Why has Trump’s Proposal for a “Escort Coalition” in the Strait of Hormuz been Slow to Materialize?

On February 28, the United States and Israel launched large-scale military strikes against Iran, reportedly resulting in the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei. This development led to a rapid escalation of tensions in the Gulf region. Iran subsequently responded with missile and drone attacks targeting Israel and U.S. military installations in several Gulf states, and repeatedly warned that it could “close” the Strait of Hormuz.

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most important energy transit routes, with approximately one-fifth of global oil shipments passing through it. Major exporters such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, and Qatar rely on this passage to transport oil and liquefied natural gas to international markets. Following the outbreak of hostilities, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps reportedly carried out or threatened attacks on commercial vessels. As of March 16, at least 16 commercial vessels of different nationalities had been affected, according to Lloyd’s List Intelligence data. Another source asserts that 21 vessels were attacked. Many shipping companies reduced or suspended transit through the strait due to security concerns, leading to a decline in traffic and a rise in global oil prices, which at one point exceeded $100 per barrel.

On March 15, U.S. President Donald Trump claimed that the United States was considering providing military escorts for oil tankers and called on states in Europe, Asia, and the Gulf region to participate in a proposed “coalition”. He indicated that several states had been approached to contribute naval assets, emphasizing their reliance on energy supplies passing through the region. However, international responses have been limited. Despite ongoing diplomatic consultations, few states have publicly committed to joining such an initiative. Some have indicated they are still assessing the situation, while others have expressed reluctance to participate in military operations. This suggests that the proposed “escort coalition” has not formed as quickly as Trump had anticipated, reflecting both practical challenges and differing perspectives within the international community.

Historical Precedents for Escort Operations

Escort operations have precedent in situations where maritime security is at risk. One example is the so-called “Tanker War” during the later stages of the Iran–Iraq War in the late 1980s. At that time, both Iran and Iraq targeted oil tankers and commercial shipping in the Persian Gulf, significantly disrupting maritime activity. In response, the United States initiated naval escort operations for certain Kuwaiti tankers in 1987, allowing them to be reflagged under the U.S. flag. Other states, including the Soviet ｕｎｉｏｎ, the United Kingdom, and France, also deployed naval forces to the region. These efforts helped maintain some level of shipping activity, but they were not without risk. Incidents such as the attack on the USS Stark in May 1987 and the mining of the tanker SS Bridgeton in July 1987 highlighted the vulnerabilities of escort operations, particularly in environments involving asymmetric threats.

A more recent example is the international anti-piracy mission in the Gulf of Aden, which began in 2008. In response to widespread piracy off the Somali coast, the United Nations Security Council adopted five resolutions between 2008 and 2009 authorizing multinational naval operations. States including the United States, members of the European ｕｎｉｏｎ and NATO, as well as China, India, and Japan, contributed naval escort forces. Mechanisms such as Combined Task Force 151 (CTF 151) facilitated coordination and information sharing. These operations are generally considered effective, due in part to their clear legal basis under UN authorization and broad international participation. They also addressed a more defined and limited threat environment.

Comparing these cases suggests that successful escort operations typically rely on three factors: a clear legal mandate from the UN, broad international cooperation, and a relatively manageable threat landscape. These conditions are not fully present in the current situation in the Strait of Hormuz.

Factors Behind Limited International Support

Although disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz have clear implications for global energy supply, many states, including U.S. partners, have taken a cautious approach to the proposed escort coalition.

One factor is the complexity of the security environment near the vicinity of the Strait of Hormuz. While Iran’s conventional naval capabilities may have been weakened, it retains various asymmetric capabilities, including naval mines, land-based anti-ship missiles, drones, and fast attack craft. These systems can operate in combination, creating a challenging operational environment for any escort mission.

In addition, escort operations on the scale required to restore normal shipping levels would involve significant logistical and financial commitments. Large numbers of naval and air assets, along with sustained support for mine-sweeping countermeasures, intelligence, and air defense, would be necessary. This presents a substantial burden even for well-equipped militaries.

There are also concerns about escalation. Participation in escort operations could be interpreted as involvement in an ongoing armed conflict, potentially increasing the risk of confrontation. Some states may therefore prefer to avoid actions that could expand the scope of hostilities.

Legal and political considerations further complicate the issue. Unlike previous multinational operations with explicit UN authorization, the proposed “escort coalition” does not currently have a clearly defined international legal framework. Although the UN Security Council has addressed the situation in a recent resolution on March 11, differences remain among member states regarding the appropriate response. In this context, some states may view participation as potentially affecting their diplomatic positions or relationships in the region. As a result, many have opted to emphasize caution at the moment.

Prospects for De-escalation

The situation in the Strait of Hormuz is closely linked to broader regional tensions. Disruptions to shipping reflect underlying geopolitical dynamics rather than purely maritime concerns. The resulting impacts on energy markets and global economic stability are significant, affecting a wide range of states. While naval escort operations may mitigate certain risks, they are unlikely to address the root causes of the crisis. Historical experience suggests that durable solutions often involve diplomatic engagement and multilateral frameworks.

Some states have already pursued dialogue with relevant parties in an effort to reduce tensions and ensure the safe passage of vessels through the Strait of Hormuz. Although such efforts may take time, they may offer a pathway toward greater stability.

Ultimately, the future of the Strait of Hormuz will depend on the willingness of the involved parties in the conflict to engage in dialogue and seek negotiated solutions. A combination of diplomatic, legal, and security measures may be required to restore confidence in maritime navigation and maintain the stability of global energy markets.

Author: Bao Yinan, Associate Research Fellow, Huayang Center for Maritime Cooperation and Ocean Governance

Source: ICAS, March 19, 2026