Trump puts China against the wall. Ormuz becomes a test not only of strength but also of currency

In one of his entries on the X platform, Donald Trump urged states using oil supplies transported by the Strait of Ormuz to send their own warships into the area of this key shipping route. Among the countries he listed were China, France, Japan, South Korea and the United Kingdom.

However, the entry itself was not just another political message thrown into social media. In practice, he opened a much wider game, where shipping safety is no longer at stake, but also a future arrangement of forces in oil trade and a monetary order serving this trade.

The President of the United States wrote that the countries of the world receiving oil through the Strait should take care of the security of this passage themselves, and the United States will "help them strongly." In another passage of the entry he added that he hoped to send ships also by China. It is this element that gives the whole statement a strategic burden. It is no longer just about patrolling one of the world's most important bottlenecks. It's about forcing Beijing to take a position in a situation where any response can prove to be Politically expensive.

Not a proposal, but a political maneuver

From Washington's perspective, that move is clever. If China decided to send ships, they would in practice enter into a security system initiated by the US. This would mean not only accepting the American architecture of maritime action, but also weakening their political position towards Iran. Especially since Reuters had already reported that Beijing had been having talks with Tehran about ensuring a safe passage for Chinese and catharic cargo through Ormuz. For China, it would be a move to enter a public arrangement that could undermine their previous play on two pianos.

However, if Beijing refuses, there is a second problem. China is heavily dependent on the flow of raw materials through this reservoir. According to Reuters, about 45 percent of their imports of oil go through The Strait of Ormuz. In such a arrangement, refusal to participate in security activities can easily be presented as classical stowaway: the use of safety effects guaranteed by others without being willing to bear the costs. And that's where the American maneuver comes in. You don't have to beat China at sea. All you have to do is put them in a situation where every decision is politically charged.

Ormuz isn't just geography. It's also a trade dispute.

The whole issue has another dimension, much broader than the current military crisis. The Ormuz Strait remains a channel for the flow of around 20% of world oil, and thus its blocking or selective opening immediately translates into prices, logistics and policies of countries importing raw materials. Reuters stressed that the war has led to the greatest disruption of oil supply in history, and Iranian threats and attacks on shipping have already hit Iran's neighbours' exports.

Interestingly, parallel reports have appeared that Iran is considering passing through a limited number of tankers on condition that cargo is accounted for in the yuan. Such information should be treated with caution, the lack of confirmation by global press agencies, but the very fact of their appearance shows the direction of tension: Ormuz becomes not only a point of military dispute, but also a potential tool of pressure in the fight for the settlement currency.

In this context, the development of Chinese CIPS is also important. According to official data cited by the Shanghai authorities, this system processed 175 trillion of cross-border transactions in 2024, which meant an increase of 43 percent year to year. This is not yet an alternative capable of pushing the dollar out of its dominant position, but it is already an infrastructure on which Beijing builds its own sphere of influence in international settlements. Therefore, Trump's call should be read not only as an appeal for ships, but also as an attempt to block a scenario in which shipping safety and oil billing begin to separate from the American system.

Trump himself admitted that destroying his opponent does not solve the problem

There is another particularly important element in this whole dispute. Trump openly admitted that even the hard-beated Iran is still able to threaten shipping in the waters of this strait. Reuters quoted his words about bombing the coast and destroying Iranian boats, and at the same time noted that the President of the United States still expects support to other countries. This means one thing in practice: even military advantage does not automatically give full control of the strait.

And here we return to the brutal logic of the naval war. Close or paralyze shipping in a narrow throat does not require full control at sea. Just maintain a lasting risk: mines, drones, fast boats, point attacks on ships and infrastructure. Reuters recalled that Iran is already demanding that ships coordinate the crossing of the Strait with the Iranian Navy, which in itself shows that Tehran is attempting to impose its own rules of motion on this watershed.

The most important question is who will guarantee the return of safe shipping

That is why the safety of shipping in Ormuz is much wider than military. It depends not only on the physical flow of raw materials, but also on who will control the rules of energy trade.

In practice today, it is not only about whether tankers will sail through Ormuz again. The key is who and under what conditions will restore normal movement there. If the United States does so alone, they will regain control of the safety of one of the world's most important energy routes. If a wider coalition of Western and Asian US partners does so, Washington will retain political priority. If, on the other hand, this space remains partly expensive mainly for loads accepted by Iran and China, then much more serious is played for the rules of future energy trade.

Therefore, Trump's entry is worth reading not as a simple call to send ships. It was a movement calculated to force a political declaration – especially from China. This game is not just about the safety of shipping. The question is who will have the right to lay down rules of action at one of the most important points of global energy trade. In such places, the rules usually determine not the one who speaks the most, but the one who can ensure safety on one of the world’s key routes.

Mariusz Dasiewicz – publisher of the Shipyard Portal. He deals with the issues of the Polish Navy and shipbuilding industry. In its texts, it focuses on modernisation programs of the navy and issues related to the development of maritime security of Poland. It focuses on a factual analysis and transparency of the decision-making process.