Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Strategic Mistake: Ignoring Iran’s Indispensable Global Leverage

How misreading Iran’s chokepoint power in Hormuz triggered global disruption and exposed a strategic blind spot

Opinion

A boat behind a fog on the ocean.

Bulk Carrier, Belray, in the Gulf, near the Strait of Hormuz on March 22, 2026 in northern Ras al Khaimah, United Arab Emirates.

Getty Images

Al Ries and Jack Trout are considered America’s foremost marketing strategists, with their seven solo and co-authored books being bestsellers. Three of their books became standard readings for my senior-level Marketing Strategy students when I taught at the University of Northern Iowa (UNI). All seven of their books were thoroughly discussed when teaching Marketing Management for UNI’s MBA program in Hong Kong.

If President Trump, Pete Hegseth, and their military advisors had consulted even one of Ries and Trout’s bestselling books, the Iranian war might have been avoided. I will explain further.


The Law of Focus

In Ries and Trout’s book, The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing, law number 5 is “The Law of Focus.” Its subheading states, “The most powerful concept in marketing is owning a word in the prospect’s mind.” For example, Federal Express is associated with the word “overnight” in most people’s minds. When a product needs to be delivered by the next day, customers typically choose FedEx.

Ries’s book, Focus, emphasizes that successful businesses must concentrate on and claim ownership of a unique attribute that is difficult to replicate and firmly established in the target market’s mind.

This concept also applies to countries whose prospects are other nations. This is called strategic indispensability; other countries will struggle without your resources. In global trade, it is unwise to impose tariffs or initiate conflict with a country that supplies something essential to your nation.

Iran

The Strait of Hormuz is Iran’s focal point of dominance and a strategic indispensability factor. An average of 138 ships sail through Hormuz daily. Only 19 ships have passed through the Strait since the ceasefire, and nearly 800 ships have been stranded for several weeks (BBC).

As a result, Iran controls the passage of ships transporting oil, liquefied natural gas (LNG), fertilizer-related products, sulfur, helium, and petrochemicals to 14 countries: Bahrain, China, India, Israel, Kuwait, Malaysia, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, and the United States.

Strategic Indispensability

Focus, economic leverage, and long-term sustainability for any country comes from three things: 1) a chokepoint, where one route or facility is hard to bypass (e.g., Strait of Hormuz), 2) processing dominance, where the raw material exists elsewhere but one country controls the refining of a manufacturing step (e.g., rare earths and chips) and/or 3) a single-point dependence, where a tiny number of firms or places hold most of the capacity, making disruption globally costly.

Examples of national focus, leverage, and strategic indispensability include:

  • The United States dominates high-end advanced technology, defense alliances, and other countries' dependence on access to America’s financial industry.
  • China controls ~90% of rare-earth processing, giving it export control over rare earths, as they are vital for defense, electronics, clean technology, and semiconductor supply chains.
  • Countries with leverage in semiconductor materials and equipment include China, Japan, the Netherlands, South Korea, and Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over 90% of the world’s most advanced chips.
  • Key players in the LNG and helium industries include Algeria, Australia, Qatar, and Russia.
  • The major strategic indispensability for Egypt is its access to the Suez Canal.
  • Saudi Arabia’s oil production is its dominant factor worldwide.
  • Europe relies on Norwegian natural gas as a major non-Russian supply source.
  • Countries that are strategically indispensable for nickel supply, which is critical for batteries and stainless steel, include Australia, Canada, Indonesia, and the Philippines.
  • Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Canada, China, Chile, Congo, and Peru are key suppliers of copper and lithium, which are vital for electrical and energy storage applications.

Diplomacy 101

It’s a shame the rookie diplomacy crew at Trump 2.0 didn’t learn from Presidents Reagan, G.H. Bush, Clinton, G.W. Bush, Obama, and Biden that you do not invade a country if it has dominance (strategic indispensability) over a product, good, or service your country needs.

The United States and virtually every country will pay dearly to end the war Mr. Trump started without understanding the concept of strategic indispensability, without seeking Congressional authorization, and without consulting with NATO members and a multitude of other foreign leaders.

Dear Mr. Trump

Mr. Trump, I encourage you and your administration to consult a scholar from a major business school regarding the concepts of focus, leverage, and strategic indispensability. These principles are relevant not only to the Iranian conflict but also to the imposition of tariffs on countries that supply essential goods to the United States. It is unsurprising that countries affected by these tariffs, such as Brazil, China, and India, are now seeking alternative trading partners.

Hope springs eternal

Effective leadership is needed in the White House, Department of Defense, among military advisors, and within Congress to ensure a clear understanding of the focus, leverage, and strategic indispensability factors for the United States and other nations. This understanding will enable us to act appropriately in the global economy as allies rather than adversaries.


Steve Corbin is a professor emeritus of marketing at the University of Northern Iowa and a non-paid freelance guest columnist contributor to 158 newspapers and 47 social media platforms in 44 states


Read More

Congress at sunset

America's national debt is projected to reach $45 trillion by 2029. Explore Congress's constitutional "Power of the Purse," federal spending, appropriations, and the policies contributing to rising deficits.

Bill Clark/Getty Images

Congress Must Enforce the Power of the Purse as Debt Soars

“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law” (Appropriations Clause, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7, U.S. Constitution). Congress’s “Power of the Purse” means the President cannot spend money or authorize expenditures unless Congress has passed a specific law funding it (Congress.gov).

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the total federal debt held by Americans is on track to hit $40 trillion by the end of 2026. Currently, every resident in America carries a $122,642 share of this debt.

Keep ReadingShow less
​A Lebanese girl returns with her family to live amid the ruins of an apartment wrecked by Israeli strikes.

A Lebanese girl returns with her family to live amid the ruins of an apartment wrecked by Israeli strikes in the Houch neighborhood, after being displaced for weeks by war between Israel and the Iran-backed Hezbollah militia that has displaced 1.2 million Lebanese, on April 28, 2026, in Tyre, Lebanon.

Scott Peterson / Getty Images

Please Don't Feed the Warmongers

I was recently catching up with an old friend from my Navy Reserve Officer Training Corps days who told me about some young sailors he knew in Bahrain tasked with intercepting hostile drones. Critically, as highly disciplined professionals, they have become extraordinarily good at it. My friend and I, with over twenty years of active duty service as military officers between us, discussed the extent to which their competence and vigilance are keeping them, and other Americans deployed in the area, alive, all while their leadership in Washington treats war with an increasingly terrifying callousness.

As brave servicemembers risk their lives on the front lines, Trump brags about how much money he’s making as president. It is true that for those invested in the types of industries that thrive during armed conflict, this war in Iran is a windfall. Trump himself invested between $9.7 million and $24.3 million in arms manufacturers and Pentagon contractors in 2025. Why would he end the war?

Keep ReadingShow less
A father voting, with his young son standing by him, watching him.

Citizens cast their vote during the 2026 presidential runoff in Colombia on June 21, 2026 in Barranquilla, Colombia. Ivan Cepeda, candidate for the Pacto Historico party and Abelardo de la Espriella, candidate for the Salvación Nacional, face in a tight runoff to rule Colombia from 2026 to 2030.

Leonardo Castañeda/Getty Images

Colombia’s Election Matters—Especially to Ecuador and the U.S.

In a closely fought election on June 21, conservative outsider Abelardo De La Espriella prevailed over Iván Cepeda, an ally of current leftist president, Gustavo Petro. Central to the electorate’s choice were distinct policy proposals to fight criminality and the drug cartels, who control large swaths of Colombian territory. The policies president-elect De La Espriella will bring to the fight against these issues matter greatly, not only to Colombia, but to neighboring Ecuador and the United States.

Earlier in March, Ecuadorian President Noboa, desperate to gain traction in his own drug war, announced a partnership with the U.S. to conduct joint operations against drug cartels. The partnership quickly went awry. A New York Times investigation of the first strike indicates that what the joint militaries considered a drug camp was in fact a dairy farm, with no drug connection. Then, on March 17, Colombia accused Ecuador of bombing within its territory with U.S. involvement. These incidents resulted in U.S. lawmakers calling for a suspension of joint operations on May 13. Very quickly, the U.S. partnership has reopened the scars of the Plan Colombia era of the early 2000s, where an overly militaristic approach to the drug war funded by the U.S. resulted in human rights abuses and false positives.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult grandson teaching his grandfather to use laptop, close-up.

Social Security faces a funding crisis by 2032 that could cut retirement benefits by 22%. Learn what's driving the shortfall and how it could be fixed.

Westend61 / Getty Images

Social Security Faces a 2032 Crisis with Deep Benefit Cuts Ahead

A financial tsunami of giant proportions is heading our way. And it is due to arrive in about six years. Policymakers have known about this tsunami for some time, but in June, we found out the Big Wave is taller than anyone knew.

That’s when the Social Security Trustees released their latest report on the financial health of the popular Social Security retirement program. According to the trustees’ report, the outlook is not good – Social Security’s solvency is in danger. By 2032, the Social Security fund will fall short by about $2.5 trillion of the money needed to pay the 52 million American retirees their full retirement benefits. Previously, it was thought that the tsunami would make landfall in 2034, but the finances are deteriorating faster than expected. If no presidential and congressional intervention is mounted, retirees will take about a 22 percent haircut, meaning any senior beneficiary who was receiving $3000 per month will see that chopped to about $2300 per month, a loss of about $8000 per year.

Keep ReadingShow less