Getting in is never the only problem. Getting out always is.
Eight weeks into a conflict that has sealed the Strait of Hormuz, the United States finds itself navigating not only a military and diplomatic stalemate with Iran but a fracturing of the alliances it has long taken for granted. From Berlin to Bangkok, voices that once spoke quietly in private are now speaking plainly in public — warning that the costs of this war are being borne by those who did not choose it. History has seen great powers exhaust their credibility in distant theaters before; the question now is whether Washington can find an exit before the damage to trust becomes as structural as the damage to energy markets.
- German Chancellor Merz broke diplomatic decorum by declaring openly that Iran is humiliating the United States on the world stage, as ceasefire talks collapse over Washington's demand that Tehran abandon its nuclear program entirely.
- Iran's counter-proposal — to mutually lift Hormuz restrictions while shelving the nuclear question — was acknowledged by the White House but effectively dismissed, leaving the strait closed and the diplomatic clock ticking.
- The EU has absorbed €25 billion in extra energy costs in eight weeks, with Vanguard raising Europe's inflation forecast and warning of a stagflationary shock if the conflict persists much longer.
- Asia faces the sharpest material blow, consuming 80% of Hormuz oil flows, prompting the IEA's director to call this the gravest energy security threat in recorded history — worse than the twin shocks of the 1970s.
- Thailand, a formal U.S. treaty ally, has begun turning to Russia and China for economic relief, a quiet but seismic signal that prolonged crisis is actively redrawing the geopolitical map.
- Spain, the UK, and Germany have each issued public rebukes, with Merz invoking Afghanistan and Iraq as warnings that America's real problem is never getting in — it is always getting out.
Eight weeks after the Iran conflict began, the Strait of Hormuz remains closed — and the patience of America's allies has moved from private frustration to public rebuke.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz was the most pointed, telling students in Marsberg that Iran's leadership is humiliating the United States on the world stage. He noted, with barely concealed exasperation, that Iran's particular talent seems to be sending American diplomats to Islamabad and sending them home with nothing. His words landed against a backdrop of stalled negotiations: a fragile ceasefire technically holds, but Washington insists Iran formally abandon its nuclear program before any deal is struck, while Tehran proposed this week that both sides simply lift their Hormuz restrictions and set the nuclear question aside. The White House called the offer under discussion but said the president's red lines had been made very, very clear. Scheduled talks were canceled last week without explanation.
The economic toll is compounding by the day. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen confirmed the EU has spent an additional €25 billion on energy since the fighting began. Vanguard has already revised Europe's 2026 inflation forecast upward and warned of a significant stagflationary shock if the conflict drags on. Asia is absorbing an even harder hit — the strait carries roughly a fifth of the world's oil and gas, and Asian nations consume about 80% of that flow. IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol called the moment an unprecedented inflection point, worse than the energy crises of the 1970s.
Nowhere is the geopolitical signal more striking than in Thailand. A longstanding U.S. treaty ally, Thailand's foreign minister told The Washington Post that Washington has offered no help as energy costs batter the Thai economy — and that the country is now turning to Russia and China for assistance. He stopped short of direct condemnation, but said plainly: this was something that should not have started. Spain and the UK have issued their own rebukes, with British Prime Minister Starmer saying he is fed up with citizens paying higher bills for decisions made by leaders like Putin or Trump.
Merz closed with a historical warning, invoking Afghanistan and Iraq: getting in, he said, is never the only problem. Getting out always is. If Washington cannot reach a deal before the economic damage becomes structural, the quiet realignment now visible at the edges of the alliance map may prove very difficult to reverse.
Eight weeks into the Iran conflict, the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, and the patience of America's closest allies is running out in public.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz made that frustration plain on Monday in a speech to students at an educational center in Marsberg. Iran's leadership, he said — and the Revolutionary Guards in particular — is humiliating an entire nation on the world stage. He did not mince the word. He said he hoped it would end as quickly as possible, then went further, noting that Iran has shown a particular talent not for negotiating but for making Americans fly to Islamabad and come home with nothing to show for it.
The remark landed in the middle of a diplomatic stalemate that has grown more complicated by the week. A fragile ceasefire is technically holding between the U.S. and Iran, but the two sides remain far apart on the core question: Washington wants Tehran to formally abandon its nuclear program before any deal is struck. Iran, for its part, floated a proposal this week that would have both countries lift their respective restrictions on the strait while setting the nuclear question aside entirely. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt acknowledged the offer was being discussed but said the president's red lines on Iran had been made very, very clear. Trump had scheduled talks with Iran last week, then canceled them.
While the diplomacy sputters, the economic damage compounds. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Friday that the European Union has spent an additional €25 billion — roughly $29.3 billion — on energy resources since the fighting began. Vanguard has already revised its 2026 inflation forecast for Europe upward, from 1.8% to 2.5%, and its senior economist Shaan Raithatha warned that sharply higher energy prices from Middle East tensions risk a significant stagflationary shock to the European economy if the conflict drags on.
Asia is absorbing an even harder blow. The Strait of Hormuz is the passage point for roughly a fifth of the world's oil and natural gas, and Asian nations consume about 80% of the oil that moves through it, according to the International Energy Agency. The IEA's executive director, Fatih Birol, called the current moment an unprecedented inflection point — worse, he said, than the dual energy shocks of the 1970s. His assessment was blunt: the world is facing the biggest energy security threat in history.
Nowhere is the geopolitical fallout more pointed than in Thailand. The country's foreign minister, Sihasak Phuangketkeow, told The Washington Post that the U.S. has offered no help as rising costs batter the Thai economy. Thailand is a longstanding U.S. treaty ally, but Sihasak said the country is now turning to Russia and China for assistance. He stopped short of a direct condemnation — we don't want to condemn the U.S. directly, he said — but added that this was something that should not have started.
Thailand is not alone in its disillusionment. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez criticized the U.S. within a week of the war's beginning, warning that no one should be playing Russian roulette with the destiny of millions of people. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said earlier this month that he is fed up with people in the U.K. paying higher bills because of decisions made by leaders like Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump. The chorus has grown steadily louder as the weeks have passed.
For Merz, the concern extends beyond the immediate crisis. He invoked Afghanistan and Iraq — two conflicts where the entry was swift and the exit took decades — as cautionary frames for what the U.S. may be walking into. Getting in, he said, is never the only problem. Getting out always is.
The longer the standoff continues, the more the map shifts. A treaty ally pivoting toward Moscow and Beijing is not a footnote — it is a signal. If Washington cannot close a deal before the economic damage becomes structural, the realignment now happening at the margins may become something harder to reverse.
Citações Notáveis
An entire nation is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership, especially by these so-called Revolutionary Guards.— German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, speaking to students in Marsberg
We are facing the biggest energy security threat in history.— IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does it matter that Merz said this publicly, rather than through diplomatic back-channels?
Because public statements from allies carry a different weight. They signal that the frustration has passed the point where quiet pressure feels sufficient.
Is the ceasefire actually holding, or is that just a technical description?
It's holding in the narrowest sense — the shooting has paused. But the strait is still closed, the talks keep collapsing, and the economic damage is accelerating. A ceasefire without resolution is just a slow-motion continuation of the crisis.
What's the actual sticking point in the negotiations?
The U.S. wants Iran to commit to abandoning its nuclear program as part of any deal. Iran wants to reopen the strait first and deal with the nuclear question separately. Neither side has moved.
How significant is Thailand's pivot toward Russia and China?
Enormously significant, if it holds. Thailand is a formal U.S. treaty ally. When a country in that category starts shopping for alternatives, it's not just a diplomatic complaint — it's a structural shift.
The IEA director said this is worse than the 1970s energy shocks. Is that credible?
The 1970s shocks were severe but temporary. This one has no visible end date, it's hitting a more interconnected global economy, and it's layered on top of existing inflation pressures. The comparison isn't hyperbole.
Merz's Afghanistan and Iraq reference — is that a warning or a criticism?
Both. He's saying the U.S. has a pattern of entering conflicts without a clear exit strategy, and that the costs of that pattern fall on everyone, not just Americans.
What would it take for the strait to reopen?
A deal that satisfies Washington on the nuclear question, or a decision by one side to back down. Neither looks imminent. Iran's latest proposal essentially asked the U.S to separate the two issues, and Washington said no.