Hormuz: the chokehold that shook the world

KARACHI:

The Strait of Hormuz is as old as Earth’s own memory. This narrow waterway was shaped by the collision of the Arabian and Eurasian Plates — an ancient continental clash that carved out the Persian Gulf basin. Over millennia, this basin accumulated massive reserves of oil and gas, turning the region into one of the richest energy corridors on the planet.

But the story of Hormuz doesn’t begin with tectonic movement alone. It is rooted in the belief, language, and imagination of an ancient world. Persian folklore draws a symbolic link between the name “Hormuz” and Ahura Mazda, the supreme deity in Zoroastrianism. Over time, through linguistic evolution and regional usage, the name transformed first into Ormazd, then Hormozd, and finally into Hormuz.

Pressure valve of economies

Geographically, the Strait of Hormuz lies between Iran and Oman, linking the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and onward to the Arabian Sea. At its narrowest point, shipping lanes are reduced to just two miles in each direction. As constricted as it is, this corridor is the lifeline of the global economy as through it flows one of the most important energy arteries in the world.

About 20 to 21 million barrels of oil and condensates pass through the strait daily — roughly one-fifth of global oil consumption and nearly one-third of seaborne oil trade. It is also a critical route for LNG, particularly from Qatar, one of the world’s largest exporters. Beyond oil and gas, nearly one-third of global fertiliser trade, including ammonia and sulphur, also passes through this waterway.

“There are three key commodities moving through this route. The first, of course, is oil. The second is fertiliser. And the third — often overlooked — is helium gas, a critical input for MRI machines, scientific research, and fibre optics,” says Asif Iqbal, Managing Director, Social Policy and Development Centre.

Asian economies suffer

The Strait, often described as the energy heartbeat of Asia’s largest economies, is critical to both Gulf nations and Asian consumers. While major producers, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE, Kuwait and Iraq, rely heavily on it, top Asian economies — China, India, Japan and South Korea — depend on uninterrupted flow of oil through the passage. “Almost all countries are vulnerable. However, the degree of vulnerability depends primarily on one factor: how heavily a country relies on energy imports through Hormuz,” says Iqbal.

China is exposed but relatively resilient due to diversified energy sources, massive strategic reserves, and strong state control over distribution, allowing it to manage short-term disruptions. India is acutely vulnerable, with limited domestic production and reserves, and heavy reliance on imports (around 85%), making it sensitive to price shocks.

“Japan, though import-dependent, is prepared with substantial reserves, strong coordination, and advanced energy technologies. South Korea is similar to Japan but slightly more vulnerable due to comparatively thinner buffers,” says Iqbal.

The Strait has long been a flashpoint of regional and global tensions due to its strategic importance. In their war of the 1980s, both Iran and Iraq targeted each other’s oil tankers in what became known as the “Tanker War.” Later, the pattern continued through seizures of vessels, threats of blockade, and sporadic maritime incidents.

Despite its geo-economic significance, Hormuz remained largely unknown to the general public until February 2026, when it became a global buzzword. Almost overnight, Hormuz dominated headlines globally. The trigger was the US-Israeli war on Iran.

Tehran — battered by a relentless US-Israeli bombing campaign — took an unprecedented step. It shut down maritime traffic through the Strait. Shipping volumes, according to UN data, fell by nearly 97%, as major shipping firms rerouted vessels and steered clear of the high-risk corridor.

“From the Iranian perspective, it would be relatively straightforward to disrupt traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. The geography itself works in their favour, giving them a natural strategic advantage,” says rear admiral (retd) Faisal Shah. “Iran has leveraged this terrain effectively, establishing a network of small bases along its coastline, as well as on key islands across the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, enhancing its ability to project control over the waterway.”

Iran’s ‘nuclear bomb’

Iran used what some analysts called its “nuclear bomb” — and the shockwaves were felt across the world. US President Donald Trump, it appeared, had not anticipated such a move. Energy supplies slowed to a trickle, prices surged, and the global economy began to reel, forcing the International Energy Agency into the unprecedented step of partially releasing its strategic reserves.

Trump was clearly caught off-guard. At first, he tried to brush aside the threat, insisting the US navy would escort commercial vessels through the Strait. But as the reality set in, he changed tack and urged allies to assemble a naval coalition to reopen Hormuz by force. None came forward. When persuasion, pressure, and even public posturing failed, Trump decided to impose a naval blockade on the Strait in an attempt to inflict economic pain on Tehran. But Iran didn’t loosen its chokehold.

“Despite mounting international pressure, ranging from diplomatic appeals to explicit threats, Tehran has shown little inclination to relinquish its leverage over the Strait. Even military pressure from the US and Israel has not fundamentally altered this posture,” says rear admiral Shah. “Should any force, whether the US or a broader coalition, attempt to secure physical control of the waterway, Iran has several options to disrupt or even shut down traffic through the Strait.”

Legal ambiguity

International law regulates passage through strategic straits, but Hormuz remains a contested legal space. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), straits used for international navigation are subject to “transit passage,” allowing unobstructed movement of ships and aircraft.

“(But) Iran is not bound by UNCLOS because it has not ratified it. Instead, Tehran says it’s bound by customary international law, particularly the principle of “innocent passage,” which allows coastal states to restrict transit if it threatens their security, especially during times of conflict,” says international law expert Oves Anwar. So, Iran feels legally justified to regulate — and, if necessary, restrict — movement through the Strait of Hormuz, he adds.

This position, however, is not widely accepted, particularly by major maritime powers. They argue that the principle of “transit passage” has effectively crystallised into customary international law, and therefore binds all states, including Iran, regardless of whether they have ratified UNCLOS.

The legal ambiguity deepened after Oman extended its territorial waters to 12 nautical miles in 1972, which means the entire Strait falls within Iranian and Omani territorial jurisdiction. While this did not eliminate transit rights under international law, it intensified legal complexity. As a result, major maritime powers treat transit passage as customary international law, while Iran maintains a more restrictive interpretation — creating a persistent legal and strategic fault line.

Voluntary enforcement

This brings us to a recurrent question in international law: who actually enforces it?

“In practice, enforcement rests with states themselves. International law is, at its core, a voluntary system — states agree to be bound because it serves their economic or political interests,” says Anwar. “Even institutions like the International Court of Justice lack automatic jurisdiction; they can only adjudicate disputes when states consent to their authority. The same logic applies to maritime law — compliance depends largely on whether states choose to adhere to shared rules.”

There is no real “international police force” to enforce these rules. In practice, that role is informally played by powerful states. A common example is the US Fifth Fleet in the Middle East, with America acting as the preeminent global power, effectively safeguarding freedom of navigation as a kind of public good. But the US hasn’t been able to do that here.

“Military might has not been able to subdue the Iranians. They have not opened the Strait [due to US-Israeli attacks]. The ultimate stick that the international regime, or the international community has, is military attacks. Those have been tried – and failed. So, there really is no recourse at this particular junction,” says Anwar.

Will kinetic force work?

Militarily, the Strait is extremely difficult to secure and is particularly suited to asymmetric warfare. The geography favours asymmetric warfare: mountainous coastlines, nearby islands, and tight navigation channels provide cover for potential threats.

“The Iranians have deployed missile batteries in the area and positioned fast-attack craft along the coast as well as on nearby islands,” says rear admiral Shah. “In such an environment, larger naval platforms become more vulnerable targets, while also being constrained in their maneuverability due to the limited depth and width of the strait. Smaller vessels, by contrast, are far more agile, faster, and better suited to these conditions,” he adds. “In my view, they can potentially inflict disproportionate damage on larger ships, while the reverse is far more difficult.”

Rear admiral Shah believes the Strait is currently “controlled” but not “blocked”. If blocked, the consequences will be catastrophic because then it would stay blocked for months — or maybe years. Perhaps he believes that the Iranians haven’t mined the Strait yet as is commonly believed because even limited mining operations can force naval powers into prolonged clearance missions, sometimes lasting months.

If the Strait is mined, then it becomes extremely difficult to clear it by force. And this is perhaps the reason that all attempts to assemble a naval coalition to wrest the control of Hormuz from Iran have failed thus far.

“For any navy which does not know where mines have been laid or what types have been deployed, it becomes a highly complex, risky and resource-intensive operation,” says rear admiral Shah.

“In fast-moving waters, mines may also drift from their original positions, making detection even more challenging. Naval forces must proceed with extreme caution — first locating the mines, then identifying them, and finally neutralising or destroying them before the area can be declared safe,” he explains. “And if the situation escalates, the scope and scale of such operations would inevitably expand further.”

Risk of global recession

Experts warn that prolonged Hormuz disruption could trigger inflationary pressures globally. Airlines, manufacturing industries, agriculture, and logistics chains all depend on stable fuel supplies through the Persian Gulf. Even a partial shutdown forces costly rerouting and creates bottlenecks in global trade. In extreme scenarios, analysts warn of the possibility of a global recession.

“When we talk about recession, we’re referring to a situation defined by three key indicators: slowing or negative GDP growth, rising unemployment, and sustained inflationary pressure. If these conditions persist for an extended period, typically a year or more, the global economy is broadly considered to be in recession,” says economist Iqbal.

“The transmission mechanism usually begins with inflation, particularly driven by higher oil prices. This reduces household real incomes by eroding purchasing power. Businesses face higher input costs, which compress corporate profit margins and can slow investment and hiring. Central banks then face a policy dilemma: tightening monetary policy to control inflation risks deepening the economic slowdown, while easing policy risks fuelling further inflation, explains Iqbal. “Taken together, these pressures weaken overall aggregate demand — which is ultimately what defines a recessionary environment.”

Security analysts warn that sustained closure of the Strait could draw other Gulf nations into the war because the economic cost would become unbearable. And this scenario would be disastrous.

“Until now, other Gulf states have stayed away from the active fray — primarily due to Pakistan’s mediation efforts to keep broader escalation in check. However, if they were ever to become directly involved, the implications would be far wider, and the conflict could expand to a scale that would be extremely difficult to contain,” says rear admiral Shah.

Such an escalation could quickly spiral beyond anyone’s control, as regional countries are heavily dependent on Hormuz. It’s not only a corridor for their oil and gas exports, but also a vital supply route for their everyday economic and commercial needs. Virtually everything entering and leaving these states passes through this narrow waterway.

US blockade of strait

Analysts believe President Trump entered the Iran war expecting a swift, Venezuela-style victory, but without a clear exit strategy should the conflict drag on. The Hormuz closure came as a surprise, complicating those assumptions. He tried everything, but failed. In the latest move, he announced “Project Freedom” to militarily ensure freedom of navigation in the Strait. It didn’t work either. The project stalled because key regional partners, especially Saudi Arabia, denied the Americans access to their military bases and airspace for the operation.

While Trump’s blockade yielded little, it has raised legal questions, with some experts calling it an “act of war.”

“A naval blockade is generally regarded as an act of war in modern international relations. Within the context of armed conflict, however, it is not inherently unlawful under the laws of war, provided it complies with international humanitarian law, meaning civilians and civilian infrastructure are not deliberately targeted and operations remain within established legal limits,” says Anwar.

Even so, the move could raise concerns under the United Nations Charter, particularly Article 2(4), which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. In this light, the broader military actions surrounding the conflict could be interpreted as contravening that principle.

With the conflict now in a stalemate – and diplomatic efforts apparently deadlocked, what options does the world have to restore freedom of navigation in the Strait? “There are, of course, non-military avenues such as international pressure and mediation, where Pakistan is reportedly playing a constructive role. These channels remain important in preventing further escalation,” says Anwar.

“Militarily, the United States has not succeeded in forcing Iran to open the Strait. This leaves limited viable options beyond a negotiated settlement. Any durable resolution would likely require engagement involving Gulf states, the US, and other stakeholders, followed by a structured diplomatic approach to Iran,” he adds.

In the meantime, Iran has framed its Hormuz chokehold as a matter of national sovereignty, issuing a new map of the Strait with an expanded Iranian area of control and setting up a new mechanism to ‌manage the transit of vessels through the waterway. Commercial ‌vessels are now required to coordinate any passage with the Iranian military and pay a toll before transiting the Strait.

This raises an important question: would Tehran continue to treat this pressure valve of the global economy as a bargaining chip even after active hostilities cease? If Tehran were to do so, the implications would be significant, particularly for a global economy heavily dependent on uninterrupted energy flows through this strategic corridor.