This moment captures a deeper irony playing out in U.S.–Iran policy. For nearly half a century, Trump has spoken openly about using raw leverage — including military force — to seize or control Iranian oil resources. Yet as the U.S. applies maximum pressure, Iran has adapted by turning the world’s most critical energy chokepoint into its own transactional weapon: a selective toll system in the Strait of Hormuz.
The 46-Year Obsession
A video montage compiled by MilkBarTV and shared by geopolitics professor Glenn Diesen traces Trump’s rhetoric from 1980 to 2026. During the Iran hostage crisis and Iran–Iraq War era, a younger Trump repeatedly suggested the U.S. should respond to Iranian provocations by “grab[bing] one of their big oil installations” and keeping it, or “do[ing] a number on Kharg Island.” The theme has remained consistent: Iran’s energy wealth represents leverage to be taken or denied.
Donald Trump has talked about attacking Iran and stealing its oil for 46 years (1980-2026) pic.twitter.com/jKsM9skUo8
— Glenn Diesen (@Glenn_Diesen) April 4, 2026
This is not abstract foreign policy. It is the ultimate “Art of the Deal” tactic applied to geopolitics — maximum pressure to force submission or extract concessions.
The Judicial Clip
In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (decided February 20, 2026), the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that IEEPA does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. The Framers reserved the taxing power (including tariffs) to Congress. Trump could still declare emergencies and cut off trade entirely — “destroy the trade” or even “destroy the country” via sanctions and embargoes — but the clean, adjustable fee or reciprocal tariff tool was stripped away.
His podium rant was the direct fallout: frustration that the system allows blunt-force destruction but not the nuanced transactional art he prefers.
Donald Trump: "I am allowed to cut off any and all trade…I can destroy the trade, I can destroy the country,…I'm allowed to destroy the country, but I can't charge a little fee." (2026)
— The Intellectualist (@highbrow_nobrow) April 4, 2026
pic.twitter.com/noFxv0mi1S
Iran’s Counter-Deal
While Trump vents domestic legal constraints, Iran has operationalized the very leverage he has long discussed — but reversed.
In late March 2026, Iran’s parliament committee approved a formal management plan for the Strait of Hormuz, which carries roughly 20% of global oil and LNG trade. The system includes tiered transit fees (reports cite up to $2 million per tanker, sometimes framed per barrel in yuan or stablecoins), free or discounted passage for allies, and restrictions or harassment for U.S.-aligned vessels. Some European buyers, facing energy price spikes (oil up ~60%, natural gas doubled in spots, diesel nearing $200/barrel in places), are reportedly exploring selective deals — potentially settled outside the dollar.
This is asymmetric transactionalism in action. The U.S. maximum-pressure campaign (sanctions, military strikes, threats) was meant to weaken Iran and preserve dollar dominance in energy flows. Instead, Iran weaponizes geography: pay the toll, accept the currency terms, or face disruption. One major non-dollar energy/transit arrangement visibly accelerates de-dollarization trends that have been building for years.
Intention vs. Consequence
The reversal is stark:
- Intention: Decades of U.S. policy and Trump’s personal fixation on controlling Iranian oil leverage to maintain unipolar advantage and petrodollar primacy.
- Consequence: Iran runs a real-world toll booth on the global energy artery. Europe bleeds higher costs and considers pragmatic deals. The very “Art of the Deal” leverage Trump says the Constitution should let him wield is now being exercised against the U.S.-led system by the target of that pressure.
🚨🚨🚨 IRAN JUST OFFERED EUROPE A HORMUZ DEAL. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY JUST TRIGGERED. 🚨🚨🚨
— Sebastián Cruz (@ElCruzSeb) April 3, 2026
On the surface: Iran offered the EU transit access through the Strait of Hormuz. Sounds like a small diplomatic move. It is not.
This is a goddamn financial nuclear bomb.
💀 The… pic.twitter.com/TSobSW54B0
The Supreme Court decision only sharpens the contrast. Trump can still pursue blunt destruction, but the flexible fee-based bargaining he favors is constrained — while Iran improvises its own version on the water.
What to Watch
Key Signals
- Energy markets & currency flows: Any sustained shift toward euro/yuan/rial-denominated transit or oil payments would mark another visible crack in petrodollar norms.
- European desperation vs. alliance cohesion: How far will the EU go to secure affordable energy while the U.S. maintains pressure on Iran?
- U.S. workaround authorities: With IEEPA tariffs curtailed, expect heavier reliance on other statutes (Section 232, 301, etc.) or full embargoes — and fresh legal challenges.
- Iran’s adaptability: Geography remains its strongest card. Selective enforcement of the Hormuz plan tests international maritime law and global willingness to pay for “safe passage.”
The Bigger Picture
This episode is less about one personality or one waterway and more about the limits of unilateral transactional power in a fragmenting world. Trump’s lifelong script meets judicial guardrails at home and geographic improvisation abroad. The result: the tool he wanted to monopolize is now backfiring while he tries to destroy the country instead.
The “Art of the Deal” was always about leverage. In Iran policy 2026, the leverage has changed hands — at least for now.