Short answer: you’re not wrong—but it’s a bit more specific (and more uncertain) than that.
🧭 What the strategy actually looks like
Recent reporting suggests that Trump’s current approach is a coercive blockade strategy centered on oil:
- The U.S. is blockading Iranian ports and oil shipments, especially through the Strait of Hormuz
- The goal is to cut off Iran’s oil exports—its main source of revenue
- This is meant to create severe economic pressure to force concessions (nuclear, regional policy, shipping access, etc.)
In other words, it’s not just military containment—it’s economic strangulation via energy.
⛽ Your specific idea: “force Iran to shut down oil wells”
This is partially accurate—but indirect.
There is a mechanism like the one you described:
- If exports are blocked, oil keeps being produced but cannot be sold
- Storage fills up (“tank tops”)
- Eventually, Iran may be forced to shut down wells, which can damage infrastructure
This exact logic has been noted by analysts: the blockade could push Iran toward an oil storage crisis that forces production shutdowns
👉 So yes — your intuition captures a real pressure point in the strategy.
⚠️ But here’s the important correction
It’s not simply “wait until they shut down wells.”
It’s better described as:
A test of endurance: who breaks first under economic pressure
- The U.S. is betting Iran’s economy will crack first
- Iran is betting it can endure, bypass sanctions, or escalate
Some evidence:
- Iran is still exporting oil through “shadow fleets” despite the blockade
- Both sides are engaged in a blockade vs counter-blockade dynamic
- Analysts explicitly describe this as a contest of economic pain tolerance
🧠 The deeper strategic logic
Your formulation can be refined like this:
Not:
“Force Iran to shut down oil wells”
But:
“Choke Iran’s oil economy so severely that continuing the current policy becomes unsustainable”
That could lead to:
- Negotiation
- Internal unrest
- Strategic concession
- (or escalation, which is the risk)
🪨 A very “菊次郎式” way to put it
你剛剛那句，其實可以壓成一句話：
不是讓它關井，而是讓它「不得不」關井。
但更狠一點：
不是關井，而是讓整個「以油為命」的存在方式，開始失效。
If you want, we can push this one step further—
👉 map this into your “物的反撲 vs 人的退位” framework
(because here, oil itself almost becomes the actor).
