<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail-inner-article-top"><h1 class="gmail-">Turkish naval strategist warns US blockade risks global economic collapse</h1><p class="gmail-">Speaking
to The Cradle, Cem Gurdeniz says Washington\u2019s war on Iran has exposed
the limits of US power, accelerated the decline of the petrodollar
system, and pushed the world toward a systemic rupture.</p><div class="gmail-another-name"><p><a href="https://thecradle.co/authors/ceyda-karan" style="color:rgb(164,4,4)">Ceyda Karan</a></p></div><div class="gmail-another-name" style="margin-top:16px"><p><span style="color:rgb(84,88,94)">APR 28, 2026 - </span><font size="1"><a href="https://thecradle.co/articles/turkish-naval-strategist-warns-us-blockade-risks-global-economic-collapse">https://thecradle.co/articles/turkish-naval-strategist-warns-us-blockade-risks-global-economic-collapse</a></font></p></div></div><div class="gmail-inner-article-img"><img src="https://thecradle-main.oss-eu-central-1.aliyuncs.com/public/articles/ecd5dcde-431e-11f1-99ea-00163e02c055.jpeg" alt="" width="534" height="253" style="margin-right: 0px;"><span>Photo Credit: The Cradle</span></div><div class="gmail-inner-article-content"><div class="gmail-row"><div class="gmail-col-md-8 gmail-col-sm-7"><div class="gmail-article-content"><span class="gmail-article-body"><p style="margin-left:0cm">Last year, retired Rear Admiral Cem Gurdeniz \u2013 architect of the \u201c<a href="https://thecradle.co/articles-id/28676">Blue Homeland</a>\u201d doctrine \u2013 warned <a href="https://thecradle.co/articles/blue-homeland-architect-warns-nato-has-failed-and-the-eu-wants-turkiye-on-its-knees"><i>The Cradle</i></a>
that NATO had become a hollow alliance and that Turkiye's future lay in
a sovereign Eurasian alignment. Today, as Washington-backed escalation
against Iran spirals into a global economic and military crisis, his
warnings appear less theoretical and far more immediate.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">The
war launched by the US and Israel against Iran on 28 February has
triggered a major political and economic crisis. The aggressors failed
to secure a quick victory, and for the past 40 days, a \u201cfragile
ceasefire\u201d has prevailed. The world is now trying to understand Iran\u2019s
moves in the Strait of Hormuz and where US President Donald Trump's
administration\u2019s blockade is leading.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">Regional
states face enormous uncertainty if a negotiated solution is not
reached. Once again, US and western attention has turned to Turkiye,
alongside Iran, as one of the region\u2019s most critical countries. As a
NATO ally, Turkiye\u2019s efforts to develop its defense industry are
welcomed, and discussions are underway about <a href="https://thecradle.co/articles-id/37193">establishing a NATO command</a> at Incirlik base in Adana.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">As
Ankara prepares to host the NATO summit on 7\u20138 July, it avoids directly
criticizing the Trump administration as the aggressor, instead focusing
its <a href="https://thecradle.co/articles-id/37108">rhetoric on Israel</a>. At the same time, it attempts a balancing act \u2013 leaning toward the west while calling for the war to end as soon as possible.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">Within
Turkiye, however, public opinion openly criticizes US and Israeli
aggression, and distrust toward the west is deepening further.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">In
this wide-ranging interview, Gurdeniz dissects Washington\u2019s blockade
strategy, Iran\u2019s resistance, the unraveling of US naval supremacy, and
the broader systemic crisis engulfing the Atlanticist order.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm"><strong>The Cradle: </strong>After
40 days of war, the Trump administration has shifted from threats of
\u201cdestroying a civilization\u201d to a fragile ceasefire and now a blockade
strategy. What is Washington trying to achieve?</p><p><strong>Gurdeniz</strong>:
Trump speaks in contradictions. One moment, he says, \u201cIf they don\u2019t
accept, we will destroy them,\u201d the next, \u201cWe will make a great deal.\u201d
It\u2019s a stream of contradictory statements.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">Meanwhile,
the US has three aircraft carriers in the region: the USS Gerald R.
Ford has re-entered the Red Sea, the USS George H. W. Bush is moving
from the Cape of Good Hope toward the Arabian Sea, and the USS Abraham
Lincoln is positioned in the Arabian Sea outside Iran\u2019s missile range.
In addition, B-52 and B-1B bombers have intensified their flights over
the Eastern Mediterranean\u2013Gulf corridor with heavy tanker support.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">Against this backdrop, Trump\u2019s move toward an \u201cindefinite ceasefire\u201d is striking.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">The
blockade decision is shaped not only by Iran maintaining the initiative
and refusing negotiations, but also by military, economic, and
political constraints.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">Iran is already
prepared for war. By keeping the Strait of Hormuz card open, it aims to
push back US presence in the Gulf, force Israel into ceasefires on
surrounding fronts \u2013 especially Lebanon \u2013 and establish a long-term
balance that prevents future threats. Iran understands that every
concession to the US or Israel returns later as greater military
pressure.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">At the same time, Washington
faces serious constraints. Despite claims by Donald Trump that
stockpiles have been replenished, open sources indicate that precision
munitions such as JASSMs, Tomahawks, and SM-3s are under significant
strain, with limited ability to quickly restore capacity. Even recent
operational setbacks, including a costly air rescue mission involving
multiple aircraft for one pilot, have drawn domestic criticism.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">Trump
needs a success narrative \u2013 but there is none. Claims of \u201c20,000
targets hit\u201d contrast with a far less decisive reality. Instead,
symbolic actions are highlighted, such as the USS Spruance intercepting a
container ship after prolonged pursuit, presented more as spectacle
than strategy.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">However, these measures
lack strategic effect. A blockade over such a vast maritime space cannot
be decisive, and imposing it during a ceasefire is inherently
contradictory, undermining de-escalation.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">As
long as the blockade continues and the Strait of Hormuz remains
disrupted, the crisis will expand beyond the region, turning energy
disruption into systemic global pressure.</p><p><strong>The Cradle: </strong>How should Iran\u2019s moves in the Strait of Hormuz be understood? </p><p style="margin-left:0cm"><strong>Gurdeniz: </strong>In
wartime, no country allows its strategic straits to be freely used by
its adversaries. Iran is effectively implementing controlled passage
\u2013 it allows some ships through and blocks others. This resembles a
blockade, but it is fundamentally wartime regulation of a strait.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">The
US blockade is driven by a deeper concern: Iran\u2019s trade with China in
yuan and local currencies. This undermines US naval dominance \u2013 not just
economically, but psychologically.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">For decades, the US saw itself as ruler of the seas. Now, that dominance is being challenged.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">Historically,
similar situations have occurred. During World War I, Britain
controlled Gibraltar and denied access to enemy ships. Napoleon
attempted to blockade British trade but failed, partly because Russia
broke ranks.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">Today, Trump is effectively saying: if China benefits, then we will stop it \u2013 even if it means mutual damage.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm"><strong>The Cradle:</strong> Is this primarily a message to Beijing?</p><p style="margin-left:0cm"><strong>Gurdeniz: </strong>Absolutely.<strong> </strong>Since
2018, the US has viewed China as its primary rival. China\u2019s strength
comes from production, not finance, and it is rapidly surpassing the US
in multiple sectors.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">The operations in
Venezuela and Iran were meant to signal that the US still controls
global energy flows. Since 1973, it has maintained dominance through
naval power and the petrodollar system.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">China disrupted that system.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">Even middle powers now have access to advanced military technologies, eroding US superiority.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">This
move is not just about cutting China\u2019s energy supply \u2013 that is
unrealistic \u2013 but about reasserting dominance. A quick victory in Iran
would have reinforced control over global energy and deterred countries
from trading outside the dollar.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">But that
plan failed. Iran did not back down. To stabilize markets, Iranian oil
exports were still allowed, much of which ultimately reached China,
further weakening the effectiveness of pressure.</p><p>Meanwhile,
messaging toward China has intensified, alongside claims of
Iranian\u2013Chinese military cooperation, raising the risk of escalation
into a wider strategic confrontation. </p><p style="margin-left:0cm"><strong>The Cradle:</strong> What are the broader consequences of this blockade?</p><p style="margin-left:0cm"><strong>Gurdeniz: </strong>Iran has used the Strait of Hormuz more effectively than a nuclear weapon. Closing it creates a far greater global impact.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">If
this crisis continues, the economic consequences will escalate rapidly.
June is a critical threshold. If no resolution is found, the global
economy could enter a severe recession. In a more extreme scenario, the
petrodollar system itself could begin to collapse.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">Trust
in US security guarantees is increasingly eroding among Gulf states, as
the crisis exposes the limits of Washington\u2019s ability to guarantee
stability in key maritime and energy corridors. This is likely to
accelerate diversification efforts and the search for new regional and
global alignments beyond exclusive reliance on the US.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">We
are witnessing a broader geopolitical rupture. Iran, despite sustaining
heavy damage, retains strategic initiative through its leverage over
critical energy routes such as the Strait of Hormuz, turning geographic
chokepoints into strategic tools. The US responds through military
buildup and pressure, but its ability to sustain escalation indefinitely
is structurally constrained by economic, logistical, and political
limits.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">If the conflict expands further,
the Bab al-Mandab Strait could also become part of the escalation cycle,
widening the disruption across global trade and energy flows. In such a
scenario, the perception of the US and Israel as primary drivers of
systemic instability would intensify, contributing to a longer-term
acceleration in the erosion of US-led global hegemony.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm"><strong>The Cradle:</strong> What does this crisis reveal about US military power? </p><p style="margin-left:0cm"><strong>Gurdeniz: </strong>It reveals its limits.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">Even US Admiral James Stavridis admitted that enforcing such a blockade would be extremely difficult and exhausting.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">The
US Navy is facing serious structural problems. Fleet numbers have
declined significantly. Shipbuilding capacity lags far behind China.
Many systems are outdated.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">In simulations, the US Navy suffers heavy losses within the first days of a major conflict.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">Iran, meanwhile, maintains control over the Strait of Hormuz \u2013 and that reality is unlikely to change.</p><p><strong>The Cradle:</strong> What can Washington realistically gain from this strategy?</p><p style="margin-left:0cm"><strong>Gurdeniz: </strong>Very
little. It will disrupt global supply chains \u2013 oil, fertilizers,
helium, and more. It will also cut off essential medical and
life-sustaining imports and exports to Iran and the Gulf countries,
causing much greater suffering among populations. Of course, the Iranian
people will suffer the most, but in the end, the final word will again
belong to the Iranian people \u2013 their resilience and endurance will
determine the outcome.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm"><strong>The Cradle:</strong> Can Iran trust negotiations under these conditions?</p><p style="margin-left:0cm"><strong>Gurdeniz: </strong>Trump
himself withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal during the [former US
President Barack] Obama administration in 2018, effectively tearing up
the multilateral agreement. At the same time, there are even reports \u2013
such as those published by the Washington Post \u2013 that while negotiations
were ongoing in Islamabad, Israel could carry out an assassination
attempt against the Iranian delegation. This undermines the very
foundation of diplomacy and negotiations, which are as old as human
history itself. In such a context, even the concept of a white flag
loses its meaning.</p><p><strong>The Cradle: </strong>How should we understand the Israel factor in this war and in US policy?</p><p><strong>Gurdeniz: </strong>From
the beginning, my view is that this war serves Israel\u2019s interests.
Netanyahu is effectively shaping US policy, while Trump\u2019s inner circle
includes neoconservative and Zionist influences. US Ambassador Mike
Huckabee reinforces a religious narrative of divinely \u201cchosen\u201d land,
aimed at evangelical audiences in the US.</p><p>At the same time, US
officials justify escalation as \u201cstabilization through tension,\u201d even
while discussing actions that would destroy civilian infrastructure in
Iran. This exposes a contradiction between rhetoric and reality,
including the dismissal of war-crime concerns. Overall, US decisions are
contributing to global instability, and even historical references such
as Vietnam are used to support ideas of \u201cquick victory,\u201d despite their
disconnect from reality.</p><p><strong>The Cradle:</strong> How do you assess Iran\u2019s position?</p><p style="margin-left:0cm"><strong>Gurdeniz: </strong>In
essence, Iran\u2019s resistance is all of our resistance. It is the
resistance of all honorable nations. In my view, it is a great nation
standing up to the groups of financial capital \u2013 armed with sticks and
their pockets stuffed with money \u2013 who have no regard for humanity and
worship nothing but money. The Iranian people are fighting tooth and
nail against this shameless, ruthless mafia.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm"><strong>The Cradle:</strong>
Trump\u2019s administration is accused of politicizing religion, while
calling Iran a \u201ctheocracy\u201d and facing clashes with Pope Leo XIV. How
should this use of religion be understood?</p><p style="margin-left:0cm"><strong>Gurdeniz: </strong>The
Trump administration\u2019s use of religion is highly visible and political.
While Iran is labeled a \u201ctheocracy,\u201d senior US officials openly use
religious language and symbolic prayer-like acts, reflecting an unusual
level of religious rhetoric in state affairs.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">The
dispute with the Pope began after he called the war unjust. However,
the conflict is not purely religious, as the Vatican is closely tied to
global financial and political structures and historically aligns with
dominant power centers.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">Overall, the
issue reflects overlapping political and financial interests rather than
a theological divide, with broader western financial hubs continuing to
shape global alignments behind the scenes.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm"><strong>The Cradle:</strong> The US's most important ally is Britain. How do you interpret the Starmer government staying out of the conflict?</p><p style="margin-left:0cm"><strong>Gurdeniz: </strong>Earlier
this year, the US Navy boarded a Russian tanker in international waters
near the UK, without a meaningful Russian response. Later, plans were
made to escort and inspect civilian tankers described as part of a
\u201cshadow fleet,\u201d and Britain announced it would board Russian vessels
passing through the English Channel \u2013 despite this being international
waters.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">In response, Russia escorted two
of these tankers through the Channel with a frigate from its navy, while
Britain was unable to intervene. This reflects the current limits of
British naval capability.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">In parallel,
HMS Dragon was deployed to Cyprus for protection duties but had to
withdraw shortly after due to a technical failure. Compared to its
post\u2013World War II naval strength of over a thousand ships, Britain today
operates a much smaller fleet with limited frontline capacity. In
practical terms, even under US pressure, Britain\u2019s ability to act
independently is significantly constrained.</p><p><strong>The Cradle:</strong> How
should we interpret European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen
declaring Turkiye, along with Russia and China, as adversaries under the
theme of \u201ccompleting Europe\u201d?</p><p><strong>Gurdeniz: </strong>Von der
Leyen is an appointed, not elected, official. In Europe, appointed
figures are often examined through their links to financial capital and
broader ideological networks. Her remarks also reflect a political
framing of adversaries rather than a strategic reality.</p><p>Europe
currently faces deep structural constraints, especially in energy
security. Its supply chains are already fragile, and further disruptions
\u2013 such as in key maritime chokepoints \u2013 would worsen the situation.
Dependence on external liquefied natural gas (LNG) and disrupted Russian
energy routes have already exposed this vulnerability.</p><p>Despite
this, the rhetoric of permanent confrontation with Russia continues
without a clear material basis. European states face demographic
decline, aging populations, and limited military capacity, making
large-scale strategic autonomy difficult in practice.</p><p>In this
context, such statements are seen as politically driven rather than
grounded in capability. They also contrast with the reality of Europe\u2019s
dependence on external energy and logistics, raising questions about the
coherence between its strategic ambitions and actual capacity.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm"><strong>The Cradle:</strong> What should Turkiye do in this environment? </p><p style="margin-left:0cm"><strong>Gurdeniz: </strong>There
are voices saying, \u201cTurkiye should align itself with the EU.\u201d However,
the Republic of Turkiye, with its geography and hardworking population,
has the potential to make far greater breakthroughs. What matters is the
emergence of a conductor for this orchestra. I am among those who
believe that such a conductor and such an order will inevitably emerge.
The Republic of TurkIye is not aware of its own power. It is not aware
of the strength of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk\u2019s legacy. Fortunately, there is
also a very large segment of society that is aware of this.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm"><strong>The Cradle:</strong> Are we moving toward a wider global war?</p><p style="margin-left:0cm"><strong>Gurdeniz: </strong>The
Third World War is, in fact, already ongoing in a low-intensity and
hybrid form. The reason we call it a \u201cworld war\u201d is that world wars
change the global order. And right now, the order is changing. The war
in Ukraine is one front. Iran is another front. It does not necessarily
have to resemble 1939\u201345, because the world is different now.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">Why
is it different? After the US abandoned Bretton Woods in 1970 and
shifted to a system where the dollar became the reserve currency tied to
oil, the neoliberal model made the world extremely interdependent. Now,
as the system\u2019s gears are turning, such crises shock the entire world.
Naturally, it also affects the hegemonic power. Therefore, the US is in a
state of great panic.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">There is 40
trillion dollars of debt. It is dependent on a financial capital system
influenced by Zionist networks. On one side, there are Israel\u2019s demands,
on the other, globalists and financial capital, and on the other side,
the MAGA movement represented by Trump.</p><p>Saying \u201cwe made a plan \u2013
Venezuela will be handled, Iran will be handled, China will be
contained, wars will be triggered in Belt and Road regions\u201d is not
enough. The plan is not going as they intended.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm"><strong>The Cradle:</strong> Where does this crisis lead?</p><p style="margin-left:0cm"><strong>Gurdeniz: </strong>The
war appears likely to continue, though its prolongation is also
increasingly costly for the US. Iran, in this assessment, is not
expected to surrender or enter negotiations under pressure.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">Iran\u2019s
position is shaped by a long historical experience of external
intervention, particularly the 1953 coup against Mossadegh and the
period of strong western control over the Shah until 1979. This legacy
reinforces a deep societal resistance to imposed political outcomes,
even alongside internal political differences.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">Despite
internal divisions, there is a shared perception that Iran is facing
external pressure aimed at reshaping its system, which reinforces
domestic resilience. Unlike typical wartime patterns of mass
displacement, the observed return of some citizens is interpreted as a
sign of strong state continuity and societal attachment to national
structure and historical identity.</p><p><strong>The Cradle:</strong> What should be expected if this situation drags on?</p><p><strong>Gurdeniz: </strong>If
it continues until the end of June, the world could face a crisis
similar to the one in 1929. The US-imposed petrodollar system may
collapse. The US no longer produces consent or security, but fear and
coercion, generating growing global resentment. Because of Israel, the
US is also losing influence.</p><p>Iran is under pressure, and its
people are suffering, but they are asking whether they will remain under
permanent threat or end it to secure a more stable future.</p><p>At the
same time, amid the war in Palestine, only Iran, Lebanon's Hezbollah,
and Yemen's Ansarallah have taken an active stance, while Sunni states
and others have largely limited themselves to statements and
humanitarian aid.</p><p>In this context, sectarian distinctions such as
Shia and Sunni become less relevant. The key divide is between
supporting the oppressed or the powerful, and between national interests
or alignment with the US, EU, and NATO.</p><p>Mustafa Kemal\u2019s Six
Arrows are recalled as an alternative framework, while contemporary
western neoliberalism is criticized for prioritizing individualism over
society and producing deep inequality, in contrast to models like
China\u2019s collective approach.</p><p><strong>The Cradle:</strong> What does this mean for NATO?</p><p style="margin-left:0cm"><strong>Gurdeniz:</strong> </p><p style="margin-left:0cm">NATO\u2019s
internal fragmentation is no longer an exception but a structural
reality. The alliance has evolved from a unified military bloc into a
loose security framework of 32 states with diverging priorities. Since
the Russia\u2013Ukraine war, clear divisions have deepened across Europe and
between Europe and the US, as members increasingly pursue their own
national interests amid perceived US retrenchment.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">This
has intensified political and strategic divergence among key actors,
weakening NATO cohesion. At the same time, the US's capacity to rapidly
and sustainably reinforce Europe has declined compared to the Cold War
period, pushing Europe to gradually develop its own defense
capabilities, while Russia\u2019s military-industrial capacity adds further
pressure.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">In this context, NATO\u2019s future
is shaped by a structural dilemma: greater European autonomy or
continued dependence on a less globally engaged US.</p><p style="margin-left:0cm">Article
5, meanwhile, does not guarantee automatic military intervention. It
requires full consensus, and any response is decided individually by
each member state \u201cas it deems necessary.\u201d It is therefore not an
automatic war trigger, but a flexible political consultation and
response framework.</p></span></div></div></div></div>
<br></div>