Few geographical points on earth carry the strategic weight of the Strait of Hormuz. In the ongoing Iran–U.S.-Israel confrontation, this narrow maritime corridor has transformed from a commercial artery into a geopolitical fault line. The crisis has revealed a stark reality: control over Hormuz is not merely about navigation; it is about energy security, economic stability, and global power projection. As tensions escalated following the February 2026 strikes, Iran’s ability to disrupt and selectively manage this chokepoint turned a regional war into a global economic emergency.

Geographical Situation: The Strait of Hormuz lies between Iran to the north and Oman (and the UAE) to the south, forming the only maritime passage between the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea. At its narrowest, it is barely 33 km wide, with shipping lanes confined within even tighter corridors. This geography makes it a classic “chokepoint,” a location where even limited disruption can have disproportionate global consequences. Every vessel leaving major Gulf producers—Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE- must pass through this corridor. Thus, geography itself has made Hormuz a lever of power, particularly for Iran, which occupies the northern coastline and commands strategic vantage points along the strait.

Economic and Commercial Utility: The economic significance of Hormuz is unparalleled. Approximately 20% of global oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) flows through this strait, translating into nearly 20 million barrels of oil per day and energy trade valued at hundreds of billions annually. Beyond oil, the strait is vital for LNG exports, especially from Qatar; fertilizer shipments, heavily dependent on natural gas inputs; and essential imports to Gulf states, including food and medicines. The recent conflict demonstrated how fragile this system is. Within weeks of hostilities, oil prices surged beyond $100 per barrel, supply chains were disrupted across Asia, and even European states began rationing fuel. India’s decision to resume Iranian oil imports after seven years underscores how quickly strategic necessity can override political alignments. When Hormuz is disrupted, global markets do not wait to adapt, often in ways that reshape long-standing alliances.

How Iran Effectively Blocked Hormuz: Iran did not impose a formal, total blockade. Instead, it employed a strategy of “effective denial”—a combination of military signaling and selective enforcement: • Deployment of drones, missiles, and fast attack boats; • threats against tankers linked to adversaries; • use or alleged deployment of naval mines; • direct attacks or near-misses on commercial vessels. At least 24 commercial ships were struck or targeted, while maritime insurance costs skyrocketed. Traffic collapsed dramatically—from roughly 135 vessels per day to a fraction of that number. The result was not a legal closure but a functional paralysis of the strait. More significantly, Iran adopted a selective passage regime: • friendly or neutral states (China, India, Russia, etc.) were allowed passage; • adversarial or Western-linked vessels faced restrictions or risks. This selective control effectively transformed Hormuz into a negotiated corridor, where access depended on political alignment rather than neutral international law.

Hormuz as Leverage: Currency, Control, and Strategic Messaging: The Strait of Hormuz matters not merely for its geography, but as the intersection of energy, law, and power. In the current Iran war, it has become the decisive strategic variable—beyond the reach of military force or legal doctrine alone. Iran’s capacity to control and selectively manage the strait, including willingness to accept payments in Iranian currency or yuan, challenges the dominance of the petrodollar and unsettles U.S. economic interests. At the same time, global dependence exposes deep vulnerability. The central lesson is clear: Hormuz cannot be governed through coercion alone; it demands cooperation, trust, and a broader rethinking of security beyond force.

Can Energy Exporters Avoid Hormuz? Limited Alternatives: Despite decades of concern, alternatives to Hormuz remain limited: • Saudi Arabia’s East–West pipeline (≈5 million barrels/day capacity); • UAE’s Fujairah pipeline (≈1.5 million barrels/day capacity). Even if fully utilized, these routes can only offset a fraction of the total flow. Estimates suggest a potential shortfall of 8–10 million barrels per day if Hormuz is disrupted. Moreover: • infrastructure is vulnerable to drone and missile attacks; • costs of rerouting are significantly higher; LNG exports, in particular, lack viable alternatives. Thus, Hormuz remains irreplaceable in the short to medium term, reinforcing Iran’s leverage.

Why U.S. Blockade Strategy Falls Short: The U.S. response—threatening a naval blockade and enforcement against vessels engaging with Iran—reveals the limits of military solutions. Key challenges include: • distinction between blocking Iranian ports and ensuring free navigation; • risk of escalation if U.S. forces engage Iranian assets; • lack of broad international support for enforcement. Even historical precedents, such as naval escorts during the Iran–Iraq “Tanker War,” required sustained multinational commitment. Today, geopolitical fragmentation makes such coordination difficult. More importantly, military force cannot eliminate geographical reality. Iran’s proximity ensures that any attempt to “secure” Hormuz without its cooperation remains inherently unstable.

Iran’s View: Trust Deficit and Strategic Necessity: From Iran’s perspective, the crisis is rooted in a profound lack of trust. Iranian leaders argue that: • negotiations have been undermined by shifting U.S. demands; • military strikes have violated sovereignty; • economic sanctions constitute long-term coercion. Thus, control over Hormuz is framed not as aggression but as: • a defensive measure; • a tool for ensuring national security; • a means of asserting sovereign rights. Iran’s position reflects a broader doctrine: security through control of critical geography. In this view, Hormuz is not merely a strait; it is a shield against external pressure.

Risk of Escalation: A Conflict Beyond Borders: Any attempt to resolve the crisis through force carries grave risks: • closure or militarization of Hormuz could trigger a global energy shock; Gulf states hosting foreign military bases may become targets; spillover effects could destabilize the wider Middle East. Given the interconnected energy markets, even limited disruption can rapidly escalate into a global economic crisis, as recent events have already demonstrated.

The Strait of Hormuz matters not merely for its geography, but as the intersection of energy, law, and power. In the current Iran war, it has become the decisive strategic variable—beyond the reach of military force or legal doctrine alone. Iran’s capacity to control and selectively manage the strait has reshaped regional power dynamics, while global dependence exposes deep economic vulnerability. The central lesson is clear: Hormuz cannot be governed through coercion alone; it demands cooperation, trust, and a broader rethinking of security beyond the logic of force. / DAILY WORLD /

( Prof Nehaluddin Ahmad, LL.D. Professor of Law, Sultan Sharif Ali Islamic University (UNISSA), Brunei, Email: ahmadnehal@yahoo.com)