Recent incidents in the Strait of Hormuz, from tanker disruptions to drone activity, have once again revived fears of a complete shutdown of the world’s most critical energy corridor. Yet this familiar framing is increasingly outdated. The real issue is no longer whether the strait will fully, and officially, be closed, but how it is being used while it remains partially open.
For decades, Hormuz has been viewed primarily as a chokepoint: a narrow passage whose closure would lead to immediate and severe consequences for global energy markets. Today, however, it functions differently. It has evolved into a space where the constant threat of disruption – selective, controlled and often limited in scale – carries as much weight as disruption itself. In this environment, uncertainty is not a byproduct of instability; it is the instrument through which influence is exercised.
This shift reflects a broader transformation in the logic of power. In the past, leverage depended on the ability to halt flows. Now, it rests also on the ability to keep those flows under constant pressure. The strait does not need to be completely blocked to generate impact anymore. In fact, leverage will probably work more effectively when the strait remains partially open but exposed – operating under a persistent shadow of risk that markets cannot ignore and policymakers cannot easily neutralise.
A clear illustration of this dynamic can be seen in past episodes of tanker seizures and maritime harassment in the Gulf. In several cases, limited actions – targeting a small number of vessels without escalating into broader conflict – were sufficient to cause sharp increases in insurance premiums and temporary surges in oil prices. The scale of the incidents was modest, but their signalling effect was significant. What mattered was not the volume of disruption, but the message it conveyed: that flows could be interrupted at any time.
Iran’s approach appears to align with this logic. Rather than pursuing outright closure – an option that would risk direct confrontation with the US and its partners – Tehran has favoured calibrated escalation. This strategy involves the use of relatively low-cost tools: fast boats, drones, limited seizures or even indirect signals that create ambiguity without crossing clear red lines. These actions are not continuous; they are implemented in waves. This allows Iran to manage the tempo of escalation, applying pressure when needed while avoiding the risks of uncontrolled conflict.
For the US and its allies, this creates a more complex strategic challenge. Militarily, securing the strait and ensuring the freedom of navigation remains achievable. The capacity to reopen shipping lanes and escort vessels through contested waters is not in question. The difficulty lies elsewhere. Stability is no longer a function of access alone, but of predictability. As long as risks remain fluid and difficult to quantify, the system operates in a constant state of reassessment.
This distinction between access and stability is critical. Ships may continue to pass through Hormuz, but the conditions under which they do so are increasingly shaped by uncertainty. Insurance costs fluctuate, shipping routes are adjusted and market behaviour becomes more reactive. In this sense, the strait is no longer just a physical passage – it has become a mechanism for transmitting risk across the global economy.
Gulf nations have taken steps to mitigate this exposure. Investments in pipelines that bypass the strait, the expansion of ports outside the Gulf and the development of new trade corridors have all contributed to enhancing resilience. These initiatives provide alternatives that can absorb part of the shock in times of crisis. Yet they have not fundamentally altered the centrality of Hormuz. The majority of energy flows from the region still pass through it, and its strategic significance remains intact.
Moreover, the diversification of routes has redistributed risk rather than eliminated it. New corridors introduce new vulnerabilities, and alternative pathways often remain indirectly linked to the same geopolitical dynamics. Hormuz, in this sense, continues to function as the anchor point of a wider network. What happens there still shapes perceptions of risk across the entire system.
This evolving landscape also highlights a structural imbalance at the international level. Major Asian economies depend heavily on energy flows through the strait, yet their role in securing it remains limited compared to that of the US and its regional partners. As threats become more diffuse and persistent, this imbalance between dependency and contribution becomes increasingly difficult to sustain.
Addressing these challenges requires a shift in strategy. Military protection remains necessary, but it is no longer sufficient on its own. The objective should not only be to secure the strait, but also to reduce its effectiveness as a tool of pressure. This involves a combination of measures: further diversification of routes, deeper international co-ordination and the development of responses tailored to low-intensity, ambiguous threats.
Equally important is a shift in how success is defined. The goal can no longer be to prevent every incident. In an environment characterised by calibrated escalation, such a standard is neither realistic nor sustainable. Instead, the focus should be on preventing individual incidents from escalating into broader strategic crises. This requires resilience not only in infrastructure, but also in decision-making and co-ordination.
Ultimately, the Strait of Hormuz is undergoing a quiet but significant transformation. It is no longer just a corridor through which energy flows. It has become a space where influence is exercised through uncertainty, and where stability is shaped as much by perception as by reality.
The strait remains at least partially open. But even complete openness alone no longer guarantees stability. As long as it can be used to generate pressure without sparking full-scale conflict, it will continue to function as a lever of influence.
The challenge, therefore, is not simply to keep Hormuz open – but to ensure that its openness no longer carries the same strategic weight.
