By attempting to control maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, Washington may be inadvertently amplifying the very instability it seeks to contain.
 

There are moments in international politics when pressure is applied without clear direction. The current American posture towards the Strait of Hormuz is one of those moments. 

What began with a sweeping declaration by US President Donald Trump of an outright blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has quickly narrowed into something more limited, yet no less problematic: a targeted interdiction of vessels linked to Iranian ports. 

This rapid shift was not a sign of tactical refinement; it exposed confusion at the highest level of decision-making. Within hours, Washington moved from threatening to choke one of the world’s most vital maritime arteries to attempting a selective enforcement regime that raises more questions than it answers.

The difference between these two approaches is not trivial. A full blockade of the Strait of Hormuz would amount to an act of war with global consequences. Roughly one fifth of the world’s oil supply passes through this narrow corridor. Closing it would trigger immediate economic shockwaves and disrupt supply chains across continents.

It would also constitute a direct challenge to international law, particularly the principle of transit passage through critical waterways. Under international law, straits used for global navigation are protected corridors. The principle of transit passage guarantees the free movement of vessels, even during periods of tension. 

A unilateral blockade, without a clear international mandate, would be widely interpreted as a hostile act and a dangerous precedent. If one country can selectively enforce restrictions in international waters based on its own criteria, the entire maritime system risks sliding into unpredictability.

Nonetheless, while the revised approach of targeting only ships connected to Iran may appear more measured, it is in fact more unstable. It introduces a grey zone that is operationally complex and strategically dangerous. 

In the real world of maritime trade, ships are not easily categorised. Ownership structures are opaque and often layered through multinational corporate networks. Flags of convenience obscure national identity. Cargo origins and destinations can shift mid-journey. Determining whether a vessel is genuinely “linked to Iran” is not a straightforward task.

This grey zone was evident on the first full day of the US blockade of Iranian ports, as some Iran-linked tankers passed through the Strait of Hormuz, according to shipping data.

The Panama-flagged Peace Gulf was heading to the UAE’s Hamriyah port carrying Iranian naphtha used in plastics and chemicals; the US-sanctioned Murlikishan, formerly known as MKA, was en route to Iraq to load fuel oil after previously transporting Russian and Iranian crude; Rich Starry, a Chinese-flagged tanker also under US sanctions, was carrying around 250,000 barrels of methanol loaded in the UAE and reportedly bound for China; and a US-sanctioned tanker named Elpis, flying a Comoros flag and owned by a Malaysian firm, also crossed Hormuz after the imposed naval blockade. 

The partially laden vessel may have loaded cargo at Iran’s Bushehr Port and has no publicly recorded destination.

This oscillation between total blockade threats and constrained implementation reveals a deeper problem: the absence of a clearly defined strategic objective. What is Washington trying to achieve? Is the goal to cripple Iran’s economy, to force concessions in negotiations, or to reassert control over global energy routes?

At present, the policy seems to rely on the familiar assumption that the threat of force, even if inconsistently applied, will compel Iran to concede. But this assumption overlooks a critical reality: Iran does not need to defeat a blockade outright to neutralise it. It only needs to raise its cost. And cost, in this context, extends far beyond military engagement and includes risk perception and market behaviour.

Here lies the central paradox of the American approach. By attempting to control maritime traffic, Washington may inadvertently amplify the very instability it seeks to contain.

RESPONSE: The international response reflects growing unease with this approach. America’s European allies have shown little willingness to participate in any form of naval blockade. This reluctance is based on a fundamentally different assessment of risk.

From a European perspective, the strait is not a pressure point to be manipulated; it is a lifeline to be preserved. Disrupting it, even partially, threatens energy security, economic stability, and the legal frameworks that underpin global trade. The refusal to join such an operation is therefore a defence of the legal system governing shipping lanes upon which the world depends.

The economic consequences of the US approach are equally problematic. The stated objective is to reduce Iran’s oil exports and constrain its revenue. But energy markets do not respond in simple, linear ways. A reduction in supply, especially in a tense geopolitical environment, tends to drive prices upwards. Higher prices can offset reduced export volumes. Iran, already experienced in operating under sanctions, may end up selling less oil but at significantly higher prices.

Meanwhile, the burden shifts to global consumers. Energy-importing nations, particularly in Europe and Asia, are highly vulnerable to disruptions in Gulf supply routes. Countries such as China, India, Japan, and South Korea rely heavily on the Strait of Hormuz. Any instability directly threatens their economic security.

On Tuesday, China’s Foreign Ministry condemned the US blockade of Iranian ports as “dangerous”, warning that it will “exacerbate tensions and undermine the already fragile ceasefire agreement”. 

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and President Emmanuel Macron of France will jointly host a summit in Paris on Friday dedicated to reopening the Strait of Hormuz. The gathering will advance efforts towards a coordinated, independent, multinational plan to protect international shipping. 

The US will not take part, but most European states will. Macron also revealed that he had held phone calls with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Trump, urging the immediate and unconditional reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and underscoring its critical importance to global stability. 

He argued that negotiations should swiftly resume with the backing of key international stakeholders, framing diplomacy not as an option but as an urgent necessity given the gravity of the situation.

This raises an uncomfortable question for Washington: is it prepared to confront not only Iran but also the broader network of economies affected by its actions? In this sense, the blockade risks backfiring strategically. Instead of isolating Iran, it may further isolate Washington.

Yet perhaps the most dangerous outcome is not outright failure, but partial success: a scenario in which the strait remains open but under constant tension and where supply is disrupted just enough to drive up prices, where risks remain elevated, and where no political resolution is achieved. 

This would create a chronic state of instability, transforming the Strait of Hormuz into a permanent pressure point at the heart of the global economy.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has already sharply downgraded its global oil demand and supply forecasts due to the disruptions, warning that a permanent decline in consumer demand will spread as “scarcity and higher prices persist”.

Global oil demand is now projected to fall by 80,000 barrels per day in 2026, while supply is expected to drop by 1.5 million barrels, the steepest decline since the Covid-19 pandemic.

Meanwhile, US Energy Secretary Chris Wright stated that oil prices will likely continue rising over the next few weeks until “meaningful ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz” resumes, adding that once the conflict ends, prices will face downward pressure, though the rebound will take time and may be prolonged by the conflict.

These projections carry catastrophic consequences for hundreds of millions of people across the globe who bear no responsibility for the conflict whatsoever. United Nations agencies have warned that the current crisis risks plunging vast populations into hunger and extreme poverty on an unprecedented scale.

Thus, reports of possible indirect negotiations between the US and Iran in the coming days suggest that the world powers are aware of the costs of the conflict. 

This is where the current American approach appears most contradictory. If the objective is a negotiated settlement, then maritime escalation undermines the conditions necessary for diplomacy. If the objective is maximum pressure, then the lack of international support limits its effectiveness. 

In both cases, the tools do not align with the stated goals.

TRUST: An Iranian reformist diplomat aligned with Pezeshkian told Al-Ahram Weekly that the American naval blockade “is eroding what little trust remains in Washington and will complicate further talks.”

“The United States’ abrupt withdrawal from the Islamabad negotiations after just 21 hours of intensive discussion on intricate and highly technical matters reveals one of two possibilities: either the negotiating team lacked the depth of understanding required for such complex proceedings and sought instead to pressure Tehran into submission, or the withdrawal was deliberate to derail the talks in pursuit of other strategic aims,” he said.

“The negotiations spanned the nuclear file in its entirety – the level of enrichment, the fate of the highly enriched uranium, the lifting of sanctions, the cessation of hostilities across multiple fronts, compensation for Iran’s considerable losses following the unjustified aggression by the United States and Israel, the release of frozen Iranian assets in Washington, and more besides. How can such negotiations be abandoned after a mere 21 hours, particularly when tangible progress had already been achieved on several fronts? It defies comprehension,” he stated.

According to Axios, Washington pressed Tehran during the Islamabad talks to accept a 20-year suspension of uranium enrichment and the full removal of its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. Iran, in turn, proposed a more limited concession: a temporary suspension lasting up to five years.

Yet despite a wide gulf still separating the two sides, mediators from Egypt, Pakistan, and Turkey are reportedly working behind the scenes to narrow the divide, proposing pragmatic confidence-building measures in the hope of easing tensions and steering the crisis back from the brink. Diplomatic sources say that if this groundwork succeeds, negotiations in Islamabad could resume within days.

Against this backdrop, Chinese President Xi Jinping has outlined a four-point vision aimed at restoring stability in the Middle East and warning against any regression to a “law of the jungle” world order. In some of his most pointed remarks on the crisis to date, he emphasised China’s intention to play a constructive role in advancing peace efforts. 

His proposal calls for adherence to peaceful coexistence and the development of a comprehensive, cooperative regional security framework; respect for state sovereignty and the protection of critical institutions; the consistent application of international law without selective enforcement; and a balanced integration of development and security to foster a more stable and prosperous future for the Gulf nations.

From Tehran’s vantage point, the Chinese president’s intervention is a welcome development.

“We have long questioned whether there exists, within the United States, any interlocutor capable of meaningful negotiation. Thus far, the answer has been a resolute no. For weeks, senior Iranian officials have pressed Beijing to act in accordance with its global stature. We are seeking, quite simply, the presence of adults in the room.” the Iranian diplomat said.

It appears that the American naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has served as the breaking point, compelling Beijing to step forward with uncommon firmness amid an increasingly perilous global crisis. 

Across Europe, other voices, particularly from Spain, have echoed this call, urging China’s leadership to assume a stabilising role as Washington’s current course steers the international order into turbulent waters.