By Dr. Nidal Shoukeir, Professor of Strategic Communications and Governmental Relations
There is little doubt that the conflict between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran has entered an exceptionally sensitive phase in recent weeks. The collapse of the ceasefire, which many had hoped would serve-at least temporarily-as a gateway to a more sustainable de-escalation, has instead paved the way for renewed and expanding hostilities. As a result, the Middle East-and with it the global economy-has been plunged into a new period of uncertainty, marked by growing ambiguity over the trajectory, objectives, and ultimate outcome of the conflict.
Hormuz: Iran's Last Remaining Strategic Asset
When the war began on February 28, the United States publicly defined its objectives as neutralizing Iran's nuclear program and degrading its military capabilities. Iran, meanwhile, relied on three principal pillars of power: its nuclear program, its arsenal of ballistic missiles and armed drones, and its network of regional proxies, whose operational effectiveness had already declined significantly following the events of October 7 and the regional developments that followed.Today, however, the strategic landscape has changed dramatically. Following strikes against its nuclear infrastructure, the degradation of parts of its missile and drone capabilities, and the diminishing operational role of its regional allies, the confrontation between Tehran and Washington has increasingly shifted toward control of the Strait of Hormuz, particularly in light of Iran's declaration that it intends to close the waterway by force and impose transit fees on passing vessels.Against this backdrop, the Strait of Hormuz has emerged as Tehran's last significant instrument of strategic leverage, raising an important question: How effective is Iran's reliance on the Strait of Hormuz as a strategic weapon? Before addressing that question, it is important to recall that the Strait of Hormuz is one of the world's most vital maritime chokepoints. Roughly one-fifth of global oil trade, along with substantial volumes of liquefied natural gas, passes through it every day. Any disruption to navigation would therefore have immediate repercussions for global energy markets and international supply chains. Consequently, any attempt by Iran to use the Strait as a geopolitical pressure tool-whether by closing it or imposing unilateral transit charges-would affect not only the United States and its allies but also the broader international economy, particularly the major Asian economies that depend heavily on Gulf energy exports.
Why Iran's Hormuz Gamble Is Likely to Fail
The Strait of Hormuz is, ultimately, a double-edged sword. While Tehran considers it one of the few remaining instruments of strategic influence at its disposal, relying on it as a coercive tool is likely to prove counterproductive for at least five reasons.
First: It Would Damage Iran's Own Economy
Despite years of international sanctions, Iran continues to depend on exporting oil and petrochemical products through the Strait of Hormuz. Any prolonged disruption to maritime traffic would therefore undermine its own exports and reduce its foreign currency revenues, placing additional pressure on an economy already burdened by inflation and declining investment.
Second: It Would Alienate the International Community, Not Just the United States
Closing the Strait or imposing unilateral transit fees would not only affect American interests. It would also disrupt the economies of China, India, Japan, South Korea, and Europe-all of which maintain significant economic relations with Iran and rely heavily on Gulf energy supplies. Tehran could therefore find itself confronting a much broader international coalition determined to preserve freedom of navigation.
Third: It Would Legitimize Greater Military Escalation
Freedom of navigation constitutes one of the fundamental principles of international maritime law, as reflected in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Any attempt to block the Strait could therefore provide political and legal justification for multinational naval coalitions and military operations under the banner of protecting international shipping, significantly increasing the costs of confrontation for Iran while expanding the coalition aligned against it.
Fourth: It Would Accelerate the Search for Alternative Energy Routes
Speaking before the British House of Commons on July 17, 1913, Winston Churchill famously observed: "Safety and certainty in oil lie in variety, and variety alone." More than a century later, that observation appears increasingly relevant. The more Iran threatens the Strait of Hormuz, the stronger the incentive for energy producers and consumers to invest in pipelines, ports, and alternative transportation corridors that reduce dependence on this strategic waterway. This process is already underway through the expansion of facilities outside the Strait, including the Port of Fujairah in the United Arab Emirates, as well as emerging transport corridors linking the Gulf with the Red Sea and the Mediterranean.
Fifth: Turning Its Last Strategic Asset into a Liability
In The Art of War, the Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu argues that "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." This principle applies remarkably well to the Strait of Hormuz. Its strategic value lies more in the credibility of the threat than in its actual closure. Once deterrence gives way to implementation, what was once a strategic asset risks becoming a source of political, military, and economic exhaustion, precisely when Tehran needs to preserve its remaining leverage for deterrence and negotiation.
A Gamble That Could Threaten the Regime's Survival
If the arguments above explain why Iran's Hormuz strategy may prove unsuccessful, the more significant question concerns the long-term implications for the Iranian regime itself. Transforming one of the world's most critical maritime corridors into a permanent instrument of political or military coercion would not simply be viewed as a tactical move in a regional conflict. Rather, it would be widely perceived as a direct threat to global energy security and international commerce.
In such a scenario, Tehran would no longer find itself confronting only the United States. Instead, it could face a broader international consensus composed of countries that may disagree on many geopolitical issues but share a common interest in safeguarding freedom of navigation and ensuring uninterrupted global energy supplies. Such a development would intensify political, economic, and military pressure on Iran while encouraging even some of its partners to reassess their positions in light of their own strategic interests. More importantly, this strategy risks transforming the Iranian regime into a liability not only for its adversaries but also for its friends. Governments may differ in their views of Iran's regional policies, but they are far less divided when it comes to protecting global energy security and maintaining free navigation through one of the world's most important maritime arteries. If Tehran becomes widely perceived as a persistent threat to that system, it could face an unprecedented international consensus aimed not merely at containing its policies but at permanently limiting its ability to use the Strait of Hormuz as an instrument of strategic leverage.
Iran's leadership should therefore recognize-before it is too late-that while the international community may tolerate many regional crises, it is unlikely to accept a situation in which the global economy remains hostage to unilateral decisions affecting one of the world's most critical maritime chokepoints. Although the Strait of Hormuz may offer Tehran limited tactical gains in the short term, it could ultimately become a strategic miscalculation that accelerates Iran's international isolation, drains its national capabilities, and transforms one of the regime's last remaining strategic assets into one of the greatest threats to its own survival.
Herein lies the strategic paradox. History demonstrates that regimes do not enter their most dangerous phase merely because they lose elements of their power, but because they miscalculate in the use of their last remaining strategic assets. If the Strait of Hormuz represents Iran's final instrument of geopolitical leverage, then its misuse could mark the turning point at which a source of strength becomes an existential threat to the regime itself.
(Associated Medias) - Tutti i diritti sono riservati