Iran’s Threat to Control the Strait of Hormuz

The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman, is one of the world’s most vital arteries for global energy trade. Roughly 20% of the world’s oil—approximately 20 million barrels per day—and a significant portion of liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipments pass through this chokepoint daily.

On June 17, 2025, a statement attributed to Khandouzi, Iran’s former Minister of Economy, surfaced on social media, igniting global concern. The statement declared that, starting the following day, for a period of 100 days, no oil tanker or LNG shipment would be allowed to transit the Strait of Hormuz without Iran’s explicit permission.

Shared via a post on X, Khandouzi reportedly argued that implementing this policy “in a timely manner” would be decisive in countering “Trump’s war” through a blend of economic and security measures, warning that any delay would mean “enduring more of the war on domestic soil.” While the authenticity of this statement remains unverified, it has thrust the strait back into the spotlight amid escalating tensions between Israel and Iran.

The Legal and Historical Context of the Strait of Hormuz

The Strait of Hormuz is an international waterway governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a treaty Iran has signed. Under UNCLOS, straits used for international navigation grant all vessels—commercial and military—the right of transit passage. This legal framework ensures unimpeded navigation, provided ships proceed without delay and refrain from threatening the coastal state’s security. Iran’s proposed requirement for permission to pass through the strait would violate this principle, positioning it as a provocative act under international law.

Iran has a history of leveraging the strait during times of conflict. During the Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988), both nations attacked tankers in the so-called “Tanker War,” disrupting but never fully closing the strait. In 2019, amid tensions with the West over the U.S. withdrawal from the nuclear deal, Iran seized several tankers, signaling its willingness to flex its muscles. These incidents demonstrate that while Iran can harass shipping, a sustained blockade has remained beyond its reach, largely due to international resistance and military constraints.

Economic Stakes: A Global Energy Lifeline at Risk

The economic implications of Iran’s threat are staggering. The strait facilitates the transport of 20 million barrels of oil per day, alongside substantial LNG exports, notably from Qatar. Even partial disruption—through delays, detentions, or increased insurance costs—could send shockwaves through global energy markets.

Potential Price Spikes

Analysts estimate that a significant disruption could drive Brent crude prices above $100 per barrel, with some projections reaching $150 or higher in a worst-case scenario. Such a surge would fuel global inflation, raise energy costs, and threaten economic stability, particularly for oil-dependent nations like China, Japan, and India.

Limited Alternatives

Alternative routes to bypass the strait exist but are inadequate. Saudi Arabia’s East-West Pipeline can transport up to 5 million barrels per day to the Red Sea, while the UAE’s Fujairah pipeline handles about 1.5 million barrels daily. Together, these fall far short of replacing the strait’s capacity, and rerouting increases both time and cost, further straining supply chains.

Iran’s Economic Paradox

Ironically, Iran itself relies on the strait for its oil exports, a lifeline for its sanction-hit economy. A blockade would slash its own revenue, raising questions about the policy’s sustainability. This self-inflicted wound suggests that while Iran might disrupt traffic temporarily, a prolonged closure is unlikely.

Geopolitical Ripples: Global Powers on Edge

Iran’s threat would not occur in a vacuum—it would provoke reactions from key global players with vested interests in the strait.

The United States

The U.S. Fifth Fleet, stationed in Bahrain, has long safeguarded freedom of navigation in the strait. In 1988, during the Tanker War, the U.S. escorted tankers and retaliated against Iranian aggression with Operation Praying Mantis, crippling Iran’s navy. A similar response could be anticipated, potentially escalating into direct confrontation if Iran detains ships.

China, Japan, and India

As major importers of Gulf oil, China (Iran’s largest trading partner), Japan, and India would face severe disruptions. China, in particular, might exert diplomatic pressure on Tehran to avoid destabilizing energy flows, balancing its economic ties with Iran against its broader energy needs.

Europe and Beyond

The European Union, though less reliant on Gulf oil, would still grapple with rising energy prices and trade disruptions. Historically favoring diplomacy, the EU might join a U.S.-led coalition if the situation deteriorates.

Tying the Threat to the Israel-Iran Conflict

Iran’s threat emerges against the backdrop of a volatile conflict with Israel, which has intensified since June 13, 2025. Israel’s strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, military bases, and key personnel—including IRGC commanders and nuclear scientists—have inflicted significant damage. Iran has retaliated with missile and drone attacks on Israeli cities, deepening the cycle of violence.

Strategic Leverage

Khandouzi’s statement, as shared on X, frames the policy as a counter to “Trump’s war,” likely a reference to perceived U.S. backing of Israel under a potential Trump administration in 2025. By threatening the strait, Iran may aim to:

• Deter further Israeli strikes by raising the stakes globally.

• Shift the conflict outward, reducing pressure on its domestic soil, as Khandouzi suggested.

• Force international mediation, leveraging energy security to extract concessions.

Domestic Motivations

The conflict has strained Iran’s economy and infrastructure, with Israel’s strikes exacerbating internal challenges. Controlling the strait could serve as a show of strength to bolster domestic support, though economic fallout might undermine this gambit.

Risks of Escalation

This strategy could backfire. Rather than deterring Israel, it might galvanize international support for Jerusalem and provoke a broader military response, potentially involving the U.S. and its allies.

Feasibility and Risks: Can Iran Pull It Off?

Iran possesses tools to disrupt the strait, including fast attack boats, naval mines, and anti-ship missiles. However, enforcing a 100-day permission system faces steep hurdles:

Military Limits

While Iran can harass shipping, a full blockade would require sustained control—an improbable feat against the U.S. and allied navies. Historical precedent, like the 1988 U.S. retaliation, underscores Iran’s vulnerability.

Economic Self-Harm

Cutting off its own oil exports would deepen Iran’s economic woes, risking domestic unrest. This suggests the threat may be more rhetorical than actionable.

International Backlash

A blockade would unite a coalition of oil-dependent nations and military powers against Iran, likely leading to diplomatic isolation or armed conflict—outcomes Tehran can ill afford.

A High-Stakes Bluff?

Iran’s threat to control the Strait of Hormuz is a bold escalation with far-reaching implications. Legally dubious, economically disruptive, and geopolitically explosive, it reflects Tehran’s attempt to wield its strategic position amid the Israel-Iran conflict. Yet, the practical and self-inflicted costs—coupled with the certainty of international resistance—render a sustained blockade unlikely.

Even so, the threat alone could rattle markets, spike oil prices, and heighten tensions in an already unstable region. As the Israel-Iran conflict unfolds, Iran’s next moves in the strait will test its resolve and the world’s response, with the potential to reshape the Middle East’s fragile balance of power. For now, the strait remains a flashpoint where rhetoric and reality collide, with global consequences hanging in the balance.