Since the outbreak of the recent military confrontation between the United States and Israel on one side, and Iran on the other, the Strait of Hormuz has returned to the forefront of the geopolitical scene as one of the most dangerous maritime chokepoints and one of the most influential on the global economy. The main question is no longer Iran’s military capability to disrupt navigation, but rather the ability of the international economic system to absorb the political and economic repercussions of any prolonged disruption in this vital waterway. The strait is no longer merely a regional waterway, but has become a strategic artery where the interests of major powers intersect, and any crisis there directly impacts energy markets, supply chains, international trade and global financial stability, making it one of the most important determinants of international economic security in an international environment characterised by increasing geopolitical competition.

 

The strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz stems from its being one of the most prominent energy and trade arteries in the world; Approximately one-fifth of the world's oil trade passes through the Strait of Hormuz, along with vast quantities of liquefied natural gas, particularly exports from the Gulf states to Asian and European markets. Large numbers of energy tankers and commercial vessels carrying raw materials, industrial goods and food also transit the strait. Therefore, any disruption to navigation not only leads to higher oil and gas prices but also increases transportation and marine insurance costs, delays in shipments, and disruptions to production and supply chains. This translates into higher inflation rates, reduced purchasing power and slower growth, especially in energy-importing economies reliant on maritime trade.

 

Despite escalating threats to close the strait, historical experience shows that international straits have rarely been completely closed, even during the most intense wars. The Iran-Iraq War witnessed what became known as the "Tanker War", during which hundreds of ships were targeted, yet navigation continued. Similarly, the Turkish straits remained relatively open during the Russian-Ukrainian War, while the international community focused on establishing safe passages to protect trade. These precedents confirm that disrupting vital straits harms the entire global economy, not just the parties to the conflict.

 

In this context, the Law of the Sea is no longer merely a legal framework for regulating navigation, but has become a cornerstone of geopolitical stability and the protection of the global economy, given its direct link to the security of international waterways.

 

The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, particularly Articles 37–44, established a system of transit passage that guarantees the continuity of navigation in international straits, granting coastal states limited regulatory powers related to navigational safety, environmental protection and maritime security, without extending to disrupting transit or imposing restrictions that infringe upon the essence of freedom of navigation. Furthermore, while the law of maritime armed conflict grants belligerent states the authority to intercept enemy warships and impose naval blockades under specific regulations, it does not permit the complete closure of international straits or the infringement upon the rights of neutral states.

 

This has been confirmed by international precedents in the Corfu Strait, the tanker war in the Gulf, and the Black Sea crises, which have demonstrated that protecting the free flow of navigation remains an international priority even in the context of armed conflicts. Strategically, the problem lies not in the military capability to close the Strait, but rather in the resulting political and economic costs. Disrupting navigation would lead to higher energy prices, increased marine insurance premiums, financial market turmoil, and higher commodity prices due to increased transportation costs. In turn, it would push major economies to accelerate their search for strategic alternatives, whether through expanding pipelines, developing alternative ports, or speeding up the transition to alternative energy sources, which could gradually diminish the strait's geopolitical importance.

 

For this reason, the threat of closing the Strait of Hormuz is seen more as a deterrent and a political bargaining chip than a viable strategic option. All parties, including the Gulf states, Iran and major economic powers, have vested interests in the continued flow of trade and energy through this waterway. Furthermore, global markets typically react more to the possibility of closure than to its actual occurrence. A heightened level of risk is enough to drive up oil prices, increase shipping and insurance costs, and consequently impact food prices, industrial output, and global trade. The Gulf states also understand that any prolonged disruption to navigation would directly impact their exports, revenues, and investor confidence. Iran, for its part, recognizes that a complete closure would restrict its exports, increase economic and diplomatic pressure on it and potentially justify an expanded international military presence to protect freedom of navigation.

 

Therefore, the future of the Strait of Hormuz will not be determined by military force alone, but by a complex equation combining deterrence, economic interests, legal norms, and international balances. The most likely scenario is not a complete closure, but rather continued management of tensions within the Strait, allowing it to remain a strategic pressure tool without leading to a total disruption of maritime traffic.

 

History has shown that international straits have always been arenas of competition among major powers, but they have rarely become completely closed waterways, as the cost of such an action far outweighs any temporary military gains. In a world dependent on interconnected supply chains and global energy markets, freedom of navigation has become a strategic imperative for the stability of the international economy. This makes maintaining the free flow of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz a shared interest that transcends regional conflict calculations and is central to global economic security.

 

Hasan Dajah is professor of Strategic Studies at Al-Hussein Bin Talal University