In July 2024, an American-flagged tanker, the Overseas Santorini, pulled into Gibraltar for refueling. The request was simple. The response was not. The UK government, or rather a handful of influential parliamentarians, ensured the tanker left empty. A “bureaucratic misunderstanding,” they said. But for those paying attention, it was a klaxon.
This was a test. A quiet one. And Washington failed.
Seven months later, another refueling denial—this time by a Norwegian firm protesting Trump’s meeting with Zelensky—was met with immediate White House pressure. Oslo caved within hours. The message was clear: chokepoint control wasn’t just about geography anymore. It was about influence, leverage, and the willingness to push back.
Chokepoints: Where power plays out
Control over key maritime chokepoints has always been the true measure of global power. No need to invade a country when you can strangle its economy at sea. Just ask Alfred Thayer Mahan, the U.S. naval officer and historian of the nineteenth century: “Whoever rules the waves rules the world.”
Today’s problem? The U.S. forgot the second half of that equation—controlling the bottlenecks through which trade flows. China, Iran, and Russia did not.
From the Panama Canal to the Suez, from the Strait of Gibraltar to the Strait of Hormuz, control is shifting. Chinese investments in ports, Iranian shadow fleets, and Russian regulatory games are reshaping the world’s supply lines. Chokepoint control has become the weapon of choice.
The rules have changed
For decades, the U.S. assumed global shipping was a neutral, free-market system. That assumption is dead.
- China has secured strategic ports at both ends of the Panama Canal and major stakes in European terminals.
- Iran lurks at the entrance to the Red Sea, armed with drones and proxies.
- The Strait of Malacca, carrying a third of the world’s trade, is a chessboard with Beijing in an increasingly dominant position.
- The English Channel, Bosporus, and Korean Strait all sit within missile range of adversaries.
- The IMO—once a quiet regulator—has shifted under Panamanian influence, pushing policies that favor China’s shipping interests.
- Russia, with its control over Arctic routes, has an alternative to Suez entirely under its thumb.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy maintains control of the seas but has little say over who gets to sail. That’s a problem.
The Trump counteroffensive
Unlike its predecessor, the Trump administration sees chokepoint control as economic warfare. And it’s hitting back.
A new Executive Order lays out an aggressive plan:
- Tariffs and trade restrictions on Chinese-built ships to cut Beijing’s leverage over global shipping.
- Harbor taxes on foreign cargo entering via Canada and Mexico, closing loopholes that undercut U.S. ports.
- State Department pressure on allies to deny port access to Chinese-controlled logistics firms.
- A redirection of tariffs to fund U.S. shipbuilding, ensuring America has its own fleet when things tighten further.
The message to allies? Pick a side.
The FMC steps onto the battlefield
The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) was once a sleepy regulator. Now, under Trump, it’s an economic weapon.
The FMC has opened an investigation into seven critical chokepoints:
- The English Channel
- The Malacca Strait
- The Northern Sea Passage
- The Singapore Strait
- The Panama Canal
- The Strait of Gibraltar
- The Suez Canal
Their goal? Identify and counteract foreign policies that slow U.S. trade—whether through hidden fees, slowdowns, or selective enforcement.
This isn’t just about fairness. It’s about stopping rivals from squeezing America’s economic lifelines.
Shadow fleets and quiet deals
China isn’t just investing in ports—it’s mastering the art of hidden ownership. Through state-linked firms, it quietly controls dozens of key logistics companies worldwide. Ships that look European or South American on paper? Often, they trace back to Beijing.
Meanwhile, Iran’s shadow fleet—an armada of aging tankers operating under false flags—has mastered the art of evasion, keeping crude flowing despite sanctions. And Russia? It’s playing both sides, offering discounted fuel to any nation willing to ignore Western pressure.
The silent war
Forget dramatic naval battles. The real fight is waged in fuel denial, regulatory headaches, and cargo slowdowns. The strategy isn’t to blockade—it’s to inconvenience, to delay, to make life just difficult enough for U.S.-aligned ships that global trade routes quietly shift elsewhere.
It’s why a denied refueling request in Gibraltar mattered. It’s why China’s methodical port acquisitions matter. It’s why the U.S. response—too slow at first, aggressive now—could reshape global power.
A century ago, Churchill famously said, “Safety and certainty in oil lie in variety and variety alone.” Today, that applies to global trade itself. Relying on any one nation—or allowing rivals to control chokepoints—is a losing strategy.
Maritime dominance isn’t just about warships. It’s about who gets to sail, who gets left waiting at anchor, and who gets to decide the rules of the game.
The game is on. And this time, America is playing.
* Based on an article by John Konrad, published on gcaptain.com on March 16, 2025.