Iran holds Strait: How naval choke point became bargaining lever

The ongoing United States-Israeli military campaign against Iran has thrust the Strait of Hormuz into the heart of a global energy and geopolitical crisis. Since hostilities began in late February 2026, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has repeatedly threatened or targeted shipping, intermittently halting transit through the critical waterway. The International Energy Agency has described the situation as “the most acute supply disruption in the history of the global energy market.”

An analyis by Al Jazeera has outlined three primary scenarios emerging for how the crisis might evolve, each with different implications for military escalation, diplomatic engagement, and regional stability.

Scenario one: Unilateral regional military action

One possible outcome is a coalition of regional states—primarily Gulf Cooperation Council members and Jordan—acting independently to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, without direct U.S. operational involvement. Prolonged economic losses, diplomatic exhaustion, or domestic political pressure could drive such an initiative.

However, Al Jazeera notes, this scenario faces serious obstacles.

“While the Gulf states have invested substantially in the modernisation of their armies over the past two decades, they lack the integrated naval power projection, mine countermeasure capacity, and anti-air-defence capabilities to neutralise the layered asymmetric threat that Iran poses in the strait," the article notes. 

The coalition’s stability is also uncertain, with states incentivised to free-ride on others’ military contributions. Moreover, unilateral action risks triggering a retaliatory spiral, as Iran’s doctrine of “forward defence” suggests strikes against Gulf oil infrastructure and population centres would follow. Pakistan, which has consistently cautioned against military escalation, would likely see its mediatory channel collapse if this path were pursued.

Scenario two: Regional alignment with US operations

A second scenario envisions Gulf states formally supporting a U.S.-led operation to restore freedom of navigation. Limited force, coordinated with regional bases and political cover, would be used to compel Iran to reopen the strait. Al Jazeera highlights that this scenario aligns with the principles of coercive diplomacy, which requires credible capability, adversary perception of disproportionate costs, and an available face-saving off-ramp.

Iran’s recent counterproposal to the U.S. 15-point negotiation plan suggests room for bargaining, while Israel’s opposition to indirect negotiations could strain coalition cohesion. In this scenario, Pakistan would act as a “diplomatic buffer,” maintaining backchannel communications even amid hostilities.

A hybrid approach combining military pressure with indirect negotiations could eventually secure a face-saving Iranian withdrawal in exchange for verifiable sanctions relief.

Scenario three: Sustained closure

Al Jazeera identifies the most plausible near-term scenario as Iran maintaining selective control over the strait while using its closure as a bargaining tool. The March 26 gesture allowing Chinese, Russian, Indian, Iraqi, and Pakistani vessels to pass is consistent with a strategy of coercive bargaining, rewarding aligned states while signaling Washington that full reopening requires concessions.

Here, Pakistan’s mediatory role is critical, enabling incremental, face-saving negotiations. A phased outcome linking partial sanctions relief to gradual strait reopening, under UN supervision, offers the most institutionally durable resolution.

The crisis is not simply a binary of war or peace; it is a structured bargaining contest.

Al Jazeera concludes that “the preservation of Pakistan’s mediatory role, the de-escalatory posture of Gulf states, and the gradual narrowing of the bargaining gap between Washington and Tehran constitute the most realistic foundation for a sustainable, if partial, resolution.”

By Sabina Mammadli