Table of Contents
ToggleOn March 23, 2026 , US President Trump proposed a surprising idea in an interview: if negotiations go smoothly, the US and Iran might "jointly control" the Strait of Hormuz—a vital waterway for global oil transportation. Trump even jokingly described the future governance model: "Maybe it's me, me and the Supreme Leader, whoever it is now or the next."
These remarks immediately drew widespread international attention, but also met with a strong rebuttal from Tehran. The Iranian Foreign Ministry stated that there had been no substantive negotiations with the US and emphasized that the security of the Straits is a red line of its sovereignty, which it will not tolerate interference from foreign forces. So, how feasible is Trump's proposed "co-management" plan? We can analyze it from three perspectives.
I. "Interest-based" treatment of sovereignty red lines: Low feasibility, but room for negotiation.
For Iran, the Strait of Hormuz is a core asset of its national strategy, directly involving national security and geopolitical leverage. "Co-management with the United States" would undoubtedly be seen as a concession of sovereignty, with extremely high political costs. However, in reality, some ships have already paid "Tehran-approved route fees" to ensure passage, indicating that Iran has a certain degree of flexibility. If Trump's co-management plan is presented as a "protection fee or toll system," and uses the lifting of sanctions as an incentive, Iran might consider an informal compromise under economic pressure, but the possibility of formal co-management remains very low.
II. "Joint Management Committee" under Business Logic: Moderate Feasibility
Trump's "joint control" may not involve joint military patrols, but rather lean towards cooperation at the technical or managerial levels. For example, following the Suez Canal model, a "Joint Navigation Management Committee" could be established, mediated by a third-party country (such as Oman or Qatar), to oversee ship passage and safety, ensuring stable energy flows. This model aligns with Trump's businessman-like "stability equals profit" mentality and allows Iran to retain nominal control, making it a relatively feasible compromise.
III. The Strategic "Genius Trap": Trump's Extreme Test
This proposal could also be a strategic test by Trump:
- If Iran accepts "joint management," its nuclear program and proxy activities will face closer monitoring.
- If Iran refuses, the United States can gain the moral high ground of "I have extended an olive branch," paving the way for possible military action.
From this perspective, Trump's remarks are more like "psychological and negotiation maneuvering" than a policy he truly intends to implement immediately.
IV. Conclusion: The delicate balance between fantasy and reality
In the short term, joint US-Iran control of the Strait of Hormuz is virtually impossible due to its core sovereignty and national security implications. However, if packaged as an "international navigation safety treaty" and facilitated through third-party intermediaries and commercial mechanisms, the US could still influence Iran's decision-making and gain a strategic advantage in the global energy crisis. Trump's proposal is more like a high-risk price and psychological war: for the US, it's a bargaining chip to stabilize oil prices; for Iran, it's a litmus test of the US's bottom line.
Therefore, the real value of this plan may not lie in its immediate implementation, but in creating "negotiation space" for future energy and security arrangements between the two sides through negotiation, media, and psychological maneuvering.
Related reports
