Strait of Hormuz Tensions: Law, Security & Global Trade

I. Strategic Importance of the Strait of Hormuz

Strait of Hormuz tensions have re-emerged as a central concern in global security and energy discourse, particularly following renewed hostilities between the United States and Iran in June 2025. This narrow maritime passage—measuring between 55 and 95 kilometers in width—connects the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea, serving as a vital artery for the global oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) trade. The strait’s geography and centrality to world energy flows have made it one of the most geopolitically sensitive zones in modern international relations.

On average, over 21 million barrels of oil transit the Strait of Hormuz each day, accounting for approximately 21% of global petroleum consumption, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates. This volume surpasses all other maritime chokepoints, including the Strait of Malacca and the Suez Canal. The table below

illustrates the comparative significance of key global oil transit corridors:

Maritime Chokepoint	Oil Volume (Million Barrels/Day)
Strait of Hormuz	21.0
Strait of Malacca	16.0
Suez Canal	5.5
Bab el-Mandeb Strait	4.8
Danish Straits	3.2
Turkish Straits	2.9
Panama Canal	0.8

The strait's strategic location places it at the intersection of key national interests. To the north lies Iran, which has historically asserted its capacity to disrupt shipping in the region as a form of political leverage. To the south lies Oman, particularly the Musandam Peninsula, which faces the Iranian coastline across a narrow maritime corridor. The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, though not directly controlling the strait, are heavily dependent on its navigability to export oil and LNG to Asia and Europe.

This narrow channel serves not only as a conduit for Middle Eastern exports but also as a geopolitical fault line. The economic security of major importers such as China, India, Japan, and South Korea is directly tied to uninterrupted access through the strait. Consequently, any form of disruption—be it military confrontation, sabotage, or piracy—carries the potential to reverberate across global energy markets.

Moreover, the physical geography of the strait imposes serious limitations on alternative navigation. The main shipping lanes through the Hormuz are just two miles wide in each direction, separated by a buffer zone. This narrowness significantly increases the vulnerability of commercial vessels, particularly oil tankers, to asymmetric threats or state-sponsored interference.

The recurring instability in the Middle East further amplifies the strategic weight of the Strait of Hormuz. U.S. naval patrols and multinational maritime coalitions routinely operate in the area to ensure freedom of navigation and to deter hostile action, but tensions remain high. The increased presence of warships, combined with recent drone and missile threats in the Gulf region, underscores the persistent fragility of maritime security in the area.

In summary, the Strait of Hormuz is more than a passage—it is a global energy chokepoint with significant legal, economic, and strategic implications. Its importance is rooted not only in volume but also in its limited alternatives and heightened exposure to regional conflicts. As geopolitical strains intensify, securing this corridor remains essential for maintaining global economic stability.

II. Legal Frameworks Governing Navigation & Security

The legal status of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz is governed primarily by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which outlines the regime of transit passage through straits used for international navigation. This legal framework plays a pivotal role in regulating maritime conduct in one of the most geopolitically contested waterways in the world.

1. Transit Passage and International Obligations

According to Part III of UNCLOS (Articles 37–44), transit passage allows ships and aircraft of all states the right of continuous and expeditious navigation or overflight through straits used for international navigation between one part of the high seas (or exclusive economic zone) and another. This is a more extensive right than innocent passage, which is subject to greater restrictions by coastal states.

In theory, this regime should apply fully to the Strait of Hormuz. However, complexities arise due to Iran’s interpretative stance on UNCLOS and its domestic legislation. Although Iran signed UNCLOS, it has not ratified it. Instead, it asserts that only vessels engaged in innocent passage may transit its territorial waters, particularly in the narrowest points of the Strait, such as near the islands of Larak and Qeshm.

2. Iran’s Legal Position and Maritime Sovereignty

Iran relies on its 1993 Law on the Territorial Waters and Contiguous Zone, which permits only innocent passage through its territorial sea, reserving the right to suspend such passage if it deems it inconsistent with peace, order, or security. This position directly challenges the universal applicability of transit passage through international straits as stipulated under UNCLOS.

Iran’s assertion of its sovereignty is also reflected in its repeated threats to close the Strait of Hormuz in response to economic sanctions or military escalation, particularly from the United States. These threats raise legal concerns under international law, as obstructing navigation through an international strait is incompatible with established principles of freedom of navigation.

3. U.S. Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs)

The United States, although also not a party to UNCLOS, considers its navigational provisions—particularly those on transit passage—to reflect customary international law. Accordingly, the U.S. Navy regularly conducts Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) in the Strait of Hormuz to challenge what it views as excessive maritime claims by Iran.

These operations are based on the premise that no state may impede the right of transit passage in a strait used for international navigation, even in its territorial waters. U.S. FONOPs typically involve military vessels transiting without requesting prior permission, reinforcing the principle that coastal states may not obstruct lawful passage.

4. Legal Analysis of Potential Closure

Any unilateral attempt to block or significantly impede maritime transit through the Strait of Hormuz would likely constitute a violation of international law. Under Article 44 of UNCLOS, states bordering straits shall not impede transit passage and must not hamper or suspend navigation in any form. Even without ratification, customary law principles apply, particularly in such globally significant straits.

A closure could be construed as an illegal use of force or an unlawful act of reprisal under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Legal scholars argue that such actions may also trigger the right of collective self-defense under Article 51 if they threaten the energy security or economic survival of other states.

5. Multilateral Maritime Cooperation and Enforcement Gaps

Despite these legal frameworks, enforcement remains challenging. The fragmented nature of international maritime jurisdiction—coupled with differing interpretations of international law—limits cohesive action. Moreover, non-state actors involved in piracy or sabotage operate beyond the scope of UNCLOS enforcement mechanisms, further complicating maritime governance.

In recent years, coalitions such as the U.S.-led Operation Sentinel and the European Maritime Awareness in the Strait of Hormuz (EMASoH) have sought to increase patrols, improve maritime domain awareness, and respond to threats. However, their operations exist within a legally sensitive context, requiring careful adherence to the law of the sea and avoidance of escalation.

III. Geopolitical Tensions Post-U.S. Strikes (June 2025)

The June 2025 U.S. military strikes in Iraq and Syria, targeting Iranian-aligned militias following attacks on American assets, reignited longstanding tensions in the Persian Gulf and had immediate consequences for the security climate surrounding the Strait of Hormuz. The strategic waterway, already a flashpoint due to its geopolitical value and narrow geography, once again became the focus of regional and international anxiety.

1. Iranian Naval Maneuvers and Strategic Messaging

Following the U.S. operation, Iran responded with heightened naval activity in the strait. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) deployed fast-attack boats, staged live-fire drills, and escalated aerial drone surveillance near international shipping lanes. Iranian state media framed these actions as “deterrent maneuvers” aimed at defending sovereignty and securing energy routes critical to Iran’s economy.

In parallel, senior Iranian officials renewed threats to “limit or suspend” foreign commercial transit through the strait if further attacks were carried out against Iranian interests in Iraq, Lebanon, or Syria. These statements, though not amounting to formal closure, contributed to growing uncertainty in global energy markets.

2. U.S. and Allied Naval Response

The United States, concerned about the freedom of navigation and the safety of commercial vessels, increased its naval presence in the region under Operation Sentinel, a multinational maritime initiative aimed at ensuring open sea lanes. Aircraft carriers, destroyers, and surveillance aircraft were redeployed to the Fifth Fleet base in Bahrain. France, the UK, and Australia expressed support for the U.S. position and extended patrols under their own naval commands or in coordination with European Maritime Awareness in the Strait of Hormuz (EMASoH).

The strategic objective was clear: deter further aggression, reinforce collective security guarantees to Gulf partners, and uphold international law regarding navigational rights.

3. Gulf Arab States’ Cautious Alignment

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain publicly condemned the destabilizing actions of Iranian proxies in Iraq and Syria but refrained from endorsing direct military retaliation. Instead, these states urged restraint while boosting their own maritime surveillance capacities along the Hormuz corridor and eastern coasts.

Although wary of direct confrontation, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members signaled their alignment with U.S. deterrence efforts, underscoring shared concerns about regional stability and oil export security. They also highlighted the economic risk of disruption to ports, pipelines, and offshore infrastructure near the Gulf of Oman.

4. International Diplomatic Efforts and Mediation Initiatives

European Union representatives, led by France and Germany, initiated backchannel diplomacy between Washington and Tehran. These talks emphasized the necessity of restoring diplomatic mechanisms tied to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), despite its formal collapse in 2018. China and Russia, both holding major energy stakes in the region, supported mediation but opposed the U.S. strikes as “unilateral escalation.”

The United Nations Security Council held an emergency session in late June 2025, where diverging views on the legality and proportionality of the U.S. strikes highlighted the ongoing divide between Western powers and the broader Global South.

5. Strategic and Economic Fallout

Oil prices surged by 12% in the immediate aftermath of the strikes, driven by investor fears of restricted Hormuz access. Energy analysts and shipping insurers issued advisories on the elevated risk profile of Gulf transit routes. LNG carriers and oil tankers faced longer inspection wait times, increased insurance premiums, and route delays.

Shipping companies considered rerouting some cargoes via alternative infrastructure, including:

• Saudi Arabia’s East-West Pipeline, bypassing the Gulf through the Red Sea port of Yanbu.

• The UAE’s Fujairah pipeline, avoiding the Strait by accessing the Gulf of Oman directly.

Despite these alternatives, none matched the capacity or cost-efficiency of Hormuz, reinforcing the chokepoint’s strategic dominance.

In essence, the post-June 2025 phase of Strait of Hormuz tensions has not only magnified the vulnerability of the region to military flashpoints but also showcased the narrow margin between deterrence and escalation. As U.S.-Iran hostility spills into maritime behavior and diplomatic channels falter, the strait remains a precarious indicator of broader regional instability and the fragility of international maritime governance.

IV. Economic Impacts & Global Energy Insecurity

The resurgence of Strait of Hormuz tensions in mid-2025 has once again exposed the global economy’s dependence on this narrow maritime corridor. As the principal channel for energy exports from the Persian Gulf, any disruption in Hormuz immediately reverberates through oil markets, shipping routes, and broader economic indicators. The June 2025 U.S. strikes against Iranian-backed groups intensified this vulnerability, triggering price shocks and raising fears of a broader energy crisis.

1. Oil Price Volatility and Market Response

Within hours of the U.S. airstrikes and Iran’s retaliatory maneuvers, global oil benchmarks such as Brent Crude and West Texas Intermediate spiked by 12–15%. The volatility was not due to a physical interruption of oil flows, but rather the perceived risk of future blockage or military escalation in the region. Energy futures traders priced in the geopolitical premium, particularly as Iranian officials reiterated threats to "target transiting oil tankers" in case of further provocations.

Energy markets have historically reacted strongly to regional instability in Hormuz. For instance, during the 1984–88 "Tanker War," insurance costs rose sharply, and global prices surged amid repeated attacks on commercial shipping. A similar pattern re-emerged in 2019 after the sabotage of oil tankers near the Gulf of Oman, and it repeated once more in June 2025.

2. Shipping Costs, Insurance, and Route Diversification

As the perceived risk in the Strait increased, international shipping companies and insurers recalibrated their risk assessments. Lloyd’s of London and other marine underwriters raised war-risk premiums for tankers operating in the Gulf. For some vessels, the cost of a single voyage rose by over 300%, depending on flag, ownership, and destination.

These costs translate into higher transportation fees and delays in delivery—particularly affecting countries highly dependent on Middle Eastern oil. The most impacted were Asian importers such as China, India, Japan, and South Korea, which receive the bulk of their crude oil via Hormuz.

To mitigate this risk, Gulf countries have attempted to diversify export infrastructure:

Country	Alternative Route	Capacity (Million Barrels/Day)
Saudi Arabia	East-West Pipeline (to Red Sea)	~5.0
United Arab Emirates	Fujairah Pipeline (to Gulf of Oman)	~1.5
Iraq	Kirkuk–Ceyhan Pipeline (via Turkey)	~1.6

However, these pipelines do not collectively match the volume transiting Hormuz daily, estimated at over 21 million barrels. Therefore, even partial disruptions to Hormuz shipping generate system-wide ripple effects across global supply chains.

3. Strategic Petroleum Reserves and National Preparedness

In response to rising tensions, several countries activated contingency plans. The United States, Japan, and South Korea reviewed their strategic petroleum reserves (SPR), designed to buffer short-term supply shocks. The International Energy Agency (IEA) coordinated discussions about possible emergency releases should commercial supplies be interrupted.

While these reserves provide short-term resilience, they cannot substitute for regular commercial flows. Additionally, prolonged instability would deplete reserves, forcing countries to explore expensive alternatives or endure fuel shortages and inflationary pressures.

4. Impact on Energy Transition and Investment

The instability in Hormuz also influences long-term investment decisions. On one hand, persistent insecurity incentivizes investment in renewable energy, diversification of supply chains, and expansion of non-Gulf oil production (e.g., the North Sea, Brazil, Canada). On the other, high market uncertainty complicates capital flows into infrastructure projects in the Middle East, including LNG terminals and refineries.

Oil-importing countries may accelerate their shift toward renewables and energy efficiency to reduce exposure. In contrast, Gulf oil producers may face increased difficulty securing financing for new energy projects due to elevated geopolitical risk premiums.

In sum, the economic consequences of Strait of Hormuz tensions extend far beyond the Middle East. The region’s instability undermines global energy security, inflates transportation and insurance costs, destabilizes energy markets, and forces both producers and consumers to reassess long-term strategies. While strategic reserves and alternative pipelines provide partial safeguards, no immediate replacement exists for the vital role Hormuz plays in the functioning of the global energy economy.

V. Maritime Security Threats: Piracy, Sabotage, and Naval Incidents

The strategic and economic importance of the Strait of Hormuz is not only undermined by state-based tensions but also by persistent maritime security threats. Piracy, sabotage, and naval confrontations in this narrow waterway have intensified Strait of Hormuz tensions, especially following the 2025 U.S. military strikes. These non-traditional security challenges add complexity to regional stability and global energy transit.

1. Piracy and Non-State Maritime Crime

Although piracy in the Strait of Hormuz has not reached the levels seen off the coast of Somalia, sporadic incidents involving armed robbery, hijackings, and suspicious approaches have been reported by the International Maritime Bureau (IMB). These events are often perpetrated by non-state actors operating in regional waters where jurisdiction and enforcement are fragmented.

Between 2008 and 2011, a spike in piracy originating from Somalia extended into the Arabian Sea and areas adjacent to Hormuz. International naval patrols helped reduce incidents, but recent instability in Yemen and the Horn of Africa has reignited concerns. The resurgence of piracy is linked to weak coastal governance, economic desperation, and gaps in regional maritime surveillance.

As trade flows increase and naval assets are reallocated to strategic posturing, the opportunity for pirates to exploit unguarded vessels also grows. The threat is not uniform, but the randomness of attacks has pushed shipping companies to adopt onboard armed security and raise insurance coverage—further increasing transit costs.

2. Acts of Sabotage and the Use of Naval Mines

Sabotage against oil tankers and cargo ships has emerged as a hybrid threat, often blurring the line between state action and plausible deniability. A notable example occurred in 2019 when two oil tankers—one Japanese-owned and one Norwegian-operated—were damaged by limpet mines. Although the United States blamed Iran, Tehran denied involvement.

In 2025, similar tactics resurfaced. Following the June U.S. strikes, a Liberian-flagged tanker reported hull damage from a suspected explosive device while passing near Iran’s territorial waters. While no group claimed responsibility, the timing and location suggested an asymmetric warning intended to discourage further military pressure.

Naval mines, which are difficult to detect and can be deployed covertly, pose a serious risk to navigation. The use of such mines violates several provisions of international maritime law, especially if deployed indiscriminately or outside territorial waters.

3. Naval Incidents and Rules of Engagement

Close encounters between naval vessels in the Strait of Hormuz have become increasingly common. Iranian patrol boats often shadow U.S. or European warships transiting the strait, sometimes coming within dangerous proximity. These actions heighten the risk of miscalculation or accidental engagement.

One such incident occurred in July 2025, when an Iranian drone reportedly came within 200 meters of a U.S. destroyer during nighttime maneuvers. Although no hostile action was taken, the event led to a formal protest by Washington and further heightened alert levels in the area.

Rules of engagement in such situations remain ambiguous. U.S. forces operate under established maritime law but also reserve the right to self-defense. Iran, on the other hand, insists on its authority to monitor and challenge any vessel it considers a threat. This legal ambiguity increases the risk of escalation from isolated incidents.

4. Multinational Security Efforts and Limitations

To counter these threats, multinational operations like Operation Sentinel (U.S.-led) and EMASoH (European Maritime Awareness in the Strait of Hormuz) have been enhanced.

These initiatives focus on:

• Escorting commercial vessels through high-risk zones

• Enhancing situational awareness through joint surveillance

• Sharing intelligence between navies and private shipping companies

Despite their value, these efforts face limitations. Legal constraints restrict military engagement unless directly attacked, and not all Gulf states participate equally. Moreover, private vessels often choose not to register with military coalitions to avoid being seen as aligned with a particular side in the conflict.

Ultimately, maritime security threats in the Strait of Hormuz—whether from pirates, sabotage, or near-conflict naval encounters—contribute to a climate of persistent uncertainty. As these dangers intersect with legal ambiguity and political hostility, they amplify Strait of Hormuz tensions and reinforce the need for robust international coordination, diplomatic restraint, and enhanced maritime governance.

Also Read

• Legal Boundaries of U.S. Military Strikes on Iran 

• The Role of Iran in Proxy Conflicts in the Middle East 

• Operation Rising Lion: Legal Challenges and Impacts 

• Religion and International Law: Conflicts and Coexistence 

VI. Conclusion: Toward Legal and Diplomatic Stabilization

The persistence of Strait of Hormuz tensions—exacerbated by the June 2025 U.S. strikes and Iran’s heightened military posture—underscores the fragile balance between global energy stability and regional security. The narrow maritime corridor, through which nearly a quarter of the world’s oil supply flows, continues to serve not only as an economic lifeline but also as a barometer for geopolitical volatility in the Gulf.

Despite the legal clarity provided by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea regarding transit passage, overlapping interpretations and unilateral practices—particularly Iran’s stance on innocent passage—complicate enforcement.

Simultaneously, freedom of navigation operations by the United States and its allies, while legally grounded, are often perceived as provocative by coastal states, deepening mistrust and increasing the potential for conflict.

To move toward a more stable environment, a multilateral diplomatic approach is essential. Gulf states, global powers, and maritime stakeholders must prioritize the following actions:

• Reinvigorating Legal Commitments: Encourage coastal states, including Iran, to reaffirm or ratify UNCLOS provisions and clarify their commitments to peaceful navigation norms.

• Establishing Crisis Communication Channels: Develop hotlines and maritime incident de-escalation protocols among navies operating in the region.

• Expanding Regional Cooperation: Strengthen the mandates and participation in coalitions such as EMASoH, while integrating Gulf nations into coordinated maritime security frameworks.

• Enhancing Early Warning Systems: Invest in satellite surveillance, automated vessel tracking, and joint naval exercises focused on non-traditional threats like piracy and sabotage.

• Supporting Economic Diversification: Reduce overreliance on oil exports by promoting regional infrastructure development and energy diversification, which can lower the stakes tied to Hormuz’s stability.

The Strait of Hormuz will remain a critical node in international trade for the foreseeable future. However, its vulnerability to both state-driven and asymmetric threats demands sustained, rule-based engagement. Legal predictability, transparent diplomacy, and cooperative security structures are not merely ideal solutions—they are necessary safeguards against escalation, economic shock, and strategic miscalculation.

Without a concerted legal and diplomatic framework, the world will continue to witness cycles of confrontation that endanger maritime commerce and global energy flows. Addressing the tensions surrounding this strategic waterway requires not only managing immediate risks but also reshaping the long-term architecture of regional maritime governance.

References

• Albasoos, H., Ali, Z. M., Hasni, A. S., & Al Shizawi, A. (2019). The Nature of Oman's Relations with Iran. Sultan Qaboos University Journal of Arts & Social Sciences, 10(1).

• Barden, J. (2019). The Strait of Hormuz is the World’s Most Important Oil Transit Chokepoint. U.S. Energy Information Administration.

• Huang, D., Wang, S., Loughney, S., & Wang, J. (2022). Evolutionary Game Model of Strategic Maritime Transport Passages: A Case of the Strait of Hormuz. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 10(3), 346.

• International Energy Agency (2023). Oil Market Report – April 2023.

• International Maritime Bureau (2018). Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships – Annual Report.

• Kraska, J. (2013). Legal Vortex in the Strait of Hormuz. Virginia Journal of International Law, 54, 323–345.

• Lott, A., & Kawagishi, S. (2022). The Legal Regime of the Strait of Hormuz and Attacks Against Oil Tankers: Law of the Sea and Law on the Use of Force Perspectives. Ocean Development & International Law, 53(2–3), 123–146.

• Mahri, R. A. (2020). The Relation Between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States. ResearchGate.

• Mills, R. (2022). The Impact of Geopolitical Tensions on Gulf Energy Infrastructure. Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington.

• Oral, N. (2012). Transit Passage Rights in the Strait of Hormuz and Iran's Threats to Block the Passage of Oil Tankers. American Society of International Law Insights, 16(28).

• Rizkiyani, H. M., Trismadi, T., Supriyadi, A. A., Widodo, P., Risma Saragih, H. J., & Suwarno, P. (2025). Geopolitical Dynamics of Maritime Security in the Strait of Hormuz. International Journal of Humanities Education and Social Sciences, 4(6), 2536–2543. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/392868156_Geopolitical_Dynamics_of_Maritime_Security_in_the_Strait_of_Hormuz

• Shepard, J. U., & Pratson, L. F. (2020). Maritime Piracy in the Strait of Hormuz and Implications for Energy Export Security. Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University.

• Talmadge, C. (2008). Closing Time: Assessing the Iranian Threat to the Strait of Hormuz. International Security, 33(1), 82–117.

• United Nations (1982). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Montego Bay.

• U.S. Central Command (2019). Statement on Operation Sentinel.