Listen to this article:

Amid reports of a ceasefire extension announced by Donald Trump, the Strait of Hormuz has emerged as a critical maritime artery in an increasingly contested geopolitical locale after the commencement of the Iran war. This narrow passage connects the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea and carries over one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas supplies. Any disruption here causes immediate shockwaves through energy markets, shipping networks, and global inflation.

The geopolitical situation in the Strait of Hormuz now shows growing instability, characterised by threats, intimidation, and competing claims of control. Iran has, at times, declared the strait open, even as it has seized vessels and fired at ships for alleged violations of maritime rules. There are indications that even neutral commercial vessels have faced interference, raising serious concerns among shipping operators. On several days, traffic has been limited to roughly 15 to 20 ships (from over 100 shops in normal times), many using alternative or Iran-designated routes. Even that has been disrupted frequently. This is surely an indication that passage through the strait is no longer safe and assured, but increasingly subject to conditions and risk.

Meanwhile, the United States has imposed what is described as a “distant blockade” targeting Iranian ports rather than the strait itself. U.S. naval forces have positioned themselves along a wide arc stretching from the Iran-Pakistan coast to the Oman-UAE corridor. Ships heading toward Iranian ports have been warned or turned away, with more than twenty vessels reportedly diverted in a short span. This approach allows Washington to exert pressure without formally closing the strait, thereby maintaining a claim to protecting global navigation. Of course, Tel Aviv is well behind Washington to offset any Iranian strategic gains in the region.

These developments point to a larger struggle, which remained unaddressed for quite a long time. Iran seeks to leverage its geographic position to gain political and economic advantage, while the United States aims to preserve open access and limit Iran’s regional influence. The result is a tense environment where control is uneven, risks are high, and the possibility of miscalculation is ever present.

The strait has thus become a flashpoint where military power, economic pressure, and strategic interests converge and collide. What was once a predictable channel of global trade has now turned into a zone of uncertainty, where each naval movement carries both legal and geopolitical consequences.

Legal framework and competing interpretations

Does the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz indicate only questions of power and control?  Not at all. At the centre of this impasse lies a fundamental disagreement over the legal regime governing international straits. The United States treats the Strait as an international waterway where ships enjoy the right of “transit passage.” This concept, widely associated with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, allows vessels to pass continuously and without interference. It also extends to aircraft and submarines, reinforcing the principle of unrestricted global navigation.

Iran, however, advances a different interpretation. It relies on older legal principles, particularly the notion of “innocent passage,” which grants coastal states greater authority to regulate movement within their territorial waters. Under this view, Iran and Oman, which together border the entire width of the strait, have the right to assess whether passing ships pose a security threat. This interpretation may allow for regulation, but not for complete obstruction.

The tension arises because Iran’s recent actions appear to exceed even the limits of its own legal argument. International law, including earlier conventions, clearly states that passage through an international strait cannot be suspended. But Iran has suggested that it can restrict or even close the strait under certain conditions. This position is difficult to justify legally, especially when neutral commercial vessels are targeted without clear evidence of military involvement.

The legal picture is further complicated by the fact that neither Iran nor the United States has fully ratified UNCLOS. While most of the world follows its framework, the absence of these two key actors creates a gap in enforcement and interpretation. Both sides selectively draw on different parts of international law to support their positions, leading to a weak legal environment.

U.S. actions also invite attention. A naval blockade can be lawful under the laws of armed conflict if it is declared, proportionate, and allows humanitarian access. Washington claims that its measures meet these conditions. However, interference with neutral shipping always raises legal and ethical questions, particularly when global trade is affected.

Effectively, the Strait of Hormuz has become a site of legal contestation. Competing interpretations are used not only to justify actions but also to create the broader narrative of legitimacy.

Geopolitical stakes and global repercussions

The tensions in the Strait of Hormuz go beyond the immediate regional actors. Major economies such as India, China, Japan, and European states depend heavily on this route for their energy supplies. For countries like India, a large share of crude imports originates in the Gulf, making any disruption a direct threat to economic stability. Rising insurance costs, delays in shipments, and volatility in oil prices immediately translate into inflation and fiscal pressure.

The stakes are equally high for Asian economies like Japan and South Korea, which rely on Middle Eastern oil for a majority of their energy needs. For Europe, already facing energy uncertainties, instability in the Strait adds further pressures of vulnerability. China, as a major importer of Gulf energy, also watches developments closely, balancing its economic interests with its strategic ties in the region.

More than economic implications, though they were significant, there is a larger geopolitical concern about precedent. If Iran’s argument – that wartime conditions allow states to impose new controls over international waterways – is accepted, it could remodel global maritime norms. Other strategic chokepoints, such as the Strait of Malacca or Bab el-Mandeb, could face similar claims in future conflicts. This would undermine the long-standing principle of open sea lanes, which is central to global trade.

No doubt, the U.S. role is clear enough. While it presents itself as a defender of freedom of navigation, its blockade strategy shows a concerted effort to contain Iran and maintain dominance in the region. This dual role – protector of global commons and strategic actor – creates ambiguity in how its actions are perceived.

Regional actors, particularly Gulf states, find themselves in a difficult position. Their economies depend on stable exports, still they are directly exposed to the risks of escalation. They now struggle to balance security partnerships with the U.S. against the realities of geographic proximity to Iran.

The future of the Strait of Hormuz will depend on how current tensions impact both legal norms and geopolitical strategies. Iran’s recent proposals indicate a possible shift toward long-term control. Plans to charge substantial transit fees – reportedly up to $2 million per passage – and to create a joint Iran-Oman monitoring mechanism suggest an attempt to transform the strait into a regulated corridor rather than a free passage.

Such proposals obviously challenge the foundations of international maritime law. Unlike artificial waterways such as the Suez or Panama canals, which operate under specific treaties and fee structures, the Strait of Hormuz is a natural passage. International law has consistently protected free navigation through such straits. Turning it into a revenue-generating route would set a significant precedent, potentially altering how other waterways are governed.

The idea of a joint Iran-Oman system is particularly significant. Since both countries control the entire width of the strait, a coordinated mechanism could effectively make passage conditional on approval. This would convert a legal right into a permission-based system, fundamentally changing the nature of global maritime movement.

From a geopolitical perspective, this is nothing but Iran’s attempt to convert temporary wartime leverage into a lasting strategic advantage. It also underlines an emerging trend where states seek to redefine rules in their favour during periods of conflict. The United States, meanwhile, is likely to continue its efforts to uphold open access, using both legal arguments and naval presence.

The risk is that prolonged disagreement will normalise uncertainty. Shipping companies may adapt by rerouting, increasing cost and high insurance premiums, or seeking alternative energy sources. Over time, this could reduce the centrality of the strait, but at significant economic cost. This will eventually impact the future of global maritime order.

K.M. Seethi is director, Inter University Centre for Social Science Research and Extension and academic advisor to the International Centre for Polar Studies at the Mahatma Gandhi University (MGU) in Kerala. He also served as ICSSR senior fellow, senior professor of international relations and dean of social sciences at MGU.

© The Wire