remained publicly silent. So did Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Pakistan, Türkiye, China, Russia, India, Britain, France, Germany, the European Union, NATO and the United Nations.
In diplomacy, silence can carry considerable meaning. Had Trump’s proposal been considered lawful, achievable or beneficial to the international order, allied leaders would probably have rushed to praise it, hoping to be among the first to demonstrate their support for Washington. Instead, the declaration was met—with the notable exception of Iran—by an extraordinary absence of endorsements.
Silence, however, cannot physically stop annexation. No country appears willing to confront the United States militarily over Hormuz. Russia is occupied with its own strategic struggles, China prefers economic and technological competition to direct warfare, and European governments lack both the military unity and political appetite to challenge Washington in the Persian Gulf. Gulf countries depend heavily on American security structures and cannot afford an open confrontation with the White House.
The controversy surrounding the USS Abraham Lincoln also illustrates the practical limitations of military power. Reports of an exceptionally long deployment, exhaustion and difficult conditions aboard the aircraft carrier have generated questions about the human cost of an open-ended war. Allegations that sailors attempted to go overboard specifically because of psychological distress or intolerable conditions require authoritative verification, but concerns about fatigue, morale, isolation and family separation are legitimate.
The wider military picture further complicates Trump’s proclamation of victory. Modern warfare consumes interceptors, precision weapons and spare parts much faster than peacetime procurement systems can replace them. New factories may expand production, but constructing facilities, training workers, securing supply chains and reaching full output take years.
Trump’s statement therefore carries two possible meanings. The first is that he is serious. In that case, declaring Hormuz American territory would become an imperial undertaking requiring prolonged military enforcement against Iran, diplomatic coercion of Oman and rejection by much of the international community. Washington would have to defend ships, bases and supply lines across a hostile region while absorbing retaliation, economic disruption and growing domestic opposition. Declaring ownership is easy; maintaining it against determined resistance is extraordinarily costly.
Iran is not a powerless target. Its large population, strategic geography, missile and drone capabilities, regional relationships and institutional memory make permanent subjugation improbable. Ancient Persia’s imperial history does not determine modern military outcomes, but Iran possesses a deeply rooted national identity and extensive experience in surviving foreign pressure. Any attempt to seize adjacent waters could strengthen Iranian nationalism rather than compel submission.
The second possibility is that Trump’s declaration is primarily political theatre—a maximalist threat intended to intimidate Iran, energize domestic supporters or strengthen Washington’s negotiating position.
Trump has previously spoken about acquiring Greenland and ending the Russia-Ukraine war almost immediately. Such declarations generate dramatic headlines and establish extreme opening positions, only to recede when their political or strategic costs become apparent.
Hormuz may follow the same pattern. Trump can claim ownership, demand security fees and announce total control, but commercial reality provides a harsher test. If maritime traffic remains disrupted, insurance costs remain elevated and Iran continues influencing which vessels can safely pass, American declarations of ownership will appear increasingly hollow.
As the balance of power stands today, the uncomfortable reality is that no foreign country or international organization possesses both the means and willingness to physically stop the United States if it decides to enforce Trump’s declaration. International law can define the action as unlawful. The United Nations can condemn it. Allies can withhold legitimacy. China can retaliate economically. Iran can resist militarily. But none of these forces can guarantee that Washington will abandon its course.
There remains, however, one force capable of stopping the American president: the American people acting through their constitutional institutions.
If citizens conclude that annexing Hormuz is producing higher gasoline prices, inflation, military casualties, mounting debt and no measurable improvement in national security, public support could collapse. Demonstrations, elections, media scrutiny, resistance from military families and pressure from voters could transform an overseas territorial adventure into an unbearable domestic liability.
Congress and the Senate can refuse additional funding, investigate the conduct and objectives of the war, challenge unauthorized military expansion and demand an accounting of its human and economic costs. Legislators can use appropriations, oversight and war-powers mechanisms to restrain the executive branch. Members of Trump’s own party could also withdraw support if the costs become politically indefensible.
The Strait of Hormuz cannot legally become American territory through rhetoric, blockade or naval deployment. Trump may possess enough power to initiate a dangerous confrontation, but not enough to erase geography, sovereignty and resistance permanently. If his declaration is serious, its costs could exceed every conceivable benefit. If it is a bargaining stunt, it may eventually disappear like the Greenland rhetoric.
The greatest danger lies between these possibilities: political theatre can trigger military actions that acquire an uncontrollable momentum. The international community may remain strategically silent because it fears American retaliation. But the American people, Congress and the Senate do not have the luxury of silence. They represent the final constitutional force capable of preventing presidential bravado from becoming an irreversible imperial adventure.
