Trump’s threatened attack on Iran would be the first in history to target a nation for merely threatening to shut the Strait of Hormuz, an 80-mile-wide waterway between Iran and Oman that is only 21 miles wide at its narrowest point. Some 20% of the world’s oil supply, including 100% of Qatar’s liquefied natural gas exports, passes through the Strait. China, India, Japan, and South Korea, all major oil consumers, also rely on the 75-mile-wide passage. The Strait is an important source of leverage for Iran, which has threatened to shut the corridor in the past. With its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) equipped with long-range missiles, mines and fast-attack craft, Iran is well-positioned to do so. Trump’s tactic represents a break from the crisis management model that the US has used to address threats to Hormuz in the past.

US naval units are assigned the task of preventing vessels from entering or departing from the narrow waterway, as well as from intercepting ships which have paid a toll to Iran to be coated with a protective wrap to facilitate the deployment of sea mines. Washington has portrayed Sunday’s attack as a defensive measure, aiming at «Iranian attempts at extortion». However, the operation is an act of war under the principles of customarily defined international law that does not require the approval of the United Nations. Iran’s response to what it sees as an American act of aggression will more likely be asymmetrical than a conventional war, placing the lives of US military personnel in greater jeopardy than usual in a militarised zone in which the potential for miscalculation is extremely high.

The potential for immediate military confrontation is real. Iran may refuse to comply with a naval blockade, reverting to its asymmetric warfare doctrine, and unleash swarms of fast naval craft, drones, and cruise missiles at targets in the Gulf, including the oil-producing infrastructure of Gulf States and at U.S. military bases. Iranian paramilitary forces, or “ Revolutionary Guards,” at ports and military facilities could attack and mine naval vessels attempting to enforce a blockade. Attacks on U.S. military advisers in Iraq and Syria, already underway, are likely to increase in intensity and frequency, as well as strikes on U.S. diplomatic facilities and other assets. Other elements of Iran’s terrorist surrogate network, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and Yemen, and various Iraqi militia groups, will likely intensify their own attacks on U.S. assets, troops, and interests throughout the region, dragging additional states and actors into the conflict.

The consequences of an ongoing conflict in the Middle East are just as dire for the economy as they are for global security. The mere threat of disruption to the ships that transport oil through the Strait of Hormuz has already proven enough to cause oil prices to rise, and an extended blockade by Iran could potentially cause a global energy shock that severely impacts countries that rely heavily on the Gulf for energy, including India. Already, many tankers are being rerouted around Africa, adding weeks to what are already long journeys. The price of insurance for Gulf-bound ships has soared, prompting some companies to cancel their voyages altogether. That will drive up global inflation, putting pressure on emerging markets. But it will also have a disproportionate impact on the world’s supply chains – for everything from the pharmaceuticals and auto parts that are moved through the region to food.

An extended conflict in the Middle East could trigger a recessionary shock comparable to those caused by the oil price shocks of the 1970s and 1980s but with a distinctly 21st-century twist.

The blockade imposed by the blockade forces is posing a set of difficult choices to several regional and global powers. Saudi Arabia and the UAE may want to test the resolve of the U.S. commitment to their security, while being fearful of a possible Iranian retaliation. The key issue for Qatar, the world’s third biggest gas exporter and largest supplier of liquefied aluminium, will be how to maintain its trade flows across the barricade. Neighbouring Oman, which has time and again played the role of a mediator in regional crises, might be forced to intervene, but then must defend its traditional balancing act between its powerful Saudi and Iranian neighbours. Europe faces a harder decision given its geography and its strategic alliance with the U.S. The Asian powers face even tougher trade and security choices. China, the world’s largest buyer of oil from the Gulf region, would contemplate a navy-escorted oil convoy or even new trade routes like those followed by Japan during World War II. The Indian government would have to grapple with the difficult choices of upholding its strategic partnership with the U.S. and its vulnerability as a major consumer of oil at the same time. Moreover, New Delhi cannot afford to abandon its traditional ties with Iran that go beyond mere geopolitics. Overall, the measures taken by the blockade forces will generate a diplomatic shockwave across the world, forcing some new strategic realignments and putting the effectiveness of international institutions to the test.

Although great perils still loom for the marine world and global security, there are solutions available that could head off new violence at sea and reduce tensions. One would be a mechanism for de-escalation via neutral intermediaries—say Oman, Qatar, or the European Union—to agree on steps for building trust and, subsequently, decreasing interdictions while Iran takes steps to ease the pain. A second would be an international mission to monitor the world’s oceans for ships bound for Iran under a UN mandate, dedicated to protecting those vessels and keeping the Likud wing in Jerusalem from sparking a larger war. A third would be talks of a longer duration, not just about Iran’s nuclear program and the lifting of sanctions, but also about ensuring security throughout the Middle East. None of this will be easy, but all of it may be necessary to stave off more dire conflict.

The U.S. blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is an important new turning point with global implications. It is raising the risk of war, increasing instability in energy markets, and severely testing key alliances. As a critical waterway for oil and natural gas, the Gulf region is among the world’s most sensitive, and the new U.S. measure is, in this regard, unprecedented. The fate of the world at this crossroads will depend on whether critical leaders can convert the blockade into a summons for urgent diplomacy rather than armed conflict.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Khezri, M. (2026). Disruption in the Strait of Hormuz is a global inflation, shipping and growth story. London School of Economics Business Review. 

Chhaya, S. (2026). The Strait that moves the market: The 2026 Strait of Hormuz crisis and the anatomy of a global energy shock. Atlas Institute. 

Al-Sarihi, A. (2026). How the war in Iran is reshaping the energy landscape. Nature. 

© Eurasia Review