Why the world must take the threat to undersea cables seriously

In moments of tension in the Gulf, the world’s instinct is to watch oil. Tanker routes, prices, and supply disruptions dominate headlines. This focus is understandable; for decades, energy security has shaped global strategy.

But there is another system, far less visible yet arguably more critical, running beneath the same waters. It does not carry oil. It carries data.

Across the ocean floor, fiber-optic cables transmit more than 95 percent of global internet traffic. These cables connect financial markets, government systems, hospitals, logistics networks, and billions of everyday communications. They are, quite literally, the infrastructure of modern life.

And they are far more vulnerable than most people realize.

Unlike pipelines or oil terminals, submarine cables rarely feature in public debates about security. They are out of sight and, too often, out of mind. Yet their importance is difficult to overstate. Every email sent across continents, every international bank transfer, every cloud-based service depends on them.

The Strait of Hormuz is widely known as one of the world’s most important energy chokepoints. Less appreciated is its growing role as a digital corridor. Multiple high-capacity cables pass through or near this narrow stretch of water, linking Europe, the Middle East, and parts of Asia.

This creates a convergence of risk. A single geographic chokepoint now carries both energy flows and data flows two pillars of the global economy.

What happens if the cables are cut?

The idea of a disruption to submarine cables is not theoretical. Accidental damage from anchors or natural events occurs regularly. But in a context of geopolitical escalation, the possibility of intentional disruption cannot be ignored.

If key cables in or around Hormuz were severed, the impact would be immediate. Internet traffic can be rerouted, but only to a limited extent. Alternative pathways are often longer, less efficient, and already operating near capacity.

The result would not necessarily be a total blackout, but a significant degradation of service: slower speeds, intermittent outages, and in some cases, loss of connectivity for critical systems.

For financial centers, even milliseconds matter. For emergency services and aviation systems, reliability is non-negotiable. For digital economies, particularly in developing regions, prolonged disruption could translate into real economic loss.

A different kind of crisis

An oil shock unfolds over days or weeks. A disruption to internet infrastructure unfolds in seconds.

Markets could stall as transaction systems falter. Airlines could face delays due to communication issues. Supply chains already strained in many parts of the world—could become less predictable. Governments might find coordination more difficult at precisely the moment it is most needed.

For regions such as Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, the risks are uneven but interconnected. Africa’s growing digital ecosystem, for example, relies heavily on a limited number of external connections. Reduced bandwidth or increased latency could have disproportionate effects.

This is not a distant or abstract concern. It is a structural vulnerability.

Connectivity as leverage

In an era of hybrid conflict, infrastructure has become part of the strategic landscape. Cyber attacks, disinformation, and economic pressure are already widely used tools. Physical internet infrastructure may be the next frontier.

The ability to disrupt connectivity offers a form of leverage that is difficult to attribute and potentially far-reaching in its consequences. It allows actors to create disruption without crossing traditional thresholds of conflict.

This does not mean such actions are inevitable. But it does mean they are plausible and that preparedness matters.

Rethinking resilience

If the global economy depends on continuous data flows, then protecting that flow should be a priority.

First, diversification is essential. Relying on a small number of routes through narrow chokepoints increases systemic risk. Expanding alternative cable routes, including overland connections, can reduce exposure.

Second, redundancy must be strengthened. Systems should be designed to absorb shocks, not simply to operate efficiently under normal conditions.

Third, there is a role for greater international coordination. Just as maritime security has long been a shared concern, the protection of digital infrastructure may require more structured cooperation.

Finally, awareness itself is part of resilience. The more policymakers and the public understand these dependencies, the more likely it is that appropriate safeguards will be put in place.

The crisis we are not watching

For decades, global strategy has been shaped by the question of energy security. That focus will remain important. But it is no longer sufficient.

The modern world runs not only on oil, but on data. And while energy systems have been stress-tested and secured over time, digital infrastructure has not received the same level of attention.

A disruption in the Strait of Hormuz would still matter for energy markets. But its impact on connectivity could be just as significant—and potentially more immediate.

The next global crisis may not be defined by empty oil tankers. It may be defined by something quieter: slower connections, broken links, and systems that no longer function as expected.

It is the kind of crisis that does not begin with a dramatic headline, but with a subtle failure one that spreads quickly across a deeply interconnected world.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)