Trump is reportedly open to ending the Iran war without reopening the Strait of Hormuz, signalling a shift in priorities, though continued U.S. troop build-up suggests mixed messaging and ongoing risks to global energy flows. Wall Street Journal has the article, though (see below) I am wondering ifs its misdirection given the surge in US troops and other military assets in the region. Summary:Trump reportedly open to ending war without reopening Strait of HormuzWould prioritise degrading Iran’s military over restoring energy flowsHormuz closure continues to disrupt global trade and energy marketsU.S. still deploying additional troops and assets to the regionPolicy signals remain mixed, with shifting objectives and messagingRaises risk of prolonged disruption despite potential de-escalationU.S. President Donald Trump is reportedly willing to wind down the military campaign against Iran even if the Strait of Hormuz remains largely closed, signalling a potential shift in strategic priorities as the conflict enters its second month.According to officials familiar with internal discussions, the administration is increasingly focused on achieving core military objectives, including degrading Iran’s naval and missile capabilities, rather than immediately restoring the flow of global energy through the critical shipping chokepoint. The Strait of Hormuz, which handles roughly 20% of global oil flows, has seen traffic reduced to a trickle following Iranian mining activity and threats against commercial vessels. The disruption has already pushed oil prices above USD100/bbl and triggered shortages across key industrial supply chains.Officials reportedly assessed that forcibly reopening the waterway would require a significantly longer and more complex military campaign, potentially extending beyond the administration’s preferred timeline. As a result, the current strategy appears to favour winding down active hostilities while shifting pressure onto diplomatic channels and allied nations to address the shipping disruption.However, the messaging remains fluid. Trump has alternated between downplaying the importance of the strait to the U.S. economy and threatening direct action against Iranian energy infrastructure if it is not reopened. At the same time, senior officials have suggested that securing freedom of navigation could be deferred to a later phase or handled through multinational efforts.Notably, the apparent willingness to tolerate a partially closed Hormuz sits uneasily alongside a continued build-up of U.S. military forces in the region, including additional naval deployments and the potential for expanded ground troop presence. This divergence raises the possibility that current rhetoric may reflect tactical signalling rather than a definitive shift in strategy.Overall, the evolving stance highlights a complex balancing act: pursuing de-escalation while maintaining pressure on Iran, even as the global economic fallout from disrupted energy flows continues to intensify. This article was written by Eamonn Sheridan at investinglive.com.