What is this argument? Iran only started blocking after they were attacked by the US. They didn't wake up one day and decided to block the strait. If something happened due to your unprovoked action, it's your fault.
It's not a punch in the face. The US executed decapitation strikes meant to kill the country's leadership and bombed civilians. Your analogy doesn't apply.
That wasn't an analogy, it was a counterexample to your assertion that "If something happened due to your unprovoked action, it's your fault." That's simply not true when the "something" that happened is another person's doing.
This might be outdated, but last I heard the US was only blocking ships going to/from Iran and ships which paid Iran's protection money, right? Not all traffic through the strait?
And for Iran it seems "countries it opposes" is basically everyone...
Iran was quite happy to let Chinese and Russian flagged ships to pass. Now, the US is blocking those as well as anything heading toward Iran. The US recently had a short lived Operation Dumb Name to have the US Navy escort ships out of the straight. It lasted less than 48 hours.
I stand corrected then. Blocking "anything heading toward Iran" is perfectly reasonable given they're at war, and blocking Russian ships makes sense given the separate ongoing conflict in Ukraine, but I don't really see the point in the US blocking Chinese ships going to countries that aren't Iran, unless there's credible evidence China is giving direct aid to Iran. Is there? Otherwise, allowing them through seems like a pretty easy way to fix the oil shortage without much downside, at least until Iran starts blocking them again.
China is buying the oil. They don't care about US Sanctions. Not really sure what you mean by easy way to fix the shortage. Twenty percent of the world's oil trade is no longer trading because the straight is closed. The US is playing a game of "if we can't have any, nobody can have any".
The chain of events did not start there. 20 years ago it was not blocked, although it well could have been. ie A car hits a pedestrian. Claiming the pedestrian did damage to the car's fender misses the context of the conflict.
The chain of events probably started something like 2000 years ago depending on how you count it. The fact remains that threatening the ships of peaceful commercial traffic by uninvolved nations is entirely Iran's doing.
Trump was certainly warned that this would be Iran's response, and started bombing anyway. Trying to absolve the US administration of this is just propaganda.
Trying to absolve the US administration of Iran's actions? Again, my whole point here is that the US is not the one blocking the strait. The US is not responsible for the actions of an enemy nation, predictable or not.