The Allure of the Bold Stroke

The Washington Examiner has put forward a striking proposition: that the United States should seize the Strait of Hormuz before it might, by some rhetorical sleight, become the 'Khamenei Strait.' The piece argues, as I am told, that 'maritime charts follow guns, not forgettable diplomatic press releases,' and that such an action would stamp a president's name on geography permanently. I do not dispute that sea-lanes matter, nor that a hostile power menacing the world's commerce is a serious concern. But I must speak plainly about the logic that animates this counsel, because I have seen that logic before — dressed in different cloth — and it leads nowhere the Republic wishes to go.

Interest, Not Glory, Must Be the Guide

In my Farewell Address — and I invoke it not from vanity but because the principle endures — I warned against permanent alliances and, equally, against the passions that dress ambition in the garb of necessity. A nation that commits its arms to seize a waterway on the grounds that doing so will immortalize a leader's legacy has confused the honor of the officeholder with the interest of the Republic. These are not the same thing. They are, in fact, frequently in opposition. The office is greater than the officeholder. The precedent of restraint, once broken, is painfully slow to restore.

The Costs the Column Does Not Linger On

The Examiner's lead, as I read it, speaks of 'discarding decades of State Department passivity' as though patience in foreign policy were a vice rather than, on many occasions, the hardest and most disciplined form of strength. What the argument does not dwell upon — and what any commander who has ever wintered with an army knows intimately — is the cost of what comes after the bold stroke. Who garrisons the strait? Who bears the burden of every vessel that passes under that new arrangement? What does the broader community of trading nations make of a republic that plants its flag, not by treaty or by recognized law, but by force of will and naval gun? Inference tells me those questions are not answered by naming rights.

Faction and the Appetite for Spectacle

I am also wary of the argument's framing — that 'diplomatic press releases' are forgettable while military seizure is permanent. This is the voice of faction speaking, not of statesmanship. It flatters the impulse toward action and demeans the slow, unglamorous work of building coalitions, maintaining credit among nations, and honoring the compact of international commerce that benefits our own citizens as much as any other. When a republic begins to measure its greatness by the geography it can name after itself, it has begun to think like a dynasty — and dynasties, as the history of every age demonstrates, carry within them the seeds of their own ruin.

My Counsel

Let the nation's posture toward the Strait of Hormuz be shaped by sober calculation of the Republic's long-term interest: the freedom of commerce, the restraint of hostile powers through alliances of shared advantage, and the preservation of a standing in the world that no single theatrical act can purchase. A president's name on a map is a poor monument compared to a republic still standing, still trusted, and still free. Pursue the strait's security by all legitimate means — diplomatic, economic, and military where truly warranted — but pursue it as stewards of the nation, not as conquerors in search of a legacy. The legacy will take care of itself, if the Republic endures.