US President Donald Trump has insisted yet again that the Strait of Hormuz is open. “It’s open if people want to go through it,” he said, even as his administration reimposed its blockade on Iranian shipping.
But the real test is not whether the waterway is physically open. It is whether commercial operators believe it is safe enough to use.
In May, the US abandoned its “Project Freedom” operation for its navy to escort ships through the strait, only days after announcing it.
Yet shipping continued. Later that month, The New York Times reported, citing US officials, that American forces had guided about 70 commercial vessels through the strait with their transponders switched off.
But now Iran has called Washington's bluff and has begun targeting ships attempting to slip through the waterway.
Gulf states have kept sending their state-owned tankers along a route that skirts the Omani coastline, even as Iranian missiles turn the corridor into a gauntlet.
director of the Middle East programme at Defense Priorities
On Tuesday, Iran struck two UAE state-linked supertankers with cruise missiles even after they had gone dark. One sailor was killed and three others are missing.
The coming days will reveal whether captains, crews, shipowners and insurers decide that crossing Hormuz is still worth the risk.
“Recent incidents in Hormuz show Iran can target international shipping, even under US Navy protection,” said Rosemary Kelanic, director of the Middle East programme at Defence Priorities.
Mr Trump’s gamble, she said, was whether Washington can keep oil flowing by keeping the route commercially viable, although dangerous.
“Now we’re running the experiment,” Ms Kelanic wrote on X. “If crossings halt, Iran's leverage increases. If they continue, Trump's leverage increases.”
Battle of nerves
Iran has attacked at least three vessels in the past week, reinforcing fears that it retains the capability and the intent to disrupt commercial shipping.
This way, Tehran can slow traffic, raise insurance costs and force companies to reconsider their routes.
Insurers routinely cover vessels operating in conflict zones by raising premiums. If Washington can convince operators that naval escorts and deterrence measures reduce the threat, some companies may continue using its route.
“If – big if – the US can convince shippers it can reduce the risk from Iranian attack to an insurance-level risk, we might see more strait-runners, especially if high oil prices trigger the profit motive,” Ms Kelanic wrote.
While higher oil prices could help offset rising insurance and security costs, confidence can disappear quickly.
Modern tankers are difficult to destroy and damaged vessels have often been repaired after attacks. The greater vulnerability is the people operating them.
Risk tolerance for Hormuz transits has remained extremely low throughout the conflict. Some captains are reluctant to enter the strait, while shipping executives are increasingly concerned about repeated attacks near the energy corridor.
A tanker may survive a missile or drone strike. But companies still need crews willing to sail into the danger zone.
The coming days will determine who wins the battle of nerves.
If crossings slow or stop, Iran gains leverage by proving it can disrupt global energy flows without formally closing Hormuz.
If traffic continues, Mr Trump gains leverage by demonstrating Tehran has failed to impose a meaningful blockade and that the waterway remains commercially usable.
