Dimensions of Iranian Hubris in Closing the Straits of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab
Why does Iran persist in repeatedly threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf and halt the flow of oil to global markets? This is a country that cannot export its own oil and is unable to import almost anything into its ports without the approval of the US Navy. Moreover, why is it seeking, directly or through allied groups, to threaten navigation in the Bab al-Mandab and the Red Sea, fully aware that any major disruption in these two waterways would not remain confined to the region but would extend its impact to the global economy as a whole?
Threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz or disrupt Bab al-Mandab cannot be regarded as merely a fleeting political message. These two waterways are among the most vital maritime arteries for energy and international trade movements. Any serious threat to navigation in them could raise transportation, insurance, and energy costs, directly affecting oil, fuel prices, and global markets.
The paradox becomes clear when maritime passages are used as tools of pressure, precisely at a time when Iran itself faces significant constraints on its oil exports and port movements. In contrast, Arab oil-producing countries continue to export crude oil and petroleum products to global markets, underscoring that the security of the Gulf and its maritime passages is not the concern of a single state, but rather a broad international system involving producers, consumers, and shipping and energy companies.
Furthermore, any targeting of oil facilities, ports, or oil tankers would add further risks to the energy market, a market in which the global economy relies on stable supplies and regular trade flows. The world will not remain silent if more than 10 million barrels from the Gulf and approximately 5 million barrels via Bab al-Mandab cease to flow. Rising oil prices do not affect only the barrel itself; they quickly translate into higher prices for gasoline, diesel, heating fuel, and transport, and subsequently into increased costs for goods and services across various countries.
The situation becomes even more sensitive during the winter season, when demand for energy and heating rises. With Iran’s intransigence, the price per barrel could exceed $100, while markets may simultaneously face disruptions in production or refining in other parts of the world. Under such conditions, any major and sudden disruption to supplies could exacerbate price pressures and increase energy costs for consumers.
No single country can unilaterally control the global oil market or impose a new reality on the world by closing a maritime passage. Energy markets operate on a complex network of production, refining, transportation, storage, and trade, with economic, security, and strategic interests tied to them by major powers, as well as producing and consuming nations alike.
The Strait of Hormuz represents one of the most critical energy transport routes from the Gulf region to Asian, European, and other markets, while Bab al-Mandab forms a strategic link in navigation between the Red Sea, the Indian Ocean, the Suez Canal, and global markets. Therefore, threatening either of them constitutes a direct threat to a significant portion of international trade flows.
Experience has proven that energy security cannot be based on a policy of threats, but rather on the stability of maritime passages, respect for freedom of navigation, and international cooperation. Accordingly, the Persian Gulf must remain secure and open to global trade, and the movement of tankers and ships through the Straits of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab must remain free from escalation. The security of these passages is not merely a regional concern, but a global economic interest.
