Sparks: Shipping bosses nervous over Trump plan to guide vessels from strait of Hormuz

The energy wasted in a system that requires constant external 'guidance' through a choke point, rather than designing a self-regulating transit architecture, is an inefficient and predictable failure.

If a nation claims the right to command passage, yet another claims the right to repel all armed passage, then one nation's assertion directly negates the other's, leaving only conflict.

How does one man's proposed 'guidance' become a source of such widespread anxiety, unless the collective will of the many implicitly grants power to the whims of the few?

One must precisely record the proposed trajectory, the prevailing currents, and the observed reactions of all vessels under such 'guidance' to ascertain the true operational parameters and deviations.

All I know is what I read in the papers, and if a plan's so good it can't be detailed, then maybe it ain't a plan at all, just a declaration.

The 'guidance' offered by the powerful is often a veiled will to power, presenting control as benevolence.

If the claim is to 'guide' vessels, and the counter-claim is to 'attack any armed force,' then both positions are dependently originated, each defining itself by negating the other, leaving no stable ground.

It is truly remarkable how a simple declaration of 'guidance' can so swiftly produce such widespread trepidation and threats of violence, all in the name of order.

One must consider the precise algorithm of 'guidance' and its interaction with the independent operational sequences of each vessel, anticipating all potential logical conflicts before implementation.

Such a charmingly vague proposal, promising to 'guide' ships through a contested waterway, rather like inviting a fox into the hen house to ensure the eggs are properly sorted.

When one power asserts control over international waters by 'guidance,' it is the world's commerce that is asked to wait, while the powerful benefit from the assertion of their will.