Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) told Fox News on Sunday that the United States — not Iran — controls the strategic situation in the Persian Gulf, pushing back on the narrative that Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz represents a victory for Tehran. “We run this show. We run it,” Fetterman said on Fox News’ Primary Politics on May 3, 2026. “Now we’ve blocked it, and now they live on oil, and now we are choking off their entire lifeblood.” He added that if further military strikes are required to end the conflict on American terms, he supports those too — making him, once again, the only Democrat in either chamber of Congress to take that position.
“If it’s required to bring in more kinetic strikes, I support that too,” Fetterman told host Peter Doocy. “Destroying the Iranian military and the Iranian regime — I think we should all agree that that’s a noble goal.” The remarks came as President Trump was publicly reviewing Iran’s latest 14-point peace proposal and warning that renewed strikes remain possible if Tehran “misbehaves.”
The Blockade Debate: Who Is Choking Whom?
Fetterman’s “we run this show” declaration is a direct response to a live and contested debate over the strategic meaning of the dual blockades now in place in the Persian Gulf. Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz to most commercial shipping in the early weeks of the conflict that began February 28, 2026, cutting off roughly 20% of the world’s oil and gas supply. Energy prices have soared due to the closure, with oil reaching above $120 per barrel at points, fueling concerns in the White House that Republicans could suffer a major defeat in November’s midterm elections over higher gas prices.
In response to Iran’s closure of the strait, the Trump administration implemented its own naval blockade of Iranian ports beginning April 13, restricting Tehran’s ability to export oil and cutting off its primary source of revenue. The result, as documented by the UK House of Commons Library, is a standoff: Iran has insisted the U.S. must end its naval blockade before Tehran’s leaders will reopen the waterway, while Trump has demanded the strait be opened unconditionally before he will lift the U.S. blockade on Iranian ports. Neither side has moved. Iran has described the U.S. counter-blockade as a potential “prelude to a violation of the ceasefire,” while Trump has called Iran’s attempts to charge tolls for strait passage unacceptable.
Critics — including Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA), a Marine combat veteran — have argued that the U.S. blockade amounts to blockading Iran’s blockade, producing a standoff rather than a strategic advantage. “That’s like saying Tag, you’re it,” Moulton told Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth at a congressional hearing last week. Fetterman’s view is sharply different. Iran’s decision to use the strait as a pressure weapon, he argued Sunday, backfired — because the U.S. responded by blockading Iranian ports, which hits Iran where it hurts most. “Iran thought that they had their trump card to block the strait,” Fetterman said. “We were able to remind them, no, we run this show.”
The Economic Stranglehold
Fetterman’s description of the U.S. as “choking off their entire lifeblood” maps directly onto the Treasury Department’s own characterization of its financial campaign against Iran. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said the Iranian rial has lost 60 to 70% of its value against the U.S. dollar since the conflict began, that Iran’s largest bank collapsed in December 2025, and that IRGC assets accumulated over 47 years are being frozen in Gulf state banking systems at an accelerating pace as Gulf nations — previously permissive toward Iranian financial flows — have begun cooperating with Washington following Iranian missile strikes against Gulf neighbors. “They really miscalculated when they started bombing their Gulf neighbors,” Bessent said in a May 3 appearance on Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures, aired the same day as Fetterman’s interview.
Iran’s broader economic situation has been severely damaged by the combination of military strikes, the naval blockade, and the Treasury’s Operation Economic Fury financial campaign. One Iranian official has suggested there has been $270 billion in direct and indirect damages within Iran. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has said that payment of reparations is the “only way” to end the conflict — a framing that reflects the depth of Iran’s economic distress. For Fetterman, that distress is not a problem to be relieved through a hasty deal; it is the intended outcome of the U.S. strategy, and he says it should continue until Iran meets Washington’s core demands.
Support for Further Strikes
Fetterman went beyond defending the current blockade on Sunday, saying he would support new military strikes if Trump determines they are necessary. That statement comes as Trump himself has publicly warned Iran that renewed strikes remain on the table. “If they misbehave, if they do something bad, there is a possibility it could happen,” Trump told reporters in Florida on Saturday. A senior Iranian military officer said on May 2 that renewed fighting was “likely,” hours after Trump said he was “not satisfied” with Iran’s latest negotiating proposal.
Iran’s 14-point proposal demands resolving all issues within 30 days, guarantees against future military aggression, U.S. troop withdrawal from Iran’s periphery, an end to the naval blockade, the release of frozen Iranian assets, war reparations, lifted sanctions, an end to fighting in Lebanon, and a new Strait of Hormuz mechanism. Crucially, it also envisions deferring nuclear talks to a later phase — a sequencing Washington has consistently rejected. The U.S. wants Iran to suspend uranium enrichment for at least a decade and remove its enriched uranium from the country. Fetterman’s position is that the blockade and the threat of further strikes are the tools that will force Iran to that table — not a diplomatic concession.
A Lone Voice in His Party
Fetterman has voted against all four Senate war powers resolutions introduced in March and April 2026. Each resolution failed with Fetterman casting the sole Democratic vote against, joined by nearly every Republican except Rand Paul. The fourth resolution failed 52-47 on April 15. He has framed his support not as partisan loyalty to Trump but as strategic clarity about what the situation demands. “I love that he’s strangling the Iranian economy right now and blocking the strait,” Fetterman said Sunday. “Every single Democrat would have clapped for” preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, he added — his argument being that what separates him from his colleagues is not the goal, but the willingness to support the means needed to achieve it.
“It seems like people are almost rooting for Iran. It’s crazy,” Fetterman told video journalist Nicholas Ballasy in a recent interview cited by The Hill. “So my party has been very disappointing, the way they’ve chosen to respond.” His fellow Senate Democrats, led by Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), have continued forcing war powers votes and framing the Iran conflict as an unconstitutional, unauthorized war with no clear strategy or exit plan. Fetterman’s pre-vote statement before the first resolution said: “Every member in the U.S. Senate agrees we cannot allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. I’m baffled why so many are unwilling to support the only action to achieve that.”
What Comes Next
Trump was expected to hold a Situation Room meeting Monday with his top national security and foreign policy team to discuss the stalemate and potential next steps, including whether to resume strikes. Iran’s Foreign Ministry said it was reviewing the U.S. response to its 14-point proposal, received via Pakistan on Sunday. Trump said Saturday he would likely reject the plan as written. Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said the “ball is in the U.S. court to choose between a diplomatic solution or a continuation of the confrontational approach.” Fetterman, for his part, has already made his choice clear: the U.S. runs this show, the blockade should continue, and if more strikes are needed, he is ready to say so — alone in his caucus, and exactly where he intends to be.