Nah, all that Caesar got was getting blockaded himself. Blockading the blockade blockading the blockade was what actually worked.

While it is an interesting comparison, it is actually the reverse.

The point of a siege is to starve out the defenders, while suppressing relief, so that the defenders will eventually submit. (See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_(military)) In this case, if we map "blockade" onto "besiege", it was Iran that initiated the blockade of the Gulf States. So if Trump blockades the blockade, he's not doing Caesar's move, he's doing Vercassivellaunos's move. Trump is not the besieger, he's the relief.

That said, the blockade of Hormuz is strategically very different from besieging a fortified position. The strategic value of a siege is localized, it's about defeating the enemy and neutralizing that position. The strategic value of the blockade of Hormuz is global. The Iranians are not trying to neutralize the Gulf States. They are trying to force a cost on the world economy, to get the rest of the world to restrain the powers attacking them. The strategic gamble I think is that they are hoping that the global effects of the blockade are non-linear, whereas the effects on them are linear.