INTEGRATED GEOPOLITICAL STUDY
- Editorial Staff
- Apr 28
- 28 min read
Trump, Netanyahu, Taiwan, the UN,and the Global Chokepoint Doctrine
MARITIME ACCESS | HYBRID DETERRENCE | UN TRANSITION |
Analytical premise This document is a counterfactual geopolitical hypothesis. It is not presented as proof of secret agreements, but as an integrated analytical framework for evaluating doctrine, signals, and scenarios. |
Prepared: April 28, 2026
Author: Strategic Analysis Unit – CEPRODE EUROPE
Download the full report here:
Contents
Methodological Note
Executive Thesis
1. Globalization Is Physical Before It Is Digital
2. Classical Chokepoints: Canals, Straits, and Energy Routes
3. The American Doctrine: Armed Free Trade
4. Panama and the Western Hemisphere
5. Hormuz 2026: The Operational Test
6. Malacca and Indonesia: China’s Energy Throat
7. Taiwan: The Hybrid Chokepoint
8. The First Island Chain: Deterrence Without Conquest
9. The Arctic and Greenland: The Future Chokepoint
10. The Maritime Action Plan: The Industrial Base of the Doctrine
11. Cyber-Maritime Warfare: The New Layer of Control
12. The IRGC, Terrorism, and Hybrid Control of Passages
13. Europe and Ukraine: Strategic Burden-Shifting
14. Netanyahu and Coercive Liberation
15. Lebanon, Hezbollah, and Incomplete Sovereignty
16. Gaza: The Moral Limit of the Theory
17. The Iranian Axis as an Architecture of Veto
18. The UN as the Exit From Empire
19. UNIFIL, Gaza, and the Concrete Form of Transition
20. Taiwan and the Limits of the UN
21. The Economics of Forced Pacification
22. Risks and Countermeasures by Rivals
23. Future Scenarios
24. Confirmation or Falsification Indicators
25. The Operational Chain of the Chokepoint Doctrine
26. The Malacca-Hormuz-Taiwan Triad
27. The Insurance and Financial Layer
28. Legal and Diplomatic Constraints
29. How the UN Phase Could Work
30. Actor Matrix
31. Failure Modes: How the Theory Can Fail
32. Probable Timeline
33. Implications for Europe and Italy
Conclusion
Bibliographic References and Sources
Framework at a Glance
SEE | ATTRIBUTE | PROTECT | CLEAR | INSURE | LEGITIMIZE | RESTORE |
The doctrine is presented as a chain: intelligence and maritime domain awareness first; denial, clearance, insurance, cyber-resilience, diplomacy, and finally an international or UN-compatible handover that restores civilian sovereignty.
Methodological Note
This study is a counterfactual geopolitical hypothesis, not a factual reconstruction of proven secret agreements. The starting idea is this: what if Donald Trump were not simply a chaotic leader, but the interpreter of an American doctrine for controlling the critical points of world trade? And what if Benjamin Netanyahu were not only the head of a controversial war, but an actor who, through extremely hard and contested tools, removes parallel armies and terrorist groups that prevent fragile states from recovering civilian sovereignty?
The document integrates doctrinal elements, operational signals, and prospective scenarios concerning the Strait of Malacca, United States-Indonesia defense cooperation, Hormuz in 2026, cyber-maritime warfare, Greenland and the Arctic, Taiwan as a hybrid chokepoint, and burden-shifting from Europe to the Indo-Pacific. Claims are treated according to an explicit hierarchy: documented facts, analytical signals, plausible scenarios, and insufficiently confirmed hypotheses. In particular, Indonesia’s alleged granting of unlimited overflight rights, the estimate that 40% of global trade passes through Malacca, and the rapid full reopening of Hormuz are treated with caution.
The final thesis is not an apology for force. It is a strategic question: can a formally free world order emerge from a coercive phase without being corrupted by that same coercion? The answer depends on one condition: restoration. Restoration of routes to navigation, territories to civilians, states to sovereignty, Taiwan to the democratic status quo, and force to international law through a UN or UN-compatible phase.
Executive Thesis
The integrated thesis is as follows: Trump would be building a global-access doctrine based on the control, deterrence, and resilience of physical, energy, industrial, and digital chokepoints; Netanyahu, in parallel, would be acting against non-state armed actors that capture the sovereignty of fragile countries; and the UN, finally, should be assigned the task of stabilizing the equilibrium obtained, so that coercive victory does not become permanent occupation.
In its most concise form, the doctrine could be expressed as follows: no rival, terrorist group, Iranian proxy, revisionist power, or hybrid cyber actor must be able to close, mine, tax, sabotage, or obscure the critical passages of world trade. Free trade is therefore not conceived as a spontaneous phenomenon, but as an armed, monitored, repaired, and defended order.
This approach makes it possible to connect theaters that appear separate: Panama, Hormuz, Malacca, Taiwan, the Red Sea, Lebanon, Gaza, Greenland, and Ukraine. All become parts of the same map: the map of veto powers. A veto power is an actor that does not necessarily need to govern or produce; it is enough for it to be able to prevent. It can prevent the passage of ships, energy access, technological production, the sovereignty of a state, or the stability of a region.
1. Globalization Is Physical Before It Is Digital
Globalization is often described as an immaterial network of data, payments, platforms, and financial markets. In reality, it continues to rest on physical infrastructure: ships, ports, canals, straits, energy terminals, submarine cables, merchant fleets, insurance, shipyards, bases, satellites, and navigation systems. UNCTAD notes that more than 80% of world trade by volume travels by sea and that canals and passages such as Suez, Panama, and the Red Sea are vulnerable to geopolitical and climate shocks [1].
The Red Sea crisis showed how fragile the system is. The International Monetary Fund estimated that in the first months of 2024, commercial traffic through Suez had fallen by about 50% compared with the previous year, while traffic through Panama had declined significantly because of the combined effects of tensions and water constraints [2].
From this perspective, commercial freedom is not an abstract right: it is a technical condition that must be maintained. A route is free only if ships can cross it at predictable costs, with sustainable insurance, without missile threats, mines, seizures, cyber-jamming, or excessive political risk. The market comes after security, not before.
2. Classical Chokepoints: Canals, Straits, and Energy Routes
The key nodes are well known: the Strait of Hormuz, Bab el-Mandeb, Suez, Panama, Malacca, Gibraltar, the Bosporus, the Dardanelles, the Danish straits, the Cape of Good Hope, and, prospectively, the Arctic routes. The U.S. Energy Information Administration treats these passages as energy chokepoints, meaning points whose closure or compromise can produce delays, cost increases, and pressure on energy prices [3].
The hypothetical doctrine attributed to Trump does not necessarily require occupying these points. Rather, it requires the ability to guarantee access to them. Control can take different forms: naval presence, access agreements, air surveillance, regional coalitions, bases, drones, sensors, intelligence, mine-clearance capacity, cyber protection, infrastructure investment, and diplomatic pressure.
The key idea is that whoever controls chokepoints controls not only goods, but time. They control the cost of diversion, the insurance premium, imported inflation, energy availability, industrial continuity, and investor confidence. In a just-in-time economy, time is sovereignty.
3. The American Doctrine: Armed Free Trade
The conventional reading presents Trump as protectionist and hostile to globalization. The hypothetical reading of this study is different: Trump would not be opposed to world trade; he would be opposed to a world trade system in which the United States bears the costs of protection while other actors can blackmail, close, or exploit critical passages.
The 2025 National Security Strategy explicitly links security, industry, technology, access, and deterrence. In the chapter on the Indo-Pacific, the document states that Taiwan is relevant not only for semiconductors, but also because it enables access to the Second Island Chain and separates Northeast and Southeast Asia into distinct theaters. The same document speaks of the need to keep the routes of the South China Sea open, free from tolls and arbitrary closures [4].
The 2026 National Defense Strategy reinforces the same logic: guaranteeing military and commercial access to key terrain such as Panama, Greenland, and the Gulf of America; building a denial defense along the First Island Chain; and shifting primary responsibility for the conventional defense of the continent and Ukraine onto European allies [5]. This is the conceptual basis of armed free trade: the market remains open only if someone prevents it from being closed.
4. Panama and the Western Hemisphere
Panama is the symbol of the Western Hemisphere. The Canal is not merely commercial infrastructure: it is the hinge between the Atlantic and the Pacific, between civilian logistics and military mobility, between Panamanian sovereignty and U.S. security. The 2026 NDS includes the Panama Canal among the key terrain where Washington intends to guarantee military and commercial access [5].
Within this hypothesis, Trump’s hard language on Panama should not be read only as imperial nostalgia. It should be interpreted as a signal: no rival power must be able to condition an essential passage in the American hemisphere. Control does not necessarily have to mean ownership; it can mean influence, exclusion of operators perceived as risky, access guarantees, security cooperation, and investment screening.
The risk is evident: the same doctrine can be read either as protection of free passage or as a return to a logic of hemispheric domination. The difference lies in the limit. If Washington guarantees access and leaves sovereignty intact, it builds order. If it turns access into political subordination, it builds empire.
5. Hormuz 2026: The Operational Test
Hormuz is where theory becomes operation. In April 2026, CENTCOM announced the start of activities to create the conditions for mine clearance in the Strait of Hormuz, with the destroyers USS Frank E. Peterson and USS Michael Murphy employed in a mission linked to mines previously laid by the IRGC [10].
In the context of the crisis, traffic through Hormuz remained heavily depressed, and the absence of a U.S.-Iran agreement kept uncertainty over transits high [11]. Iran’s seizure of two container ships attempting to leave the Gulf made clear how a passage that is formally open can remain, in practice, unsafe [12].
Hormuz shows that guaranteeing a route does not mean announcing freedom of navigation. It means clearing mines, deterring armed speedboats, defending convoys, managing insurance, countering jamming, maintaining a safe lane, negotiating with regional partners, and containing escalation. The strait is therefore a laboratory for the doctrine: freedom of trade becomes a continuous military-technical operation.
6. Malacca and Indonesia: China’s Energy Throat
Malacca is perhaps the most important chokepoint in maritime Asia. It is the largest oil chokepoint, carrying almost 22% of global maritime trade, about 29% of seaborne oil flows, and roughly 75% of China’s seaborne crude-oil imports [9].
On April 13, 2026, the United States and Indonesia announced a Major Defense Cooperation Partnership. The official document indicates three pillars: modernization and capacity building, professional military education, and exercises and operational cooperation. It also includes initiatives in maritime, undersea, and autonomous-systems domains [7]. This does not amount to American control of Malacca, but it signals a growing architecture of access and interoperability in the quadrant most sensitive to China’s energy vulnerability.
A U.S. proposal on overflight authorizations is under discussion, but Indonesian authorities clarified that overflight clearance was not a pillar of the agreement and that any cooperation would respect sovereignty and national procedures [8]. The United States is seeking greater maritime domain awareness around Malacca, but there is not yet public proof of unlimited overflight or basing rights.
The strategic point remains powerful: Taiwan is the military gate to the Pacific; Malacca is China’s energy throat; Hormuz is the vulnerable source of much Asian energy. Separate from one another, these are different theaters. Taken together, they form a strategy of systemic pressure.
Strategic Chokepoint Map
Chokepoint | Strategic function | 2025-2026 signal | Main risk |
Hormuz | Energy and access to the Gulf | CENTCOM mine clearance; transit crisis | Iran-U.S. escalation; oil shock |
Malacca | Chinese energy route and Asian trade | U.S.-Indonesia MDCP; attention to MDA | ASEAN militarization; Chinese reaction |
Taiwan / First Island Chain | Technology, deterrence, and Pacific access | NSS/NDS: overmatch and denial defense | U.S.-China war or prolonged coercion |
Panama | Atlantic-Pacific hinge | NDS: access to key terrain | Panamanian sovereignty crisis |
Greenland / Arctic | Missile surveillance and polar routes | Pituffik; Arctic access | Danish/Greenlandic sovereignty; Russia-China |
Red Sea / Suez | Asia-Europe connection | Effects of the Houthi crisis | Insurance premiums, diversions, instability |
MDA = maritime domain awareness; NSS = National Security Strategy; NDS = National Defense Strategy.
7. Taiwan: The Hybrid Chokepoint
Taiwan is not a canal, but it is a hybrid chokepoint. It is geographic because it sits at the center of the First Island Chain. It is military because its potential fall would alter the balance of the Western Pacific. It is technological because Taiwan accounts for more than 60% of global foundry-market revenue and more than 90% of leading-edge chip production, according to the International Trade Administration [17]. It is democratic because Freedom House classifies Taiwan as free, with a competitive system and peaceful transfers of power [18].
The 2025 NSS is particularly important because it makes explicit a distinction that becomes central in this study: Washington may not support Taiwan’s formal independence and, at the same time, may consider it a priority to prevent unilateral changes to the status quo and maintain sufficient military superiority to deter conflict [4].
In this reading, the United States does not defend Taiwan only for idealistic reasons. It defends Taiwan because the island concentrates technology, sea power, deterrence, democracy, and regional credibility. If China could absorb or neutralize Taiwan, it could turn the island and the Strait into an interdiction lever against Japan, the Philippines, Korea, Australia, and global semiconductor chains.
8. The First Island Chain: Deterrence Without Conquest
The 2026 National Defense Strategy states that the American objective is not to dominate, strangle, or humiliate China, but to prevent any actor from dominating the United States or its allies. To do so, the document envisages a denial defense along the First Island Chain [5]. This is a more precise concept than the generic idea of containment.
Deterrence along the First Island Chain does not necessarily imply war. It implies resilient bases, port access, air defense, anti-ship missiles, sensors, cyber resilience, capable allies, stockpiles, logistics, repair capacity, drones, and a secure communications network. The goal is not to conquer China, but to make any Chinese attempt to change the status quo by force too costly.
This logic is linked to Malacca. If China fears losing freedom of movement in the Pacific and depends on Malacca for an enormous share of its seaborne oil imports, then the American strategy becomes dual: denial in the Western Pacific, surveillance and access in the Indian Ocean-Southeast Asian theater.
9. The Arctic and Greenland: The Future Chokepoint
The Arctic does not yet have the weight of Hormuz or Malacca, but it is the future chokepoint. The reduction of sea ice, Russian militarization, Chinese interest in polar routes, and the centrality of space systems make Greenland a strategic node. The House of Commons Library notes that the 1951 U.S.-Denmark agreement, subsequently updated, enabled the American military presence in Greenland and the creation of the base now known as Pituffik Space Base [29].
CSIS describes Pituffik as the northernmost U.S. military installation, with missile detection, missile defense, and space-surveillance functions [30]. Within the chokepoint doctrine, Greenland does not necessarily mean annexation or territorial control. It means Arctic access, missile surveillance, monitoring of the GIUK gap, protection of North Atlantic routes, and prevention of an unbalanced Russian-Chinese militarization.
Here, too, the distinction is essential: access must not become appropriation. The strategy remains sustainable only if it takes place within agreements with Denmark, Greenland, and NATO. Otherwise, the argument of security becomes a sovereignty crisis.
10. The Maritime Action Plan: The Industrial Base of the Doctrine
A chokepoint doctrine does not work without industry. It is not enough to have aircraft carriers and bases today; one must be able to build, repair, protect, automate, and supply fleets tomorrow. America’s Maritime Action Plan of February 2026 starts from a severe figure: the United States builds less than 1% of the world’s new commercial ships [6].
The plan aims to rebuild shipbuilding capacity, create Maritime Prosperity Zones, reduce dependence on unreliable suppliers, expand the U.S.-flagged fleet, and strengthen the maritime industrial base [6]. This is the industrial component of the strategy: control of chokepoints cannot be only military; it must be supported by shipyards, mariners, components, insurance, software, and infrastructure.
The 2027 defense budget proposal of $1.5 trillion included roughly $750 billion for ships, jets, and Golden Dome, with more than $65 billion intended for the construction of 34 naval units under the so-called Golden Fleet [28]. If implemented, this would strengthen the projection and maintenance capacity of the global-access doctrine.
11. Cyber-Maritime Warfare: The New Layer of Control
In 2026, a chokepoint is not only water. It is water plus the electromagnetic spectrum, GPS, AIS, satellites, ports, terminals, industrial systems, ransomware, insurance data, and ship-to-shore communications. Whoever controls the sea but loses informational dominance does not truly control the route.
After the U.S.-Israeli attacks against Iran in February 2026, more than 1,100 ships in the Gulf region experienced GPS or AIS interference, with risks of collisions, groundings, false positions, and environmental incidents [15]. In addition, the Lab-Dookhtegan attack against Iranian tanker communications, involving a supply-chain compromise of Fanava, showed how a technical supplier can become a systemic single point of failure [16].
This requires a revision of the notion of freedom of navigation. A route is free only if navigation signals are reliable, ports are not paralyzed by ransomware, satellite communications are not compromised, ships do not falsely appear to be in an airport or on land, and insurance operators trust the data. Cyber-resilience therefore becomes part of the geopolitics of canals and straits.
12. The IRGC, Terrorism, and Hybrid Control of Passages
The U.S. designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, formalized in the Federal Register in 2019, allows Washington to frame part of the Hormuz crisis not as a simple dispute among states, but as a confrontation with a military-terrorist apparatus capable of using mines, proxies, shadow shipping, seizures, and cyber-interference as instruments of pressure [13].
The State Department’s Rewards for Justice program describes the IRGC as a central actor in the use of terrorism as an instrument of Iranian statecraft and in support for terrorist groups [14]. This strengthens the American narrative that a terrorist or terrorist-linked entity should not exercise veto power over a global energy route.
Legal caution remains necessary: an American designation does not automatically resolve all questions of international legality concerning naval blockades, interdiction, or the use of force. But at the political-strategic level it allows the United States to merge counterterrorism and freedom of navigation into a single frame.
13. Europe and Ukraine: Strategic Burden-Shifting
The analysis includes Europe because the chokepoint doctrine implies a hierarchy of priorities. The 2026 NDS states that European NATO allies are able to assume primary responsibility for Europe’s conventional defense and for support to Ukraine, with more limited American support [5].
In this reading, Trump would not be reducing Europe’s weight out of absolute disinterest, but because he believes the systemic theater is the Indo-Pacific. China, Taiwan, Malacca, the South China Sea, the Arctic, and global access become higher priorities than direct management of the war in Ukraine. Europe is pushed to pay more and assume more responsibility in order to free American resources.
The risk is political: Europeans may perceive the shift in priorities as abandonment, while Washington may perceive European resistance as free-riding. This friction becomes part of the doctrine: in order to protect global chokepoints, the United States asks allies to do more to police secondary regional theaters.
Second Analytical Axis: Armed Non-State Powers and Sovereignty
Transition note The analysis moves from maritime and technological chokepoints to armed veto powers inside fragile states, especially Hamas and Hezbollah. |
14. Netanyahu and Coercive Liberation
The second half of the study remains centered on Netanyahu. The hypothesis is that Israel is fighting not only for immediate security, but to remove non-state armed powers that prevent fragile countries from becoming sovereign again. Hamas, Hezbollah, and other pro-Iranian networks would not only be Israeli enemies, but veto powers that block normalization, development, investment, and the legitimate monopoly on force.
This thesis is more fragile than the one on chokepoints because the human cost of Israeli operations is extremely high and because intentions cannot be automatically deduced from military outcomes. The word “liberation” is justifiable only if the destruction of armed power is followed by political and civilian reconstruction.
The criterion is clear: Netanyahu can be considered a coercive liberator only if Israel strikes armed groups and then accepts a transition toward legitimate local authorities or an international mandate. If, instead, it maintains permanent control, indefinite buffer zones, or imposed governance, liberation becomes domination.
15. Lebanon, Hezbollah, and Incomplete Sovereignty
Hezbollah is the case most consistent with the thesis. The Council on Foreign Relations describes it as a Shiite political party and militant group, supported by Iran, rooted in Lebanon, and often described as a “state within a state” [19]. A state can have elections and a government, but if it does not control the monopoly on force, its sovereignty remains incomplete.
The favorable reading says: Israel is doing militarily what part of Lebanon would want but cannot openly do, namely reducing Hezbollah’s ability to drag the country into regional wars. The critical reading says: Israeli operations can strengthen the resistance narrative, humiliate the Lebanese state, and make disarmament politically impossible.
The difference depends on what comes after. If a weakened Hezbollah is followed by a strengthened Lebanese army, Israeli withdrawal, a robust UN mission, reconstruction, and political freedom, the liberation thesis gains strength. If it is followed by occupation, destruction, and institutional vacuum, the thesis fails.
16. Gaza: The Moral Limit of the Theory
Gaza is the most fragile point of the entire construction. Hamas can certainly be read as an armed power that has captured Palestinian representation and turned the territory into a military platform. But the devastation of the war makes it extremely problematic to present the destruction of Hamas as liberation if the civilian population remains without housing, security, food, institutions, and political prospects.
OCHA has documented the persistence of grave humanitarian needs in Gaza even in the phase after the ceasefire, with a need for aid, fuel, food, access, and humanitarian coordination [27]. In addition, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants in the context of the situation in Palestine [25], while the International Court of Justice ordered provisional measures in the South Africa v. Israel case concerning the Genocide Convention [26].
These elements do not prevent strategic analysis, but they do prevent apology. The theory can hold only if the military phase is followed by withdrawal, international security, reconstruction, non-terrorist but real Palestinian governance, and a prospect of self-determination. Without these steps, the destruction of Hamas can produce the emotional terrain for the next Hamas.
17. The Iranian Axis as an Architecture of Veto
Iran is the negative center of the theory not because it is the only aggressive actor in the region, but because it has built a network of influence through proxies, militias, and armed groups. The objective is not always to govern directly; it is to be able to block. To block navigation in the Red Sea, condition Lebanon, threaten Israel, sabotage Arab-Israeli normalization, raise energy costs, and use crisis as diplomatic leverage.
In this frame, the United States strikes the maritime and strategic dimension of the network; Israel strikes the land and regional dimension. Hormuz, the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Red Sea, and Gaza become parts of a distributed veto system. The doctrine’s objective would be to dismantle the system rather than win a single war.
The fragility remains evident: a proxy network does not disappear simply because it is degraded militarily. It can re-form, change its name, infiltrate institutions, take criminal form, or feed on resentment produced by war. This is why the political component is decisive.
18. The UN as the Exit From Empire
The UN is the point that saves the theory from the risk of becoming pure imperial doctrine. The United Nations does not normally exercise sovereignty like a state, but it can receive mandates for peacekeeping, stabilization, civilian protection, electoral assistance, DDR, support for security-sector reform, and reconstruction of the rule of law [20].
The principles of UN peacekeeping are consent of the parties, impartiality, and non-use of force except in self-defense or defense of the mandate [21]. These principles make the UN phase different from military victory: the UN should not be the winner that occupies, but the temporary custodian of a transition.
The ideal sequence is: force, ceasefire, international mandate, transitional security, disarmament, reconstruction, local authorities, restored sovereignty. Without this sequence, the theory remains force. With this sequence, it can become order.
Restoration test The theory remains analytically defensible only if coercive force is followed by a credible handover to civilian sovereignty and international law. |
19. UNIFIL, Gaza, and the Concrete Form of Transition
Lebanon already has an imperfect model: UNIFIL. The mandate, strengthened by Resolution 1701, includes monitoring the cessation of hostilities, supporting the Lebanese Armed Forces, humanitarian assistance, and creating an area free of weapons and armed personnel not belonging to the Lebanese government or to UNIFIL [22]. This is the type of architecture that would be needed to turn a military victory into civilian sovereignty.
Gaza offers an even more direct precedent. Security Council Resolution 2803 welcomed the framework of the Gaza plan and authorized an International Stabilization Force, with reference to a Board of Peace and a transitional phase [23]. The U.S. resolution legitimized a framework of transitional governance and stabilization, although Hamas opposed it and Russia and China abstained [24].
The central question is not whether an international framework exists. The question is whether this framework restores sovereignty or covers external control. An international force that disarms Hamas but offers no real Palestinian role would be perceived as a protectorate. A mission in Lebanon that blocks Hezbollah but does not strengthen the Lebanese state would be mutilated sovereignty.
20. Taiwan and the Limits of the UN
Taiwan is the hardest case for a UN phase. The People’s Republic of China is a permanent member of the Security Council and has a veto. Any UN mission on Taiwan against Beijing’s will would be practically impossible.
The UN or UN-compatible role on Taiwan would be indirect: reaffirming the principle of no change to the status quo by force, good offices of the Secretary-General, technical channels, escalation prevention, protection of health and technology chains, and functional support for Taiwan’s participation in non-sovereign domains. Real deterrence, however, would remain in the hands of the United States, regional allies, and Taiwanese resilience.
This does not contradict the theory. It completes it. Not all chokepoints can be stabilized with the same instruments. Hormuz requires naval power and mine clearance; Malacca requires regional cooperation; Lebanon and Gaza require international transition; Taiwan requires deterrence and the status quo.
21. The Economics of Forced Pacification
If the doctrine worked, the economic result would be enormous: secure routes, lower insurance, more predictable corridors, stable Taiwan, a rebuilt Lebanon, Gaza removed from armed rule, a reopened Red Sea, protected Hormuz, non-militarized Malacca, and an Arctic managed by rules. The Middle East could become a platform for infrastructure, energy, cables, ports, logistics, technology, and reconstruction.
But the dark version is just as plausible: secure ports without democracy, trade corridors without rights, authoritarian stability, a supervised Gaza, a weakened Lebanon, a militarized Taiwan, Indonesia caught between Washington and Beijing, a frustrated Europe, and a radicalized Iran. Security can open development, but it can also become securitized capitalism.
Economic peace is credible only if it is inclusive. Reconstruction without representation produces resentment. Investment without sovereignty produces dependence. Security without law produces fear. This is why the UN phase is not ancillary: it is the attempt to transform coercion into legitimacy.
22. Risks and Countermeasures by Rivals
China, Iran, and Russia would not passively watch an American chokepoint doctrine unfold. China could strengthen A2/AD capabilities, accelerate alternative routes, upgrade Gwadar, develop pipelines, increase energy stockpiles, pressure ASEAN diplomatically, and intensify naval activity near Taiwan and in the South China Sea. Iran could resort to mines, seizures, shadow fleets, cyberattacks, proxies, and energy blackmail. Russia could exploit the Arctic, the GIUK gap, and pressure on Europe.
Allies are also a risk. Indonesia could balance without aligning; Europe could feel abandoned; Arab states could accept the weakening of proxies but reject a management model perceived as too Israeli or American; Taiwan could fear becoming an instrument rather than a partner.
American power itself can produce counter-power. A strategy presented as protection of free access can be perceived by rivals as the capacity for selective economic strangulation. This ambiguity is the heart of the problem.
23. Future Scenarios
Scenario A: coercive order transformed into multilateral order. The United States stabilizes Hormuz, keeps Malacca open through regional cooperation, protects Taiwan without war, strengthens the maritime industrial base, and pushes Europe to assume conventional defense. Israel reduces Hamas and Hezbollah but accepts international missions, withdrawal, and reconstruction. The UN or UN-compatible structures turn military victories into civilian transitions. This is the scenario that confirms the theory.
Scenario B: frozen armed peace. Routes remain open but militarized. Hormuz functions intermittently. Malacca is monitored but not controlled. Taiwan remains free but hyper-militarized. Gaza receives aid but not real governance. Hezbollah is degraded but not disarmed. The UN enters only partially. This scenario produces containment, not liberation.
Scenario C: imperial counter-reaction. China, Iran, and Russia present the doctrine as American domination. Gaza becomes a symbol of humiliation. Hezbollah regenerates. The UN appears to be a facade. Taiwan becomes a trigger for war. World trade does not open; it splits into blocs. This is the scenario in which the theory reverses itself.
24. Confirmation or Falsification Indicators
Favorable indicators would be: a durable reduction of risk in Hormuz; functioning safe lanes; regional agreements on Malacca without violating Indonesian, Malaysian, or Singaporean sovereignty; stable deterrence on Taiwan; strengthening of America’s industrial fleet base; maritime cyber-resilience; credible international missions in Gaza and Lebanon; Israeli withdrawal; the return of civilians; a real Palestinian role; verifiable militia disarmament; investment and reconstruction.
Contrary indicators would be: indefinite occupations; naval blockades transformed into permanent coercion; Malacca militarized in a destabilizing way; Taiwan used as a pretext for escalation; the UN reduced to cover; Gaza without self-determination; Lebanon without sovereignty; new militias born from the vacuum; a fragmented Europe; a split ASEAN; rising global energy costs.
The final test is not how many ships, bases, or missiles are used. The final test is what is born after force. If civilian sovereignty is born, the theory remains possible. If military domination is born, the theory fails.
Operational Architecture
Operational logic The doctrine is treated not as a single deployment, but as a layered chain that includes intelligence, denial, clearance, finance, cyber-resilience, diplomacy, and restoration. |
25. The Operational Chain of the Chokepoint Doctrine
The chokepoint doctrine cannot be reduced to the presence of a fleet. A fleet is only the most visible element of a much longer operational chain. First comes intelligence: satellites, coastal sensors, drones, AIS signals, insurance analysis, human sources, intercepts, and cooperation with littoral states. Then comes maritime domain awareness: the ability to know who is transiting, with what cargo, under what flag, with what beneficial ownership, and with what risk of linkage to sanctioned or terrorist networks.
The second level is denial capacity: anti-ship missiles, air defense, patrols, logistics bases, selective interdiction capacity, and convoy protection. The third level is clearance: removal of mines, neutralization of naval drones, control of fast boats, management of emergency ports, and safe corridors. Hormuz shows that a route can be theoretically open but practically unusable until the shipping industry and insurers consider it reliable.
The fourth level is financial: insurance premiums, compliance, sanctions, ship registries, shadow fleets, banks, letters of credit, and delivery times. The fifth level is cyber: GPS, AIS, port community systems, container terminals, satellite communications, cybersecurity of shipyards and autonomous systems. The sixth level is diplomatic: no chokepoint is managed stably without at least partial consent from littoral states. The doctrine is therefore a chain: see, attribute, protect, repair, insure, legitimize.
26. The Malacca-Hormuz-Taiwan Triad
A central node of the analysis is the Malacca-Hormuz-Taiwan triad. Hormuz is the vulnerable energy source; Malacca is the throat through which much Asian energy must pass; Taiwan is the technological and military node that conditions Chinese freedom of movement in the Western Pacific. Taken separately, they are three regional dossiers. Taken together, they become a single architecture of systemic pressure.
China cannot afford Taiwan to become a permanent hostile platform, Malacca to be monitored by a network of U.S. partners, and Hormuz to remain vulnerable to American operations against Iran. Its vulnerability is not only military: it is energy-related, insurance-related, commercial, and psychological. If the Chinese leadership fears that a regional crisis could interrupt energy or technology flows, American deterrence increases without any need for invasion.
This does not mean that the United States should block China. The most sophisticated form of the doctrine does not consist of closing routes, but of demonstrating that no rival can close them without also losing access and stability. It is deterrence that is symmetric in effect but asymmetric in means: Washington controls nodes, alliances, and insurance; Beijing controls industry, production scale, and capacity for economic pressure.
27. The Insurance and Financial Layer
One of the least visible but most decisive parts of the study concerns insurance. A maritime route can be declared safe by governments, but if insurance premiums explode, if shipowners refuse to transit, or if banks will not finance letters of credit and cargoes, that route is de facto closed. Veto power, therefore, does not pass only through mines and missiles: it also passes through the perception of risk.
In a doctrine of armed free trade, the United States must not only remove physical threats. It must convince insurers, port operators, shipping companies, energy traders, and investment funds that the passage is predictable. This explains why cyber-jamming, isolated seizures, or threats of mining can have systemic effects even when they do not materially destroy many ships.
The same logic applies to Taiwan. A crisis in the Strait would not necessarily need to lead to invasion in order to produce global damage: coercive exercises, temporary interdictions, exclusion zones, cyberattacks against ports, or insurance uncertainty would be enough to block semiconductor supply chains and increase global costs. The modern chokepoint is physical and financial at the same time.
28. Legal and Diplomatic Constraints
The theory is strategically coherent only if it recognizes its own constraints. Freedom of navigation, interdiction, blockade, mine clearance, surveillance, and preventive strikes are not interchangeable concepts. A state can claim to protect trade, but it must also respect sovereignty, proportionality, necessity, the law of the sea, humanitarian law, and limits on the use of force.
This is why it is wrong to present the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization as an automatic authorization for any action. It strengthens the American narrative and provides tools for sanctions and countermeasures, but it does not eliminate the need for a legal basis, mandate, self-defense, or consent. The same applies to Israeli operations: the existence of terrorist groups does not erase obligations toward civilians, proportionality, and reconstruction.
Diplomacy therefore remains part of force, not its opposite. A chokepoint stabilized only militarily is unstable. A chokepoint stabilized through force, regional agreements, transit rules, reassurances to neutral states, and UN mechanisms is far more resilient.
29. How the UN Phase Could Work
The UN phase should not begin when everything has already been decided by the victors. To be credible, it should be designed as part of the strategy from the beginning. In Gaza, for example, the mandate should indicate who guarantees security, who distributes aid, who rebuilds, who represents Palestinians, who controls disarmament, and what the exit conditions are. Without exit criteria, every transition risks becoming a protectorate.
In Lebanon, a strengthened mission should have three objectives: prevent Hezbollah from returning as a parallel army in the south, strengthen the Lebanese Armed Forces, and guarantee Israeli withdrawal. If one of the three objectives is missing, the mission does not restore sovereignty. If it blocks Hezbollah but does not strengthen Beirut, it creates a vacuum. If it strengthens Beirut but Israel remains, it creates delegitimization. If Israel withdraws but Hezbollah returns, it creates cyclicality.
The UN, therefore, is not a moral ornament. It is the mechanism through which military victory becomes temporary, verifiable, and reversible. Its task is not to govern forever, but to prevent the removed armed power from being replaced by another armed power or by external domination.
30. Actor Matrix
The United States gains access and deterrence capacity, but risks overstretch, ally fatigue, and the perception of empire. China maintains industrial depth and diplomatic alternatives, but remains vulnerable to Malacca, Taiwan, and energy dependence. Iran retains asymmetric tools and proxies, but risks isolation, destruction of naval assets, and loss of regional credibility.
Israel gains security depth if Hamas and Hezbollah are degraded, but loses legitimacy if a credible reconstruction does not follow. Lebanon can gain sovereignty only if Hezbollah is replaced by the state, not by a vacuum. Gaza can exit the logic of Hamas only if international security is accompanied by real Palestinian representation.
Europe gains strategic autonomy if it accepts burden-shifting, but risks internal fractures if it interprets America’s Indo-Pacific priority as abandonment. Indonesia gains technology, cooperation, and negotiating weight, but must avoid becoming an anti-Chinese outpost. The UN gains centrality only if the transition is not a facade.
31. Failure Modes: How the Theory Can Fail
The first failure mode is permanence. A coercive strategy that does not contain its own exit becomes domination. The second is substitution: eliminating Hamas or Hezbollah without building civilian powers can produce new militias, criminal clans, or radicalisms that are harder to read. The third is disproportionality: excessive civilian harm destroys the legitimacy of liberation even when the enemy is real.
The fourth is American overstretch. Controlling Panama, the Arctic, Hormuz, Malacca, Taiwan, the Red Sea, and the Eastern Mediterranean requires enormous resources, reliable allies, and functioning shipyards. Without an industrial base, the doctrine remains a statement. The fifth is systemic reaction: China, Iran, and Russia may coordinate more closely precisely because they perceive a common threat.
The sixth is allied fracture. A strategy that asks Europe to pay more, ASEAN to risk more, and Arab countries to accept unpopular processes can generate fatigue. Armed free trade works only if many actors see it as a common good, not as an American imposition.
32. Probable Timeline
In the short term, the priority would be Hormuz: safe lanes, mine clearance, convoy protection, reduction of seizures, and reassurance for shipping companies. In parallel, the United States would test cooperation with Indonesia and Southeast Asian partners without forcing local sovereignty too hard. Taiwan would remain a theater of exercises, hardening, and deterrence, not of declared rupture.
In the medium term, the doctrine would aim to consolidate access pacts, shipbuilding investments, and cyber resilience. Europe would be pushed to support Ukraine and conventional defense more directly. In the Middle East, success would depend on building credible international missions in Gaza and on a real strengthening of the Lebanese state.
In the long term, the test would be restoration. If the United States remains guarantor without becoming owner of the nodes, and if Israel steps back leaving space for the UN and local governments, the theory will appear as an architecture of order. If, instead, access becomes domination and security becomes occupation, the theory will reveal itself as a new form of logistical imperialism.
33. Implications for Europe and Italy
For Europe, the chokepoint doctrine implies an uncomfortable choice. Continuing to depend on the American guarantee while Washington shifts its center of gravity toward the Indo-Pacific and global routes means accepting reduced political influence. Assuming greater responsibility for Ukraine, the Mediterranean, energy, and conventional defense instead means paying higher costs but gaining autonomy.
For Italy, the issue is even more concrete. The country depends on the wider Mediterranean, Suez, the Red Sea, energy, ports, routes toward Asia and Africa, and the stability of Lebanon. An American doctrine focused on chokepoints can protect Italian interests, but it can also drag Rome into crises over which it has little direct control.
Italy’s interest would be a multilateral version of the doctrine: open routes, yes; but with the UN, EU, NATO, Arab countries, and local actors involved. Italy would have much to lose from a fragmentation of trade and much to gain from the stabilization of Suez, the Red Sea, Lebanon, and the Eastern Mediterranean.
Conclusion
This approach makes the theory stronger and more unsettling. Stronger because it shows that the chokepoint doctrine is not mere fantasy: it appears in the 2025-2026 strategic documents, in the Maritime Action Plan, in the Hormuz case, in the U.S.-Indonesia agreement, in the posture on the First Island Chain, and in the reorganization of European priorities. More unsettling because the same architecture that can protect free trade can also become a capacity for selective economic strangulation.
In this reading, Trump would not be the enemy of globalization, but the leader who sees its physical fragility and decides to arm its guarantee. Netanyahu would not merely be a wartime leader, but the destroyer of armed powers that prevent fragile states from returning to sovereignty. Taiwan is the technological-democratic chokepoint. Malacca is China’s energy throat. Hormuz is the operational laboratory. Greenland is the Arctic frontier. The UN is the condition of legitimacy.
The final question remains unchanged, but is now more precise: can a coercive strategy produce a free, multilateral, and democratic order, or does it inevitably produce a new empire? The answer depends on restoration. Restoration of the seas to free navigation. Restoration of territories to civilians. Restoration of states to sovereignty. Restoration of Taiwan to the democratic status quo. Restoration of force to law. Without restoration, there is no liberation: there is only control.
Bibliographic References and Sources
[1] UNCTAD, Review of Maritime Transport 2024. https://unctad.org/publication/review-maritime-transport-2024
[2] IMF Blog, Red Sea Attacks Disrupt Global Trade, March 7, 2024. https://www.imf.org/en/blogs/articles/2024/03/07/red-sea-attacks-disrupt-global-trade
[3] U.S. Energy Information Administration, World Oil Transit Chokepoints. https://www.eia.gov/international/analysis/special-topics/World_Oil_Transit_Chokepoints
[4] The White House, National Security Strategy 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf
[5] U.S. Department of War, National Defense Strategy 2026. https://media.defense.gov/2026/Jan/23/2003864773/-1/-1/0/2026-NATIONAL-DEFENSE-STRATEGY.PDF
[6] The White House, America’s Maritime Action Plan, February 2026. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Restoring-Americas-Maritime-Dominance.pdf
[7] U.S. Department of War / Ministry of Defence of Indonesia, Joint Statement on the U.S.-Indonesia Major Defense Cooperation Partnership, April 13, 2026. https://media.defense.gov/2026/Apr/13/2003911810/-1/-1/1/READOUT-OF-SECRETARY-OF-WAR-PETE-HEGSETH-MEETING-WITH-INDONESIA-MINISTER-OF-DEFENSE-SJAFRIE-SJAMSOEDDIN.PDF
[8] Reuters, Indonesia’s foreign ministry urges caution over U.S. military overflight proposal, April 14, 2026. https://www.reuters.com/world/china/indonesias-foreign-ministry-urges-caution-over-us-military-overflight-proposal-2026-04-14/
[9] Reuters, Hormuz crisis throws spotlight on world's largest chokepoint - the Malacca Strait, April 23, 2026. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/hormuz-crisis-throws-spotlight-worlds-largest-chokepoint-malacca-strait-2026-04-23/
[10] U.S. Central Command, U.S. Forces Start Mine Clearance Mission in Strait of Hormuz, April 11, 2026. https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/4457220/us-forces-start-mine-clearance-mission-in-strait-of-hormuz/
[11] Reuters, Shipping traffic through Hormuz remains muted with no U.S.-Iran deal in sight, April 27, 2026. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/shipping-traffic-through-hormuz-remains-muted-with-no-us-iran-deal-sight-data-2026-04-27/
[12] Reuters, Iran seizes two container ships attempting to leave Gulf, April 22, 2026. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/three-vessels-hit-by-gunfire-strait-hormuz-crews-safe-2026-04-22/
[13] Federal Register, Designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, April 15, 2019. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/04/15/2019-07415/in-the-matter-of-the-designation-of-the-islamic-revolutionary-guard-corps-and-other-aliases-as-a
[14] U.S. Department of State, Rewards for Justice, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Key Leaders. https://rewardsforjustice.net/rewards/islamic-revolutionary-guard-corps-irgc-key-leaders/
[15] WIRED, Attacks on GPS Spike Amid US and Israeli War on Iran, March 2, 2026. https://www.wired.com/story/gps-attacks-on-ships-spike-amid-the-us-and-israeli-war-on-iran/
[16] Industrial Cyber, Lab-Dookhtegan cyberattack on Iranian oil tankers traced to supply-chain compromise of Fanava’s infrastructure, September 1, 2025. https://industrialcyber.co/supply-chain-security/lab-dookhtegan-cyberattack-on-iranian-oil-tankers-traced-to-supply-chain-compromise-of-fanavas-infrastructure/
[17] International Trade Administration, Taiwan - Semiconductors including chip design for AI, December 1, 2025. https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/taiwan-semiconductors-including-chip-design-ai
[18] Freedom House, Taiwan Country Profile / Freedom in the World 2026. https://freedomhouse.org/country/taiwan
[19] Council on Foreign Relations, What Is Hezbollah?. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounders/what-hezbollah
[20] United Nations Peacekeeping, What is peacekeeping?. https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/what-is-peacekeeping
[21] United Nations Peacekeeping, Principles of peacekeeping. https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/principles-of-peacekeeping
[22] UNIFIL, Mandate. https://unifil.unmissions.org/en/unifil-mandate
[23] United Nations Digital Library, Security Council Resolution 2803 (2025). https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4093207?ln=en
[24] Reuters, UN Security Council adopts U.S. resolution on Trump’s Gaza plan, November 17, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/un-security-council-vote-us-resolution-trumps-gaza-plan-2025-11-17/
[25] International Criminal Court, Situation in the State of Palestine: ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I rejects State of Israel’s challenges, November 21, 2024. https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-rejects-state-israels-challenges
[26] International Court of Justice, Application of the Genocide Convention in the case South Africa v. Israel - Provisional Measures. https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192/provisional-measures
[27] OCHA oPt, Humanitarian Situation Report, April 23, 2026. https://www.ochaopt.org/content/humanitarian-situation-report-23-april-2026
[28] Reuters, Trump’s $1.5 trillion defense budget includes $750 billion for ships, jets and Golden Dome, April 21, 2026. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trumps-15-trillion-defense-budget-includes-750-billion-ships-jets-golden-dome-2026-04-21/
[29] UK House of Commons Library, President Trump and Greenland: Frequently asked questions, January 23, 2026. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10472/
[30] CSIS, Greenland, Rare Earths, and Arctic Security, January 8, 2026. https://www.csis.org/analysis/greenland-rare-earths-and-arctic-security
End
Comments