The Strait of Hormuz Is Not Tehran’s Toll Road

Opinion — Valeria Rios, Right-Wing Republican Columnist

Iran just reminded the world what conservative foreign policy is supposed to remember: peace does not come from pretending predators are misunderstood. Peace comes from strength, clarity, and the credible promise that attacking Americans or commercial shipping will cost more than it gains.

As of Thursday, July 9, the United States has launched another round of strikes on Iran after President Donald Trump said the action was “retribution for yesterday’s bombing of ships by Iran” in the Strait of Hormuz, according to BBC reporting. The BBC reported explosions in southern Iran, including around Bandar Abbas and Sirik, and said U.S. Central Command described the strikes as an effort to “further degrade Iran’s ability to attack commercial shipping and innocent civilian mariners.” CNBC separately reported that oil prices spiked after fresh U.S. strikes renewed fears about supply disruptions in the Middle East, with Brent crude settling up 5.4% in the prior session before easing Thursday morning (CNBC).

That is the fact pattern. Here is the opinion: America cannot allow the Strait of Hormuz to become Tehran’s toll road.

The Strait of Hormuz is not some abstract dot on a think-tank map. It is one of the world’s most important energy chokepoints. When Iranian forces or their proxies threaten shipping there, they are not just “sending a message” to Washington. They are threatening working families, truckers, farmers, small manufacturers, airlines, and every household that gets whacked when fuel costs climb. In Boyle Heights terms: when energy markets panic, the pain does not stop at Wall Street. It hits the guy running a delivery route, the mom commuting across L.A., and the small business owner already choosing between payroll and another utility hike.

So yes, if Iran bombs ships, the United States should hit the military assets that make those attacks possible. Not Tehran’s civilians. Not random symbolic rubble for cable-news drama. Military targets. Command capacity. Air defenses. Logistics. Coastal infrastructure used to threaten commerce. That is not warmongering. That is deterrence.

The usual Washington foreign-policy split is stale and useless here. On one side, you get the interventionist reflex that thinks every military move must become a 20-year social-engineering project. Hard pass. Conservatives should have learned from Iraq and Afghanistan that American troops are not a roaming nation-building department. On the other side, you get the isolationist fantasy that if America just looks away, hostile regimes will respect our boundaries out of spiritual growth or something. Also hard pass. The oceans do not protect us from energy shocks, terror finance, missile proliferation, or attacks on global commerce.

A serious Republican posture is narrower and tougher: define the American interest, hit threats to that interest, avoid open-ended occupation, and make the exit ramp visible.

That means Trump is right to answer attacks on shipping with force. It also means Congress and the administration should be honest with the public about objectives. Are we trying to stop attacks on commercial vessels? Reopen and secure traffic through Hormuz? Degrade Iran’s coastal strike capability? Protect U.S. bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, and the region? Those are legitimate goals. “Regime change and we’ll figure out the rest later” is not a plan; it is a bonfire with a flag on top.

The BBC reported that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said it launched retaliatory strikes on U.S. military bases in Kuwait and Bahrain and called them the “first phase” of a punitive response. If accurate, that makes this more dangerous, not less. American personnel cannot be left as sitting ducks while pundits debate whether Tehran is merely “reacting.” The Iranian regime is not entitled to attack our people, our bases, or civilian shipping and then hide behind diplomatic vocabulary.

But strength without discipline is how you lose the moral and strategic high ground. The administration should keep doing three things at once.

First, keep the target list tied tightly to the threat. If the threat is mining, missiles, drones, coastal launch sites, radars, logistics nodes, and IRGC naval capacity around Hormuz, then hit those capabilities. Do not drift into performative strikes that feel emotionally satisfying but do not reduce the danger.

Second, tell allies to stop freeloading on American deterrence. Europe and Asia depend heavily on stable energy flows, and Gulf states have direct skin in the game. If they want the waterway open, they need to provide basing, intelligence, interdiction, air defense, mine-clearing, and public diplomatic backing. America can lead. America should not be treated like the global Uber driver everyone rates three stars after demanding a midnight rescue.

Third, keep sanctions and diplomacy in the same toolbox as force. Not because Tehran has earned trust — it has not — but because the point of force is political effect. The message should be brutally simple: stop attacking shipping, stop targeting Americans, and the immediate military pressure can narrow. Continue, and the IRGC’s ability to threaten the waterway gets cut down piece by piece.

Democrats will be tempted to respond with their standard split-screen routine: condemn Trump’s “recklessness” while quietly hoping his deterrence works so gas prices do not explode before anyone has to vote. Progressives will call for de-escalation as if de-escalation is a magic word rather than a result produced by leverage. And the institutional press will rediscover its deep concern for congressional war powers about five minutes after deciding executive power was adorable when their side used it.

Fine. Debate war powers. Debate the scope. Debate the intelligence. A constitutional republic should debate the use of force. But do not insult the public by pretending the only reckless actor is the president who answers attacks, while the regime threatening ships in a vital waterway gets treated like a misunderstood stakeholder.

My conservative line is this: no blank check, no apology tour, no nation-building, no surrender of the sea lanes.

America should be feared by regimes that attack our people and threaten global commerce. Not loved. Not therapeutically affirmed. Feared in the specific, limited, old-fashioned sense that they know the cost of aggression will land on the military machine that launched it.

The Strait of Hormuz is not Iran’s private choke collar on the world economy. If Tehran wants to test that proposition, then Washington should keep answering — firmly, lawfully, and with eyes wide open.