For nearly half a century – a lifetime of intermittent tension between the West and the regime that took power in Iran in 1979 – the Strait of Hormuz is one of the terms that comes to the fore at the highest levels of tension.
As for the recent war, or rather the current one, which broke out on February 28 and has not yet ended, the Strait has entered a new phase, as it has become the most prominent element in light of the war that Iran is waging against the United States and Israel.
Perhaps there is no one in the world anymore who does not know the importance of this strait, through which about 20% of the world’s energy supplies pass. Whether your country exports or imports oil through this strait, it is inevitably affected by what is happening in it because it simply affects the movement of supplies and thus the prices, which affect the prices of almost all goods and services.
In the current war, the world was surprised that the repeated Iranian threat to close the Strait of Hormuz if it was attacked, became a reality this time, as the Strait had already been closed for several days, and Iran began talking about its intention to impose transit fees on the Strait, whose northern bank it oversees, while the Sultanate of Oman oversees its southern bank.
Yesterday, Saturday, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard confirmed that “controlling the Strait of Hormuz and maintaining its deterrent effects for the United States and White House supporters in the region is a firm strategy for Tehran.”
On the other hand, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said on Friday that the US blockade on Iran is expanding to a global scale, and that “no ship is allowed to sail from the Strait of Hormuz to anywhere in the world without permission from the US Navy.”
Hegseth spoke about the impact of the blockade, explaining that it led to a major paralysis in Iran’s commercial capacity, and that the US Navy has so far returned 34 ships from the Strait of Hormuz.
Meanwhile, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Keane said that the United States “continues to impose a strict blockade on Iranian ports, and will implement it comprehensively on any ship.”
Double throttle
This restriction of a vital shipping corridor had a rapid impact in the form of a rise in energy prices and fueled major fears, especially among countries that depend on oil and gas coming from the Arabian Gulf region.
But the world quickly received an additional shock, through another restriction of navigational movement carried out this time by the United States, which announced that it would blockade Iranian ports and prevent ships from leaving or arriving there.
So the strangulation has become double, and the ships that were sailing in the waters of the strait between the Arabian Gulf and the Sea of Oman have become captive to the Iranian closure or the American blockade, and unless mediation efforts succeed in ending this war, the world will be facing a miserable conflict in which both parties will wait for one of them to scream first.
As for other countries, they have become destined to suffer two obstacles instead of the obstacle: The first is Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the rumors of planting mines in its waters, and the second is the American blockade that turned the long Iranian coast into an international prohibited zone, using its fleets to monitor the movement of entry and exit from Iranian ports.
This and that led to a decline in the number of ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz from about 135 ships per day to less than 10 only.
An analysis published by the American Bloomberg website indicates that Iran has succeeded, despite the weakness of its fleet, in imposing its control by threatening ships, planting mines, jamming navigation systems, and imposing transit fees.
In recent days, Iran and the United States have exchanged announcements about stopping or detaining ships belonging to the other party.
What does international law say?
This dual scene has placed international shipping companies facing impossible choices. Either comply with Washington’s pressure and risk losing access to ports, or confront Iranian threats represented by speedboats and sea mines.
In light of this complex situation, “freedom of navigation” is no longer a legal term protected by United Nations charters, but rather has become a currency of exchange in the strategic blackmail market. In other words, freedom of navigation has transformed from a “natural right” to a “political hostage.”
In international law, freedom of navigation is a basic principle, and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea stipulates that it is not permissible to impose fees on the right of passage itself, while only allowing fees for specific services such as navigational guidance or port services, in a way that ensures no discrimination between ships.
The law distinguishes between natural straits and artificial canals, as fees are usually imposed in dug canals such as the Suez and Panama, while natural straits are subject to special rules that guarantee freedom of passage.
Hormuz… a corridor that is not divisible by two
The extreme danger of the Strait of Hormuz lies in the fact that it is like a “geographical choke point” for which there is no good alternative in the near future.
Through this narrow strait, about 21 million barrels of oil pass daily, which is equivalent to approximately one-fifth of global consumption.
But its importance is not limited to black gold, as the Strait is the only gateway for the Arab Gulf states to import basic goods and construction materials, and it is the only artery for exporting liquefied natural gas, on which power plants in Europe and East Asia (especially Japan and South Korea) depend.
Any long-term cessation of navigation in Hormuz does not only mean a crazy rise in prices, but it also means that the global industrial machine will be paralyzed to half, and major capitals will enter an energy darkness that fragile political systems may not tolerate.
In addition to this, there are repercussions on other sectors, most notably the shipping and insurance market, where costs have increased significantly as a natural result of increased risks, as well as disruption to supply chains, etc.
What does the International Energy Agency say?
Let us go to the actual reality mentioned in a statement issued the day before yesterday, Friday, by the International Energy Agency, in which it confirmed that the disruption of shipping movement through the Strait of Hormuz led to the withdrawal of about 20% of global liquefied natural gas supplies from the market, causing a sharp rise in prices.
The agency’s quarterly report also confirmed that “the disruption of shipping movement through the Strait of Hormuz since the beginning of last March has led to an unprecedented state of uncertainty.”
The report noted that “the outlook for the global natural gas market has changed significantly due to the conflict in the Middle East, as a major supply shock has disrupted market fundamentals and delayed an expected wave of new liquefied natural gas supplies.”
According to the report, “Natural gas prices in Asia and Europe rose to their highest levels since January 2023, which contributed to a contraction in demand for natural gas in the main LNG import markets.”
In addition to the immediate disruption, the International Energy Agency expected in its report that the crisis would have repercussions on medium-term expectations.
It also expected to reduce the expected supply growth and delay the impact of the expected global expansion wave in liquefied natural gas production for at least two years due to damage to the liquefied natural gas infrastructure in Qatar.
In turn, Richard Westerdale – a former senior advisor in the Office of Energy Resources in the US Department of State – pointed out some of the repercussions related to aviation fuel prices, as he revealed in an article published in Al Jazeera Net today, Saturday, that they rose from about 85-90 dollars per barrel, to reach between 150 and 200 dollars, with some markets exceeding these levels for short periods.
Are there real alternatives to this path?
The question that is repeated with every crisis is: Can the world bypass the Strait of Hormuz? The short answer is that there is no complete alternative yet, although partial alternatives are available, most notably the following:
First: land pipelines
Some Gulf countries have invested in pipelines that transport oil to ports outside the Strait, such as lines heading to the Red Sea or the Arabian Sea. These alternatives reduce dependence on Hormuz, but they do not absorb the full quantities exported.
Second: Increasing strategic stocks
Major industrial countries, such as China and the European Union countries, have energy reserves that can be used temporarily, but they are not a permanent solution, of course.
Third: Diversifying energy sources
Shifting toward renewable energy and gas from other regions helps reduce dependence, but it is a long-term path that does not address an immediate crisis.
Fourth: Other sea routes
There are no direct alternative sea lanes that perform the same function with the same efficiency. Geography here is crucial, and the Strait of Hormuz cannot be easily replaced.
The siege…when will countries resort to it?
The blockade is an old tool in international conflict, but it has evolved from preventing ships militarily into a complex system that includes financial sanctions, shipping restrictions, preventing insurance, isolating ports, and pursuing middlemen.
Mostly, countries resort to imposing a blockade for the following goals:
- Weaken an opponent without engaging in direct war.
- Raising the cost of policies over the discount.
- Pay discount to negotiate.
- Reducing its financial resources.
- Show strength with the least possible human losses.
This is why the siege is sometimes described as an “alternative to war,” but it may turn into a prelude to it if it fails to achieve its goals, or if the besieged party responds with escalatory options.
Who screams first?
The most interesting question is: Who will suffer first if this scenario escalates?
For the United States:
Washington may not be more directly affected by the supply shortage compared to others, but it will be harmed by:
- High energy prices globally.
- Financial market turmoil.
- Internal political pressure due to inflation.
- The cost of military deployment and protection of navigation.
For Iran:
It will face great pressure if a stifling blockade is imposed on its ports, because foreign trade, hard currencies, and exports will be under severe pressure, and any long-term escalation will exhaust the internal economy.
For other parties:
In fact, the most affected may not be the warring parties, but rather third parties:
- China is a huge energy importer.
- The European Union already suffers from energy and inflation sensitivities.
- Developing countries importing fuel.
- Gulf exporting countries if exports are disrupted.
Therefore, one party may not scream first, but rather the whole world may scream to varying degrees.
Are the affected countries, especially China and Europe, moving forcefully?
Any prolonged disruption to shipping is likely to prompt major political intervention by major powers.
China:
It has a direct interest in the stability of the Gulf, as it is one of the largest importers of oil from the region. It has also strengthened its diplomatic presence in the Middle East in recent years, and may seek mediation or pressure to reduce the escalation.
Europe:
It realizes that any new energy crisis will affect prices, industry, and economic growth, so it will often push for diplomatic solutions, intensifying contacts with Washington, Tehran, and the Gulf states.
Other powers:
Roles may emerge for India, Japan and other major importers, as their interests are linked to freedom of navigation.
The Gulf cannot tolerate a long corridor war
The problem is that maritime conflicts are different from others. It does not remain geographically limited. A single bullet, a stopped tanker, or a sharp jump in oil prices, the effects of which could spread within hours to global markets.
Therefore, the logic of siege and closure, even if it appears to be an effective pressure tool, carries high risks for everyone. Today’s global economy is more interconnected and less able to withstand successive shocks.
The Arabian Gulf, and even the entire world, stands before a very sensitive equation. Where the closure and disruption card is on the one hand and the siege card is on the other hand. Although there are partial alternatives to the Strait of Hormuz, they are still insufficient to compensate for its importance. Therefore, the real solution will remain political, not geographical, through reducing escalation and managing competition instead of turning the sea lanes into arenas of confrontation.
In a world dependent on the flow of goods and energy, opening corridors may be much less expensive than testing who can withstand more under siege or closure.
In the end, the reality of recent days has proven that the American “blockade” and Iranian “closure” may go beyond being mere military tactics, and have become, in the eyes of observers, a kind of major gamble with the future of global stability.
When this is the case, there will be no real victor among the parties to the war, and perhaps there will be no real survivor from the rest of the world as a result of the repercussions of this double strangulation of the navigation artery, which has become the most famous in the world these days.
Major powers may be able to impose sanctions, and regional countries may be able to threaten corridors, but no one can fully control the results of chaos if it begins. Therefore, the Arabian Gulf – where a significant proportion of the world’s interests pass through – remains in need of security understandings more than it needs displays of force, as the cost of understanding always remains less than the cost of mutual strangulation.
