The future of the Strait of Hormuz has been increasingly in the limelight since the outbreak of the US-Israeli war on Iran, opening a Pandora’s Box of questions about the growing manipulation of key waterways in conflicts that are in violation of international laws governing freedom of navigation.
The strait has become a major point of contention in the stalled negotiations between the US and Iran, leaving this vital waterway in a state of uncertainty and provoking global anxiety over the world’s food and fuel safety.
Recent deliberations at the UN Security Council underscore that mounting international concern. The Security Council’s high-level open debate on the safety and protection of sea lanes, held under the presidency of Bahrain on 1 May, reflected the demand by many countries for the immediate and unconditional reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.
The recent resolutions of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), its Legal Committee, and the UN Human Rights Council on Iran’s actions in the Strait of Hormuz once again reflect an almost international consensus that Iran should stop its illegal actions in the strait and ensure that it remains open, allowing the unrestricted navigation of vessels in accordance with international law.
In the meantime, the US Navy is imposing a naval blockade on Iranian ports in an effort to force Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which again has exacerbated tensions and caused a further surge in fuel prices worldwide. A report by the BBC recently warned that “oil prices have risen to their highest since 2022, following reports that US President Donald Trump is to be briefed by his military on plans for further strikes on Iran.”
Meanwhile, the US has formed an international coalition that would enable ships to sail in the strait as part of an initiative called “Maritime Freedom.” The US will lead the coalition and will work to “exchange information, coordinate diplomatic efforts, and impose sanctions”.
The conflict highlights the extent to which the security of international waterways has become a direct test of global economic stability. Oil prices have witnessed a seven per cent spike, exceeding an average of $111 per barrel, since the closure of the strait and there are no signs of a decline. Prices are estimated to reach between $150 and $200 per barrel of oil, according to a possible worst-case scenario.
A recent report by Allianz Insurance predicts that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz will cause the bankruptcy of 15,000 companies around the world during the current and next two years. About 7,000 of these are predicted to declare bankruptcy before the end of 2026. The British Navy also announced on 1 May that about 40 security incidents have been recorded in the Strait of Hormuz since the outbreak of the war, in light of the escalating risks to maritime navigation in one of the most vital lanes.
Today, the world relies on a limited number of straits and waterways that control the arteries of global trade, enhancing their strategic importance. It is estimated that more than 80 per cent of merchandise is transported by sea; thus any disruption in a number of key chokepoints would negatively impact the global economy, particularly when crises or wars result in violating international laws and systems.
The transit of ships is governed by two principal systems: occasional passage through natural straits and freedom of navigation in artificial canals and corridors. Historically, these two systems were designed to counter rivalries over strategic trade routes and were later embedded in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982.
This affirms the right of all states to transit through international straits without obstruction or threat from coastal states, provided that such passage does not pose a security risk. It also prohibits any state from threatening or using force against commercial vessels navigating such strategic chokepoints.
In the same vein, the IMO has stipulated laws and guidelines for the protection of maritime navigation, further reinforcing the international framework for maritime safety.
Such legal frameworks have internationalised many straits that previously lacked such status. They have expanded the concept of passage from a limited right of “innocent passage” (allowing vessels to traverse a state’s territorial waters without threatening it) to a broader right of “transit passage” (allowing continuous navigation without restriction or suspension) more closely aligned with the principle of freedom of navigation on the high seas.
FRAGILE PASSAGEWAYS: Recent tensions involving the US and Iran have drawn renewed attention to the fragility of critical international maritime routes, most notably the Strait of Hormuz, a key artery for the transit of a significant share of global oil and gas.
Disruptions in this corridor, whether through Iran’s direct blockage of the strait or the US blockade of Iranian vessels to push it to reverse its actions, are affecting the access to ports and shipping, highlighting the vulnerability of global energy supply chains.
In the same vein, ongoing regional conflicts have similarly underscored the sensitivity of the Bab Al-Mandab Strait, which is bordered by Eritrea, Djibouti, and Yemen. This strategic passage links the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden and serves as a gateway to the Suez Canal.
In periods of heightened instability, non-state actors such as the Houthi group in Yemen have demonstrated the capacity to disrupt maritime traffic in this strategic chokepoint, sometimes attacking Israeli-linked vessels transiting the area to pressure Israel to end its war on Gaza and allow the entry of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip.
In addition, emerging political developments have introduced further complexity. Somalia has signalled restrictions on the passage of Israeli-linked vessels in the strait following tensions related to Somaliland and its recognition by Israel. Such measures, whether symbolic or enforceable, contribute to an increasingly uncertain maritime security environment in one of the world’s most strategically vital regions.
Some of the countries bordering the Strait of Malacca in Southeast Asia including Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore have similarly imposed tariffs on transiting ships, which means transforming this waterway from a mainstream corridor to a sovereign territory. The Strait of Malacca is one of the busiest in the world, through which a large proportion of the world’s oil and merchandise pass, heading to China, Japan, and South Korea. It also connects the Indian Ocean to the South China Sea and the Pacific Ocean.
The coming years could also see the spread of contagious strait-related tensions in other strategic waterways, including the Bosporus and the Dardanelles, which together form the maritime link between the Black Sea and the Sea of Marmara, the Aegean Sea, and ultimately the Mediterranean.
Turkey has, in recent years, introduced limited administrative charges on vessels navigating these waterways, which are entirely located within its territories. The fees are imposed within the framework of the “innocent passage” system, but they also raise questions about sovereignty versus freedom of navigation.
Attention may also shift to the Strait of Gibraltar since its strategic position as the sole maritime gateway linking the Mediterranean Sea to the Atlantic Ocean makes it a critical corridor for global shipping. Despite its significance, navigation through the strait remains governed by the principle of free passage for merchant vessels, in accordance with established international navigation rules.
The Danish straits, which regulate the trade route between the Baltic and North Seas, is yet another case in point. Denmark has imposed specific tariffs on transiting vessels, which seems to usher in a new trend of imposing sovereignty over natural waterways.
This evolving dynamic suggests that such routes could increasingly be subject to economic pricing or leveraged for political purposes. This, in turn, would affect global trade patterns and supply chains, particularly as risks to maritime navigation continue to rise. The developments may represent one of the most serious challenges to key international maritime corridors since the end of the Cold War. They also constitute a litmus test of existing maritime security frameworks and of the international community’s commitment to upholding freedom of navigation and the secure flow of global trade.
In reaction, many countries are seeking to reduce the risks associated with the straits by diversifying their modes of transportation. Alternative transit routes include building pipelines to transport oil and gas away from sea lanes as well as establishing new ports and alternative corridors to relieve pressure on major straits. In the meantime, some countries are relying on a strategic storage of oil and commodities to withstand any sudden shortage in supply in attempts to absorb shocks and reduce bottlenecks.
Such measures are instrumental in stabilising markets and mitigating risks in times of crisis. International cooperation is also being strengthened to protect strategic straits from security threats through the exchange of information and the use of modern technologies to monitor the movement of ships.
EXPLANATORY FACTORS: One reason why waterways are being increasingly politicised, as illustrated in the case of the Strait of Hormuz, is that countries bordering them — Iran in this case — seek to use them as a pressure tactic in times of conflict.
In the Iranian case, this leverage is not only being used against rival countries, but as a means to sway global trade by inflicting wider international costs. After all, global trade relies on several interrelated factors, including the stability of energy supplies, the security of sea lanes and the centralisation of supply chains.
It is evident that Tehran is attempting to position itself as a key actor capable of influencing both the timing and conditions under which navigation through the strait resumes during periods of tension. Its aim is not only to cause immediate disruption, but also to embed the notion of “supply vulnerability” in the expectations of global markets.
Once such perceptions take hold, the consequences will extend beyond individual sectors or temporary crises, reshaping how markets assess the region’s role and reliability within the global economy.
In an environment of open confrontation or full-scale conflict, geography becomes a decisive factor in the market equation. The vulnerability of chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz means that rising marine insurance premiums, higher shipping costs, and the potential rerouting of vessels, whether to avoid targeting or detention, would not merely impose additional financial burdens. They would also signal the reclassification of the region as a high-risk zone, gradually reshaping how markets assess regional economies and their reliability.
In response, global firms are reassessing their strategic positioning. This shift is evident in decisions to invest more heavily in logistics infrastructure, expand and diversify storage and distribution networks, increase buffer inventories, and reduce dependence on specific maritime routes.
It also involves repositioning regional ports, particularly in the Gulf, within broader international value chains. Such adjustments reflect a structural recalibration of risk-management strategies, especially in the wake of heightened tensions associated with developments involving Iran.
For countries in the region that have built their economic model on being global transit hubs, any erosion in the image of navigational safety could undermine their long-term competitiveness.
Iran’s direct attacks on several targets across the six Gulf states have added a strong psychological layer to the economic landscape. The attacks have reverberated across financial markets, which do not solely react to hard data, but also to images and perceived signals. This shift has been reflected in rising volatility, widening yield spreads on bonds and the rising cost of sovereign risk insurance, which all indicate a reassessment of geopolitical risk in the light of crises facing energy, sea lanes, supply chains, and capital.
Such crises fall under the single heading of risk management in an escalatory environment, in which the future remains uncertain.
MECHANISMS: Another reason for the growing politicisation, or even deterioration, of the straits is the absence of effective mechanisms to safeguard transit, particularly during times of crisis.
The Middle East is a case in point. Despite the emergence of participatory multilateral international arrangements to confront maritime security threats, these initiatives have all failed to address maritime security issues concerning transit in key straits like Hormuz and the Bab Al-Mandab.
Among these frameworks is the Combined Maritime Forces (CMF), established in 2002 and comprising more than 40 countries, which has a mandate to counter illicit non-state actors and promote maritime security. It operates through several task forces, including Combined Task Force 150 and Combined Task Force 151. Similarly, Operation Atalanta, launched in 2008 under the European Union Naval Force, focuses on counter-piracy and maritime security in the western Indian Ocean.
More recently, the European Maritime Awareness Mission in the Strait of Hormuz, established in 2019, has sought to promote freedom of navigation through de-escalation, surveillance, and confidence-building measures in the Gulf region, including the Strait of Hormuz, the Gulf of Oman, and the Arabian Sea.
However, despite these overlapping initiatives, their effectiveness in securing uninterrupted transit through these strategic straits remains disappointing.
Such failures to address maritime security threats in the straits, especially Hormuz and Bab Al-Mandab, have led to the formation of a multinational military coalition called Operation Prosperity Guardian, under the umbrella of the Combined Maritime Forces and the Joint Task Force Command, to counter Houthi attacks on shipping after the Gaza war.
A European Union military maritime operation was also launched in February 2024 to protect freedom of navigation in the Red Sea, Bab Al-Mandab Strait, Gulf of Aden, Arabian Sea, and Gulf of Oman. It aims to safeguard commercial vessels against Houthi attacks but has largely failed since the Houthis have continued to attack naval vessels on the grounds that they belong to Israeli companies or are associated with businesses in partnership with Israel.
The Houthis have said that they have targeted such shipping to stop the Israeli war on Gaza and pressure the Israelis into allowing humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip.
One main lesson from earlier initiatives is that they have fallen short of having an effective plan to address broader, state-driven crises. There is also a contradiction between their theoretical mandates and their practical effectiveness in securing strategic chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz.
The Trump administration is still trying to persuade other countries to form an international coalition to secure navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. Protecting the strait is no longer just a regional responsibility, but part of the international maritime security system. This could include naval operations to clear mines, secure transit lanes, and provide naval escorts for commercial shipping.
Another factor behind the persistence of such crises in times of international and regional disputes is the absence of a clear plan for “the day after”. That is, there must be a stable and sustainable political agenda and legal framework safeguarding smooth transit in straits in the aftermath of conflicts in a way that insulates them from geopolitical conflicts.
This clear framework will likely be instrumental in clearing disputes over clashing narratives. Iran, for instance, is imposing its control over the Strait of Hormuz as part of its sovereignty and national identity. It criticises the US blockade as a violation of international law, notwithstanding the fact that imposing hegemony over the passage is a violation in itself.
Iran may not be the only case, however. Many countries do not adhere to international legal norms governing the high seas when under geopolitical pressure, and this provides another factor behind the persistence of strait-related crises. This absence of legal commitment ironically coincides with a growing international and regional interest in the “blue economy” and the protection of wealth on the high seas through respect for international law, the demarcation of maritime borders, and the expansion of international partnerships.
The 1982 UN Convention on the High Seas stipulates the need for all countries to cooperate in curbing violations that occur on the high seas, taking into account the fact that a coastal state has sovereignty solely over its territory and not over the high seas that may border it.
There is thus an urgent need for a comprehensive international dialogue on the security of the world’s maritime corridors, with the aim of preventing their militarisation or use as a political tactic. Codifying stronger protections and ratifying stronger international treaties and conventions under the auspices of the UN are key steps in this direction.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres has previously emphasised how respect for international law remains “the pillar of maritime security” but has said that its effectiveness ultimately depends on consistent and good-faith implementation by states.
Legal frameworks aside, strengthening maritime security requires deeper operational cooperation between governments and international organisations. This includes enhanced naval patrols, intelligence-sharing, and coordinated enforcement mechanisms to counter piracy, smuggling, and emerging hybrid threats.
No single naval power can adequately address these challenges alone. Institutions such as the IMO continue to play a critical role by setting global standards for navigational safety, collision prevention, and search-and-rescue operations. However, the effectiveness of these frameworks ultimately depends on the collective political will to maintain open, secure, and rules-based maritime domains.
In sum, the protection of the world’s waterways in times of war is a complex challenge that requires a comprehensive approach that balances economic interests, security risks, and geopolitical dimensions.
The writer is head of Arab and Regional Studies at Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 7 May, 2026 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly.
Short link: