Cosmik Rodjeur a écrit :
C'est en effet un génie qui est en train de réaliser un coup de billard à 5 bandes, mais les américains ont encore trop le nez dans les grands titres anxiogènes, où les yeux rivés sur le prix de l'essence pour le comprendre.
Ce pavé (pompé sur prometheanaction.com) vient d'une amie journaliste/influenceuse MAGA aux USA qui après deux semaines de silence essaie de vendre la guerre sur les internets resident Trump’s Hormuz strategy is not just a military standoff. It’s a deliberate, multi-layered move to end the long “free ride” Europe and the UK (and plenty of others) have enjoyed on American sea power, while introducing real alternatives in the global insurance and finance space. A lot of people are missing the full picture here if they’re only following the usual headline-driven coverage; you really need to pull from a wide array of sources — official U.S. agency releases, shipping and insurance industry reports, financial wires, and even the administration’s own direct statements — to see how the pieces fit together beyond the breathless, daily war updates where reaction carries the day and context is MIA. The Strait of Hormuz is that critical pinch-point where a huge share of the world’s oil has to flow every day. For decades, the unspoken bargain was simple: the U.S. Navy kept those lanes open as if it was just part of the natural order. Europe and the UK pushed aggressive green policies, let their own hard-power capabilities shrink, and lectured the U.S. on multilateral virtue—all while assuming American carriers would always show up if Iran got aggressive. They treated our security guarantee like gravity, not a choice we could withhold.
President Trump’s play is different. Instead of rushing in for the usual quick fix, he’s holding back and letting any disruption—higher energy prices, strained supply chains—hit hardest exactly where the free-riding has been most blatant. The pain lands more sharply on Europe and the UK because their setups still depend heavily on American-backed stability they haven’t fully reciprocated.
This is where the City of London’s long history comes in pointedly. That tiny Square Mile that is basically a financial district operating independently of Great Britain has shaped global maritime risk and finance for centuries. It dates to Roman Londinium nearly 2,000 years ago. After the Norman Conquest in 1066, William the Conqueror confirmed its “ancient liberties,” allowing it to develop a semi-autonomous governance with powerful guilds and its own Lord Mayor. By the late 1600s, Edward Lloyd’s coffee house near the Thames docks became the birthplace of modern marine insurance. What started as merchants swapping shipping news and placing informal bets on voyages grew into Lloyd’s of London—the market that underwrote the British Empire’s trade, set global standards for insuring risky sea lanes, and still plays a major role in war-risk and marine insurance today.
When tensions spiked with Iran, the London market (including Lloyd’s) responded the way it has for generations in dangerous zones: it widened high-risk areas, saw premiums surge sharply (sometimes dramatically), and made clear that cover remains available—at the right price—while safety concerns have driven much of the slowdown in tanker traffic. That’s the old City model at work: conservative risk pricing based on centuries of underwriting perilous voyages. Yet it’s not operating in isolation. The City is embedded in a vast global network. Wall Street and London form the famous NY-LON axis, two complementary powerhouses linked by shared language, common law, massive cross-border flows, and American banks with huge footprints in London (think JPMorgan, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs). U.S. institutions help finance enormous slices of global energy. Other big players — including European banks, such as HSBC and Barclays and Asia’s Mizuho — add layers of diversified interests, regulatory differences, and sometimes more cautious risk appetites. Lloyd’s itself has been engaging with the U.S. side on solutions.
President Trump’s counter-move cuts right through that dynamic. He directed the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) to step in with political risk insurance and guarantees for maritime trade in the Gulf. This includes a $20 billion DFC maritime reinsurance facility (now expanded in partnership with Chubb and additional American insurers, including Travelers, Liberty Mutual, Berkshire Hathaway, AIG, Starr, and CNA to reach up to $40 billion total capacity), focusing initially on hull & machinery and cargo with war-risk elements. The rollout is in coordination with the Treasury, CENTCOM, and private partners. The U.S. Navy stands ready for escorts if needed. It’s not about replacing the entire London market overnight; it’s about providing a credible American-backed sovereign backstop that can help stabilize flows at more reasonable rates, challenge automatic reliance on the old assumptions, and tilt leverage back toward Washington.
That’s why President Trump’s blunt message to European and British leaders lands so hard: “You need this oil way more than we do right now—why don’t you go secure it yourselves?” It’s forcing a reckoning with the contradiction: their weakened militaries, maximalist climate posturing, and energy assumptions have all rested on foundations of American hard power (and a financial system long centered on the NY-LON axis) that they haven’t always funded or respected in return.
The real prize isn’t just blasting the strait open tomorrow and snapping back to the status quo. A quick fix would let everyone breathe easy and resume the old free-rider habits, with the intertwined global insurance and finance network quietly resuming business as usual. By delaying, by letting the tension expose the dependencies, and by offering U.S.-backed insurance as a pragmatic option, President Trump is steering toward a reordered system. One where strong American energy production in the Americas, discretionary control over Hormuz security, and growing influence in the financing/insurance layer put Washington more firmly at the center of the global hydrocarbon chessboard. Access to secure flows becomes something allies earn through real contributions—not an automatic entitlement.
In that sense, this isn’t hesitation. It’s the strategic pause that forces underlying contradictions into the open. The City of London’s medieval-to-modern model still brings specialized expertise to maritime risk, but it’s now navigating a bigger, more interconnected web that includes Wall Street heavyweights and other global banks. By withholding the automatic U.S. guarantee and providing alternatives, President Trump aims to end the free ride on more realistic, reciprocal terms — while also reshaping incentives across that entire network. History rarely moves without creating that kind of deliberate tension. If you’re only catching the surface-level war reporting, you might miss how this insurance and alliance-pressure play fits into a bigger, longer-term shift.
Many Americans might feel less anxious, angry, or confused by the nonstop flood of alarming headlines if they take a moment to step back and consider this broader strategic context — seeing deliberate moves and long-term leverage instead of just chaos — and get into the habit of checking a wider range of sources. To dig deeper on the shipping and insurance side, start with these strong industry sources that track tanker movements, war-risk premiums, hull & cargo coverage, freight rate spikes, and the real mechanics of how decisions in London or Washington affect global flows:
Voilà, ce que je retiens de cette logorrhée, c'est que ce serait un coup génial pour emmerder la City et l'UE, qui depuis des décennies veulent pas payer le coût militaire de sécuriser le détroit (qui se portait bien jusque là, mais bon).
Mais quelque chose me dit que les intellectuels MAGA vont avoir du mal à vendre ce pavé à leur base, face au prix à la pompe ![[:montagnes:2] [:montagnes:2]](https://forum-images.hardware.fr/images/perso/2/montagnes.gif)
|