There is a particular rhythm to the United States’ foreign policy in times of crisis: start the fire, fan the flames, then ring the neighborhood doorbells asking everyone to bring a bucket of water.

That seems to be the latest choreography in the drama unfolding around the Strait of Hormuz — the narrow maritime choke point through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s traded oil flows. After weeks of escalating confrontation with Iran, the US is now pressing other countries to dispatch naval escorts to keep the sea lane open. Washington hinted it will “remember” who helps and who doesn’t.

But most countries’ answer has been that when you are the one who has lit the flame and is feeling the heat, don’t ask everyone else to bring fire extinguishers to put out the blaze.

China urges all parties to immediately stop military actions, avoid further escalation of tensions, and prevent regional instability from expanding and affecting global economic development, as noted by Lin Jian, a spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, in reply to a related question.

Beijing’s position has remained consistent since the US and Israel launched military strikes against Iran. At the United Nations, the Chinese envoy, Fu Cong, rightly pointed out that such actions lack legitimacy, as they were carried out without authorization from the UN Security Council and amid ongoing diplomatic negotiations. Fu stressed that the fundamental solution lies in a ceasefire and a return to dialogue.

It is the kind of pragmatic diplomatic logic that some in Washington increasingly seem allergic to. They appear to believe the solution to the Middle East crisis is an international escort fleet assembled on demand — like ordering backup on a geopolitical group chat.

The pitch goes something like this: because many countries rely on energy passing through Hormuz, they should help police it. But there’s a glaring omission in that argument — namely, who turned the Gulf into a war zone in the first place.

The US and Israel did.

Now, as casualties among US troops mount and the costs of sustaining the conflict balloon, Washington appears to be discovering the familiar truth of the US’ military adventures: they are easy to start but hard to finish. And costly.

Oil markets are already reacting. Attacks on shipping and regional instability have sent prices soaring and rattled supply chains worldwide. The result is a global economic ripple effect — higher energy prices, disrupted logistics and rising production prices.

In other words, the rest of the world is already paying the price for the US’ hubris. So when Washington asks others to deploy warships to stabilize the Strait, it is essentially asking them to pay twice.

Not surprisingly, some of the US’ allies are politely declining the invitation. Both Japan and Australia have signaled reluctance to send ships to the mission, illustrating that even friendly capitals are wary of getting dragged into a conflict whose origins they did not choose.

Their hesitation reflects a simple geopolitical calculus. Joining the US-led escort mission could place their vessels directly in the crosshair of Iranian retaliation — something Tehran has already hinted at. If the conflict escalates further, the Strait of Hormuz could become a naval front line rather than a shipping lane.

For many governments, the choice is obvious: avoid becoming collateral participants in someone else’s war.

Washington’s pressure campaign even encompasses some third party countries, with Washington suggesting that noncooperation on Hormuz could affect their exchanges with the US — a diplomatic gambit that treats global security like a bargaining chip.

The policymakers in Washington should realize that de-escalation, dialogue and the protection of international trade routes are what are needed. The logic is inescapable: If the goal is stability in the Strait of Hormuz, the fastest way to achieve it is not to flood the waters with more warships but to end the conflict that makes warships necessary.