Last week, oil prices soared above $100 as the Strait of Hormuz flowed slower. Oil tankers reacted with caution, insurance companies raised their premiums and traders adjusted portfolios.
In any crisis, the US would have asked for their allies’ help in securing passage. The response this time was almost unanimously negative.
This refusal extends beyond Hormuz. This is the most recent and visible sign in a larger story – that of an increasingly distant US President from his traditional allies, with implications ranging from markets to diplomacy.
The impact of protectionism on alliances
Trump’s return to the White House in 2025 saw him re-instate many of his controversial policies from his first term. Both rivals and allies were subjected to tariffs.
The logic of trade deals was reformulated around the transactional principle: You benefit, you have to pay.
From automotive exports, to access to technology, European and Asian partners have been under constant economic pressure.
It was a simple idea: more leverage in the US meant better outcomes at home.
It had a much smaller impact on the alliances.
Repeated unilateral actions over time erode trust.
Washington’s requests no longer carry automatic weight. Each request was weighed by the allies against their growing sense of insecurity and self-interest.
Every negotiation raises the same concern: what is the danger of getting dragged in to a US-led operation?
The Board of Peace & the Illusion of Multilateralism
Trump will introduce the Board of Peace in early 2026.
It looked at first like an organization for reconstruction and managing conflicts. At the mid-year mark, it had expanded its global remit.
The president was the only person who could make decisions and collect financial contributions.
The UN and other multilateral institutions were effectively marginalized.
The European countries viewed it with suspicion. The emerging powers have joined the board selectively and are motivated by access or contracts rather than a shared goal.
The board showed that the US is increasingly prioritising control over coordination.
Allies are invited, but they do not have the power to act. The cooperation became conditional and selective.
Strait of Hormuz: A test
In March 2026, the conflict between Iran and Israel escalated rapidly. Iran has disrupted oil supplies in the Strait of Hormuz.
The immediate impact on prices was dramatic, but it wasn’t the only thing that affected them.
The answer to the US request for naval assistance from its allies in order to secure passage was mostly negative.
Germany, France and the United Kingdom refused. Japan, South Korea and India avoided involvement.
China has opened up talks with Tehran, rather than join an effort led by the US.
NATO allies remained on the sidelines.
The refusals of the government were calculated. The governments drew the line between protecting economic flows and participating in a conflict they hadn’t authorized.
They placed regional conflict and the risk of direct retaliation, above disruption of supplies.
The hesitation was exacerbated by doubts about Washington’s goals. The world, in effect, allowed the US to initiate a conflict without coordination support.
COINPAPER
Investors and markets adjust
Market reaction is more than just lost barrels. Traders are pricing in the possibility of prolonged disruption.
The cost of shipping insurance has risen dramatically.
The supply has been further tightened by tankers rerouting or anchoring in waiting.
New attention has been drawn to alternative sources of supply, such as pipelines bypassing Hormuz or sourcing in the Americas or Africa.
The split in the market is clear: Energy producers enjoy windfall profits, but sectors that use fuel intensively such as airlines and chemicals are experiencing shrinking margins.
The central banks are caught between the inflationary pressures and the slowing of growth.
The assumption of US coordination is no longer a cushion for supply chain shocks and price volatility.
The multiplier effects of allies’ support, once a key stabiliser for the country, are fading.
What makes this moment special?
Trump’s isolation didn’t happen overnight. The Board of Peace’s unilateralism over joint initiatives was a result of protectionist policies that created friction.
Now that the Hormuz Crisis has reached its climax, we can see all of its consequences.
Allies now evaluate US requests using a different filter: legitimacy, shared interests, risk and interest. The automatic alignment of interests has disappeared.
The pace of strategic autonomy has increased: Europe pursues diplomacy outside US frameworks, Asian economies are hedging rather than aligning and China is positioning itself as an alternative interlocutor.
This is not a marginal change, it’s the basis of a multipolar world where US military strength remains unparalleled, while coalition power, which has the most influence, continues to wane.
The way risk is valued also shifts.
Investors, policymakers, and markets now view disruptions as more long-lasting and contagious. The risks associated with energy supply and geopolitical instability are becoming increasingly intertwined.
Oil shocks no longer are viewed by the coalition as anomalies that will pass. The structural limitations of US-led interventions must be taken into account in investor strategy.
A larger perspective
Trump’s strategy reveals a shift in the alliances. The military remains powerful, but coalition building is not. Political alignment is no longer guaranteed by economic interdependence.
Allies weigh the legitimacy of their actions, as well as exposure and national interests, even in times when global trade is at risk.
Strait of Hormuz is more than just a chokepoint. It’s a test of current global orders. The absence of seats at the negotiation table, as well as refusals to participate and selective engagement, reveal a different reality. While US still has the ability to act, it cannot assume that others will do so.
Investors adjust and geopolitical terrain is recalibrated in real-time.
Practically speaking, the oil flow will eventually resume. The pressure will be eased by strategic reserves, alternate routes and diplomatic efforts.
US influence has become conditional. Coalition multiplier, the system that amplified American influence in previous years is now eroding.
Its erosion has global implications for the markets, supply chain, and risk assessments far beyond Persian Gulf.
The Strait of Hormuz Crisis: Is US Power Limiting? This post may change as new information unfolds
This site is for entertainment only. Click here to read more
