Donald Trump continues to insist on the narrative of “victory.” He says the United States is defeating Iran and will ultimately prevail. The US president even claims that Washington controls the Strait of Hormuz and that US forces are targeting ships at night. Yet at precisely the same time that Trump speaks of control and victory, the global economy is behaving differently: the market is preparing for a Hormuz that is no longer as reliable as it once was.

Perhaps the clearest sign of this shift is visible not in statements by political officials, but in decisions made by the shipping industry. Reuters has reported that 217 VLCCs have been ordered so far in 2026, with the value of those orders exceeding $20 billion, more than double last year’s orders and the highest level in at least 25 years. Reuters identified the Iran war and the rerouting of oil trade caused by disruption in the Strait of Hormuz as major drivers of this surge in orders.

The meaning is simple but important: the market is making decisions for the future, not for today’s political narrative. A VLCC is a long-term asset. When companies spend billions of dollars building new fleets, they are effectively incorporating the possibility of longer and more complex oil-trade routes into their calculations.

This is where the claim of “full control of Hormuz” faces a serious question. If, as Trump claims, Hormuz is truly under full US control and is expected to quickly return to normal, why should major shipping companies invest billions of dollars in preparing for a different routing of global oil trade?

The reality on the ground also does not fully match the picture of “Hormuz returning to normal.” Reuters reported that only three commercial vessels passed through the Strait on September 17, compared with a 10-day average of about 17 vessels. The figures show that current shipping traffic remains far below prewar levels.

Under these circumstances, another narrative is also emerging from within the US security establishment. Jake Sullivan, a former White House national security adviser, said regarding Washington’s efforts to reopen Hormuz that the United States had paid a heavy price to reopen even part of the waterway and was facing a difficult situation. He spoke of about four ships passing in a 24-hour period while a significant portion of US military capabilities was engaged, describing Washington’s position as being “trapped.”

A notable contradiction emerges here: the US president speaks of full control over Hormuz; a former senior US national security official speaks of a heavy cost and being trapped; and global markets are investing for a future in which the risks surrounding Hormuz remain.

A CNN report on the war’s impact on the global economy explains this shift from another angle. The issue is not simply a temporary rise in oil prices. The war has changed the world’s economic calculations, and some of its effects could persist even after the conflict ends. When a vital global trade route remains exposed to risk for an extended period, companies do not simply wait for conditions to return to normal; they invest in alternatives.

Hormuz is more than a waterway. It is one of the world’s most important energy-transit routes, and any disruption immediately affects tankers, insurance, freight rates and fuel prices, and ultimately the cost of producing and transporting goods around the world.

That is why what is happening in the shipping market today carries greater significance. The surge in VLCC orders could mean that market participants no longer want to base the security of energy trade solely on the assumption that Hormuz will always remain accessible as it was in the past.

Even if the war ends, this shift in calculations will not be quickly reversed. An ordered tanker is a multiyear commitment; new infrastructure, new trade routes and insurance and shipping contracts are not decisions that can be reversed by a political statement from the US president.

The question the White House must now answer is what relationship Trump’s claimed American victory bears to the reality for which global markets are paying.

Trump says the United States is defeating Iran and will ultimately prevail. But global markets, regardless of that narrative, have incorporated the risks surrounding Hormuz into their pricing and investment decisions, from giant tankers to alternative energy routes and higher transportation costs.

In politics, the future can perhaps be described with words such as “victory.” But markets have to spend real money preparing for the future they actually face.

Perhaps this gap between the “victory narrative” and “market behavior” is one of the clearest signs of the transformation the war has brought to the global economy, even as Trump tries to portray it in reverse through repeated publicity stunts, particularly ahead of the US congressional midterm elections.