The Strait of Hormuz crisis has evolved beyond a regional confrontation into a test of maritime law, energy security, and geopolitical leverage, where military escalation, economic coercion, and contested legal doctrines increasingly intersect to challenge the stability of one of the world’s most critical strategic waterways.
Dr. Aftab Alam | Dean, Faculty of International Studies | Aligarh Muslim University For The News Analytics Herald
3 mins read.
More than two months into the Gulf conflict, the Strait of Hormuz remains the epicentre of global geopolitical tension, with no clear endgame in sight. Since the coordinated U.S.–Israeli military operations against Iran on 28 February—Operation Epic Fury and Operation Roaring Lion—Tehran has effectively kept the Strait closed, using the world’s most critical energy chokepoint as its principal strategic lever.
Washington and Jerusalem launched the campaign to degrade Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities, weaken its regional proxy network, and reshape West Asia’s security architecture. Both regard a nuclear-armed Iran under the current regime as an unacceptable threat. Tehran, however, has responded by exploiting global dependence on Gulf energy, signalling that it will not relinquish core nuclear capabilities without substantial reciprocal concessions.
Against this backdrop, Iran’s 27 April proposal to reopen the Strait—conditional upon the lifting of the U.S. naval blockade and an end to hostilities, while postponing nuclear negotiations—raises a critical question: can such a proposal alter the course of the conflict? Equally important, the crisis has exposed growing tensions between strategic competition and the legal principles governing international navigation.
STRATEGIC CHOKEPOINT
The Strait of Hormuz, bordered by Iran and Oman, connects the Persian Gulf with the Arabian Sea. Barely 33 kilometres wide at its narrowest point, it nevertheless carries nearly one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies every day, including more than 20 million barrels of crude oil, making it the world’s most important maritime energy corridor.
Disruption to this route has sent energy prices sharply higher, strained global supply chains, unsettled financial markets and revived fears of a wider economic slowdown. The situation worsened when Washington expanded its naval blockade on 16 April, extending enforcement well beyond the immediate conflict zone.
ECONOMIC LEVERAGE
Iran has repeatedly threatened to disrupt Hormuz whenever confronted by military or economic pressure. During the Iran–Iraq War, it targeted commercial shipping in the “Tanker War”. Similar threats emerged during the nuclear disputes of 2011–2012 and 2018–2019, although Tehran stopped short of closure. Even then, markets reacted with rising insurance premiums, rerouted shipping and higher energy prices.
This time, Iran has gone further. By weaponising the Strait, it seeks to convert global economic pain into political leverage. Offering to reopen the waterway while postponing discussion of its nuclear programme reflects an effort to ease international pressure without conceding the central strategic issue driving the conflict.
FROZEN CONFRONTATION
Although a fragile ceasefire on 8 April briefly reduced hostilities and allowed limited shipping to resume, no lasting political settlement has emerged. Commercial traffic remains well below pre-war levels, falling from around 120–140 vessels daily to only a fraction of that number.
Since the conflict began, merchant shipping has repeatedly come under attack. Tankers have been struck, seized or forced to divert. In April alone, Iranian Revolutionary Guard vessels fired upon Indian-flagged tankers, while U.S. forces seized Iranian-linked vessels as part of the blockade. Missile attacks, drone strikes, vessel seizures and the persistent threat of naval mines have transformed one of the world’s busiest sea lanes into one of its most dangerous.
LEGAL FAULTLINES
The crisis has simultaneously exposed the limits of contemporary maritime law. The principal legal framework governing navigation through international straits is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Articles 37–44 establish the principle of transit passage, granting all vessels and aircraft the right of continuous and expeditious passage through international straits. Importantly, this right cannot be suspended, preventing coastal states from using strategic waterways as instruments of coercion.
However, UNCLOS also recognises the security interests of coastal states. They may adopt non-discriminatory measures concerning navigational safety and environmental protection, provided these do not impede transit passage.
Iran’s legal position is more complex because it signed but never ratified UNCLOS. Instead, Tehran relies on the narrower customary principle of innocent passage, which affords coastal states greater authority to regulate navigation within territorial waters. Under this interpretation, Iran argues it may monitor or restrict passage on national security grounds and levy charges for navigational services during periods of heightened risk.
The U.S. blockade raises equally significant legal questions. Under the 1994 San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, blockades are lawful only if properly declared, effectively maintained, proportionate and impartial. They must not deny access to neutral states or excessively disrupt civilian commerce.
Here the legal tension becomes evident. Continuing a naval blockade while simultaneously describing the situation as a ceasefire appears contradictory. Moreover, enforcing restrictions well beyond the Gulf and disrupting neutral shipping risks stretching accepted principles of naval warfare and freedom of navigation.
RULES UNDER STRAIN
Neither continued closure of the Strait nor conditional reopening offers a lasting solution. Iran’s proposal may reduce immediate economic pressure but leaves the underlying nuclear dispute unresolved. Likewise, an expansive U.S. blockade risks undermining the very legal principles it seeks to defend.
The Hormuz crisis demonstrates how rapidly geopolitical rivalry can erode confidence in international maritime law. When vital chokepoints become instruments of strategic coercion, legal doctrines increasingly struggle to constrain escalation.
Ultimately, what is at stake extends beyond access to a single waterway. It concerns the credibility of the international rules governing global commerce itself. A durable resolution will require more than tactical concessions. It will depend upon sustained diplomacy, respect for navigational freedoms and a shared recognition that the Strait of Hormuz must remain open, stable and governed by international law rather than geopolitical leverage.
(Dr Aftab Alam is the Dean, Faculty of International Studies and teaches international law at Aligarh Muslim University. The views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The News Analytics Herald.)
