This article says Panama, Greenland, South Africa, and even Somalia are all important to sea-based trade and naval control of sea lanes in the event of war. I don’t doubt this, but this also feels like a grand strategy cooked up by somebody’s armchair general uncle just reading stuff on the internet and looking at Google Maps. I also found this interesting:

While the United States dominates global maritime security, there is a huge disparity in the other direction when it comes to influence over maritime trade. Unlike the PRC, which controls around 12.6 percent of global port throughput through COSCO and CMP, the United States has no state-backed firms among the world’s leading terminal operators. In terms of global port influence, the United States would likely rank behind not only the PRC but also the United Arab Emirates (DP World), France (CMA CGM/Terminal Link), and Singapore (PSA International).

U.S. ports and port operations seem to be way behind the leading edge elsewhere in the world. So one thing we could do is focus on learning how to build and operate modern, highly automated, large-scale ports. This would sound like part of a sound “industrial strategy” to me. And it makes sense that we wouldn’t want China or any other country controlling trade and sea lanes to the detriment of free trade. We shouldn’t be trying to do this either. It would make sense to me to focus on international agreements to keep access to ports and shipping lanes open and fair to all countries.