(Note: Today’s comments were prepared for publication prior to Iran’s firing on US ships and a UAE oil port yesterday. In a kinetic war with existential risk, every commentary is subject to updates at any the time.)
President Trump’s economic pressure on Iran using a blockade represents an evolution of blockade strategy from 20th-century blockades. It blends (1) financial sanctions, (2) trade restrictions, and (3) limited maritime enforcement into a partial system of economic coercion. The Iran naval blockade relies on US dominance to isolate the country. But Iran still operates within a globalized environment where complete isolation is difficult to achieve.
Economic access to banking systems, industrial inputs, and energy market pressures are the tools of US power. American forces cannot encircle Iran. Iran borders seven countries: Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey, and Turkmenistan. Those borders are porous. And Iran has access to Russian payment systems and to Chinese payment systems. Thus, US attempts at isolating the Iranian banking system can be circumvented by Iran.
Some historical precedents can help us understand the US policy and its limits. No historical precedent is perfectly analogous to the current situation, of course, but we can look at how history rhymes. Also note that a resumption of kinetic war can change the present situation. Meanwhile, Iran is moving daily to reconstruct and enhance its military capability. Note, too, that Iran has shown no willingness to negotiate a truce with conditions acceptable to the US. The IRGC seems to be in control of Iran. Trump decapitated Iran’s leadership but didn’t change the character of the regime.
As a result, Iran’s situation is best understood as a form of economic containment rather than a classical blockade. That means US dedication to a longer-term pressure campaign is essential for President Trump to prevail. But domestic pressure rises daily from higher gasoline and energy costs and related economic impacts. American midterm election politics have a calendar that works in Iran’s favor.
The ruthless IRGC regime will suppress any dissent in Iran. However, American policy may give rise to a second front that threatens the IRGC within Iran, or to anti-IRGC pressure from an opposition group like the Kurds. So far there are reports of organizational activity but no military engagement that we know of.
In my view, it will take a US resumption of persistent military destruction to change the existing stalemate. Iran is unlikely to change while the IRGC remains in power.
Three Blockades and What We Can Learn from Them
Germany
The WW1 Allied blockade of Germany during World War is a close historical parallel in terms of scale and intent. From 1914 to 1919, Britain and its allies used their naval superiority to restrict Germany’s imports of food, raw materials, and fuel. These measures reduced Germany’s ability to sustain its economy and war effort. The blockade created severe shortages and widespread civilian suffering. Hundreds of thousands of civilians died from starvation and disease due to restricted supplies. This strategy worked because of Germany’s dependence on maritime imports and its limited ability to access alternative supply routes. Those conditions do not apply to Iran other than to oil-related tanker traffic.
Japan
The US blockade of Japan during World War II is another comparison. It focused on resource denial. Japan imported oil and industrial inputs. American naval and submarine campaigns targeted the supply lines. By disrupting shipping routes and destroying tanker fleets, the US severely weakened Japan’s industrial base and military operations. There is a partial parallel with US efforts to restrict Iran’s oil exports.
However, Japan’s geographic vulnerability as an island nation meant that once maritime supply lines were cut, there were no viable alternatives. Iran differs because it has land-based trade routes that prevent complete isolation. As we have previously observed, Iran is expanding land-based activity daily. The US would have to expand air warfare in a major escalation in order to interdict Iran’s land-based cross-border activity.
Cuba
Some comparisons with sanctions regimes may provide further insight into Iran’s situation. The US embargo against Cuba (1960–present) is a long-standing sanctions regime. The embargo restricts trade, financial transactions, and investment in the Cuban economy. Despite its duration, the embargo has not resulted in decisive political change. Cuba adapted by developing alternative economic relationships and informal economic mechanisms.
Recent developments under the Trump administration (2025–2026) have intensified this model of long-term economic pressure. In January 2025, President Trump rescinded measures designed to ease sanctions. He reinstated stricter controls, including restoring Cuba’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. In mid-2025, a new National Security Presidential Memorandum reinforced the embargo, restricted financial transactions with Cuban military-linked enterprises, and strictly enforced the ban on US tourism. Additional measures expanded the extraterritorial reach of sanctions by targeting foreign companies doing business with Cuban state-linked enterprises and limiting oil shipments to the island, exacerbating an energy crisis. These policies are a “maximum-pressure” strategy aimed at forcing political and economic change, but they have also intensified Cuba’s economic hardships.
Like Iran, Cuba demonstrates how states under prolonged economic pressure develop adaptive strategies that circumvent imposed isolation. Note that regimes in power, whether Cuba or Iran, choose power over the welfare of their citizens, who bear the burdens of sanctions and blockades.
A Porous Blockade Falls Short of Effecting Regime Change
In conclusion, Iran represents a modern form of blockade characterized by economic pressure rather than physical encirclement. Historical examples such as the Allied blockade of Germany and the US blockade of Japan demonstrate the effectiveness of total isolation under conditions of geographic vulnerability and naval dominance. In contrast, modern cases such as Cuba illustrate the limits of long-term economic sanctions in achieving political transformation.
Iran is subject to sustained economic pressure but benefits from geographic connectivity that prevents its complete isolation. As a result, Iran exemplifies a “porous blockade,” where economic coercion is persistent but incomplete. This transition reflects a broader shift in international conflict, where control over economic systems has replaced traditional military encirclement, and where geography shapes the limits of strategic pressure.
Remember, the IRGC is the enemy. As long as it remains in power, the US is engaged in an existential risk war. To be continued…
References and Further Reading
“Blockade of Germany (1914–1919)” | Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany_(1914–1919)
“International sanctions against Iraq” | Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_against_Iraq
“United States embargo against Cuba” | Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba
“New US Cuba security policy set to widen secondary sanctions risk” | Caribbean Council, https://www.caribbean-council.org/us-imposes-new-conditions-of-entry-on-shipping-and-cuban-ports-2-4-2-2-2/
“Trump moves to toughen US policy on Cuba” | AP via Yahoo, https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-moves-toughen-us-policy-012833195.html
“Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign on Cuba, explained” | Council on Foreign Relations, https://www.cfr.org/articles/trumps-maximum-pressure-campaign-on-cuba-explained
“Fact sheet: President Donald J. Trump strengthens the policy of the United States toward Cuba” (2025, June 30) | The White House, https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/06/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-strengthens-the-policy-of-the-united-states-toward-cuba/
“Trump administration rescinds certain actions by the previous administration to ease Cuba sanctions” | Holland & Knight, https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/01/trump-administration-rescinds-certain-actions-by-the-previous-admin
“Trump reimposes Cuba terrorism designation, sanctions and restricted list” | Caribbean Council, https://www.caribbean-council.org/trump-reimposes-cuba-terrorism-designation-sanctions-and-restricted-list/
Choke hold: The attack on Japanese oil in World War II (1994 thesis) | Air University Press, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA425684.pdf
“World War II: Japan and Oil (1939-45)” | HistClo, https://www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/stra/w2j-oil.html.
Disclosure:
The information posted on this website (including any related blog, podcasts, videos, and social media) reflects the personal opinions, viewpoints, and analyses of David R. Kotok. David R. Kotok is an independent contractor. He may independently receive payments from various entities for consulting, advisory and board functions, speaking fees, book royalties, advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs, and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship, or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by David R. Kotok.
Nothing on this website constitutes investment advice. It should not be construed as an offer soliciting the purchase or sale of any security mentioned. Nor should it be construed as an offer to provide investment advisory services by David R. Kotok. The information provided on this website (including any information that may be accessed through this website) is not directed at any investor or category of investors and is provided solely as general information.
This content, which may contain security-related opinions and/or information, is provided for informational purposes only. Do not rely upon it in any manner as investment advice. It is not an endorsement of any practices, products or services. You should consult your own advisers as to legal, business, tax, and other related matters concerning any investment.
Any charts provided here are for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon when making any investment decision. As always please remember investing involves risk and possible loss. Any projections, estimates, forecasts, targets, prospects, and/or opinions expressed are subject to change without notice and may differ or be contrary to opinions expressed by others. Information in charts has been obtained from third-party sources believed to be reliable; however, David R. Kotok makes no representations about the accuracy of the information.
