Trump Calls for "Joint Control" of Strait of Hormuz with Iran—Is It Really Feasible?

Is the Art of Negotiation or Geopolitical Fantasy?
On the 23rd, Trump proposed in an interview that the Strait of Hormuz, currently under blockade, could be “jointly controlled” by the U.S. and Iran, even jokingly suggesting that the management rights could be handed over to himself and the Supreme Leader. Is this plan truly feasible?
(Background: Foreign media reports on Trump’s “15-Point Peace Plan” for U.S.-Iran: Iran must fully abandon nuclear weapons in exchange for sanctions relief, signaling a possible turning point in Middle East tensions.)
(Additional context: Trump called for negotiations to “control the Strait of Hormuz with the U.S.,” Iran responded with a false news claim: the Pentagon is secretly preparing to seize the islands.)

Table of Contents

Toggle

• 1. Sovereignty Red Line as “Interest Monetization”: Low feasibility but room for bargaining
• 2. “Joint Management Committee” under Business Logic: Moderate feasibility
• 3. The “Genius Trap” in Strategy: Trump’s test of limits
• 4. Conclusion: The delicate balance between fantasy and reality

On March 23, 2026, President Trump made a surprising proposal during an interview: if negotiations go smoothly, the U.S. and Iran might “jointly control” the Strait of Hormuz — the vital artery for global oil transportation. Trump even half-jokingly depicted the future management model: “Maybe it’s me, and the Supreme Leader, regardless of who is now or next.”

This statement immediately drew widespread international attention but was strongly rebutted by Tehran. Iran’s Foreign Ministry stated there have been no substantive negotiations with the U.S., emphasizing that the security of the strait is a red line of sovereignty and foreign interference is unacceptable. So, how feasible is Trump’s “co-management” plan? We can analyze it from three perspectives.

1. Sovereignty Red Line as “Interest Monetization”: Low feasibility but bargaining space

For Iran, the Strait of Hormuz is a core strategic asset, directly related to national security and geopolitical leverage. “Co-management” with the U.S. would be seen as a surrender of sovereignty, with high political costs. However, in practice, some ships already pay “Tehran-approved route fees” to ensure passage, indicating Iran has some flexibility. If Trump’s co-management proposal is presented as a “protection fee or transit toll system” with sanctions relief as an incentive, Iran might consider informal compromises under economic pressure, but formal co-management remains unlikely.

2. “Joint Management Committee” under Business Logic: Moderate feasibility

Trump’s “joint control” might not involve military patrols side-by-side but could lean toward technical or managerial cooperation. For example, mimicking the Suez Canal model, establishing a “Joint Navigation Authority” mediated by third countries (like Oman or Qatar) to oversee vessel passage and safety, ensuring stable energy flow. This approach aligns with Trump’s “stability equals profit” business mindset and allows Iran to retain nominal management rights—a relatively feasible compromise.

3. The “Genius Trap” in Strategy: Trump’s test of limits

This proposal could also be a strategic test by Trump:

• If Iran accepts “co-management,” its nuclear program and proxy activities could face tighter monitoring.
• If Iran rejects it, the U.S. gains moral high ground by “extending an olive branch,” paving the way for possible military action.

From this perspective, Trump’s remarks seem more like a psychological and negotiation tactic rather than an immediate policy plan.

4. Conclusion: The delicate balance between fantasy and reality

In the short term, “U.S.-Iran co-management” of the Strait of Hormuz is almost impossible due to sovereignty and national security concerns. However, if framed as an “International Navigation Security Treaty” involving third-party mediators and commercial mechanisms, the U.S. could still influence Iran’s decisions and gain strategic advantages amid global energy crises. Trump’s proposal resembles a high-stakes game of price and psychological warfare: for the U.S., a lever to stabilize oil prices; for Iran, a test of U.S. bottom lines.

Therefore, the true value of this plan may not lie in immediate implementation but in creating “negotiation space” through diplomacy, media, and psychological tactics—shaping future energy and security arrangements for both sides.