When the U.S. delegation walked out of the Islamabad talks on April 12 without an agreement, the next move came almost immediately. Trump announced on Truth Social that U.S. naval forces would impose a full blockade on Iranian ports, cutting off maritime traffic in and out of the country. U.S. Central Command said the operation would begin at 10 a.m. Eastern time on April 13.
The blockade is the same war in another form. Washington failed to force Iran to surrender through bombing. It failed to impose terms at the negotiating table. Now it is turning to economic strangulation, using naval power to try to choke off trade, pressure the Iranian state and break the resistance it could not crush militarily.
This is the third major war action Trump has taken against Iran since Operation Epic Fury began on Feb. 28. He has done it without congressional authorization, without public debate and without even trying to secure broad political consent. But the deeper issue is not procedure. It is that U.S. imperialism, acting through the White House, the Pentagon and the military command structure, continues to wage war first and sort out legality later. Congress has not been asked to authorize a single step. The war is moving ahead anyway.
That is why Democratic opposition has remained trapped within procedure. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has said Democrats will force a War Powers Resolution vote when Congress returns on April 13. But no leading Democrat has called for ending the war on its merits. Their objection is not to the imperialist war itself. If the resolution fails, it creates a record while the war goes on. If it passes, it gives congressional cover to a war already underway. Either way, the Democratic Party is not acting as an obstacle to aggression against Iran. It is acting as a secondary manager of the same imperialist policy.
The economic shock began before the blockade even started. Brent crude climbed above $102 a barrel on April 13, while West Texas Intermediate rose above $104. Tankers started steering away from the Strait of Hormuz before the operation’s start time. The disruption is already spreading beyond oil. Analysts have reported shortfalls in helium, liquefied natural gas and industrial feedstocks, showing again that an imperialist assault on a strategic energy-producing country cannot be neatly contained. The same world market Washington tries to dominate is thrown into disorder by its own actions.
Formally, the blockade is aimed at vessels entering or leaving Iranian ports, not all shipping moving through Hormuz. CENTCOM said ships traveling between non-Iranian ports would not be impeded.
The geography of the Strait of Hormuz sets hard limits. At its narrowest point, the strait is about 21 miles wide. Coastal states control waters extending 12 nautical miles from their shores, meaning the passage runs through overlapping territorial waters of Iran and Oman, not open ocean. Ships move through a narrow corridor under constant surveillance and within range of coastal defenses. It is not a space the U.S. can treat as its own.
Markets are reacting to force, not legal language. Tankers are steering away because of the risk, not what officials say. The Wall Street Journal reported on April 13 that more than 15 warships have been deployed for the operation, including an aircraft carrier, destroyers and an amphibious assault ship. Some can launch helicopters for boarding operations. Others are positioned to stop and direct commercial shipping.
For decades, Washington has claimed to defend “freedom of navigation” and the free flow of oil. In practice, it has repeatedly done the opposite, using naval power, sanctions and allied force to decide which countries can sell energy, which ships can move and under what political conditions. The blockade makes that reality explicit. It is an attempt by the United States to regulate the flow of energy at its source by force.
Yet even here the limits are visible. In March, the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group retreated to roughly 1,000 kilometers (about 620 miles) from Iran’s coast after coming under missile attack. The Navy called it a repositioning. At that distance, it is not enforcing a close blockade. That helps explain the turn to blockade itself: Washington is escalating, but it is also operating inside real limits. A larger military move would carry far greater risks and no clear path to success.
Iran’s response has been consistent. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said on April 13 that the approach of military vessels toward the Strait amounted to a ceasefire violation and would bring a firm response. It also said civilian shipping remains permitted under regulated conditions. Yemen’s Foreign Ministry issued a parallel warning that it would escalate operations in the Red Sea if the U.S. and Israel resumed strikes on Iran. That raises the prospect of pressure not only at Hormuz but at Bab el-Mandeb as well. What Washington presents as controlled escalation carries the possibility of a much wider rupture in trade and shipping.
The two-week ceasefire announced April 7 technically remains in place through April 21, and Iran and Pakistan have both said more diplomatic contacts are expected. But the blockade has narrowed that space almost to nothing. Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi said the two sides had been inches away from a memorandum of understanding before the U.S. walked out.
The 21-hour breakdown also underscored how little substance the Islamabad talks ever had. Negotiations over a war of this scale do not begin and end in less than a day unless one side has come not to settle the conflict, but to demand terms.
Washington presented the nuclear issue as the sticking point. But the conflict had already moved beyond that. The central questions were Hormuz, Lebanon and whether Iran would accept a reduced position in the regional balance of forces. The war and the talks were both about those questions.
Washington launched this war seeking regime change in Iran. It failed. Only after Iran held together and asserted control over the Strait of Hormuz in self-defense did Washington shift to demanding that the strait be reopened on U.S. terms. Iran did not come out of the Islamabad talks as a defeated party. It came out still holding sovereign power and still refusing to yield on the central questions of war and control.
The blockade is Washington’s answer to that refusal — an attempt to use siege, deprivation and the threat of wider economic breakdown to force what six weeks of war and failed negotiations could not deliver. At the center of that pressure is oil. Washington is trying to stop Iran from selling its main export on the world market in the hope that economic strangulation will succeed where military force did not.
Each move is presented as limited and controlled. In reality, the stakes keep rising. Washington can no longer impose its will without higher costs, greater risks and no guarantee of success. That raises the risk of a wider war and greater disruption to energy and trade. There is no reason to expect the blockade to succeed where war and negotiations have already failed.
Join the Struggle-La Lucha Telegram channel