TEHRAN - At a rally in Florida on Friday, President Donald Trump sparked outrage by describing the recent US Navy operation that seized an Iranian-flagged vessel as piracy. Trump recounted the operation, in which US forces took control of the ship and its cargo, including oil, saying, “We land on top of it and we took over the ship. We took over the cargo, took over the oil. It’s a very profitable business. We’re like pirates.”

His comments, which were met with applause from his supporters, have raised concerns about the legality and morality of US actions in international waters, particularly as they involve seizing Iranian property under questionable legal justifications.

US-Israel aggression 

Trump’s comments come amid the US-Israel war against Iran, which began on February 28. This joint operation, while aimed at weakening Iran’s military infrastructure, has proven to be a strategic failure. Despite massive airstrikes, the campaign has not only failed to degrade Iran's defensive capabilities but has also intensified Iran’s resolve to protect its sovereignty. The killing of key Iranian figures, who might have been willing to engage in negotiations, has left the Iranian leadership more united and defiant than ever.

Rather than crippling Iran, the US and Israel have inadvertently fueled Iranian nationalism and hardened Tehran’s stance on issues such as the Strait of Hormuz and its nuclear program. The US invasion and airstrikes on Iranian territory have only isolated Washington further, pushing Tehran to bolster its alliances with its strategic partners. 

The seizure of the Touska 

Among the more controversial actions taken by the US was the April seizure of the Iranian-flagged vessel Touska, which was transporting oil. The US Navy’s operation, part of a broader naval blockade on Iranian ports, further exemplifies the overreach and unlawfulness of US policy. 
Legal experts warn that the unlawful seizure of vessels in international waters is a direct violation of maritime law and international norms. Iran has condemned the seizure of the Touska as an act of piracy, asserting its right to self-defense and its sovereignty over its waters and ships. The US military’s actions in this regard are not only legally questionable but also represent a violation of the principle of freedom of navigation, which is supposed to be upheld by international law.

US military presence

The US has significantly increased its military presence in the Middle East, including the deployment of aircraft carriers and other naval assets to ensure that it can quickly respond to what Washington calls Iran’s “threat”. These deployments have included key assets like the USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77), the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), and the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72)—all Nimitz-class aircraft carriers.

Iran’s control of the Strait of Hormuz

In response to the growing US blockade, Iran has firmly asserted its right to control the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints. Tehran’s decision to increase its control over the strait and potentially impose fees on ships passing through it is a direct countermeasure to the US and its allies’ attempts to exert influence in the region. This bold stance reflects Iran's determination to safeguard its national interests and resist unlawful foreign intervention.
US efforts to choke off Iranian oil exports have backfired, resulting in increasing resistance from Tehran and its allies. Iran's military actions, including targeting US naval assets in the region, demonstrate its resolve to challenge the US-led blockade and maintain access to vital trade routes. 

Failure of US military strategy

The US military's campaign against Iran has failed on multiple fronts. Despite spending billions on military strikes, blockades, and covert operations, the US has not succeeded in weakening Iran. 
Iran’s military capabilities, particularly in asymmetrical warfare, have proven highly resilient to US airstrikes and naval blockades. The Iranian leadership has effectively used its knowledge of regional dynamics to counter US interventions, and the failure of the air campaign proves that brute force alone cannot subdue a determined nation.

Trump’s transactional foreign policy 

Trump’s “America First” foreign policy has been marked by a transactional approach to international relations—one where actions are motivated by self-interest and short-term gains, rather than long-term peace or stability. Trump’s description of the US Navy’s actions as piracy underscores the extent to which US policy has been driven by the desire to control resources, particularly oil, in the Middle East.
This approach, which treats nations as adversaries to be manipulated or defeated, echoes the tactics of the Barbary pirates of the 17th and 18th centuries. The Barbary pirates extorted European nations by raiding their ships and demanding ransom. Similarly, the US has employed military force to control the flow of oil, subjecting nations like Iran to extortionist policies in the name of protecting its economic interests. 

Global repercussions of US actions

As the US military’s presence in the Middle East continues to grow, the global repercussions of its actions become ever more apparent. Iran’s strong and resilient response to US sanctions and military intervention signals to the world that the US cannot continue to act unilaterally without facing significant consequences. Countries that depend on global shipping routes, like those transiting through the Strait of Hormuz, are now reconsidering their relationship with the US as it becomes clearer that US actions are destabilizing rather than protective.
International law is increasingly being disregarded by US policy in favor of unilateral actions that prioritize US geopolitical and economic interests. The growing militarization of US foreign policy and its disregard for established norms are leading to a new global order where power is wielded without respect for international institutions or treaties.

For now,  Trump’s comments about US naval actions as piracy are a stark admission of the lawless and aggressive nature of US foreign policy. His remarks not only reflect the moral bankruptcy of his administration’s approach to Iran but also underline the failure of military intervention as a means of achieving lasting peace or influence. Rather than isolating Iran, US actions have united the Iranian people and government, strengthening their resolve to resist foreign interference. The path to peace in the region lies not in military domination, but in respect for sovereignty and international law—a reality the US seems unwilling to accept.