Strait of Hormuz: Three scenarios shaping its future

A set of competing scenarios is emerging over the future of the Strait of Hormuz, as the ongoing conflict involving the United States, Israel and Iran continues to disrupt one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints. Analysts outline three possible trajectories—two involving military escalation and one centred on diplomacy—with Pakistan positioned as a key intermediary in potential negotiations, Al Jazeera reports.

The Strait of Hormuz, which connects the Gulf to the Gulf of Oman, has taken on heightened strategic importance since hostilities began in late February 2026. The conflict has already prompted repeated threats and disruptions to shipping, contributing to what the International Energy Agency has described as one of the most severe supply shocks in global energy history.

- Under the first scenario, regional actors—principally members of the Gulf Cooperation Council alongside Jordan—could attempt unilateral military operations to reopen the strait without direct US involvement. However, analysts highlight significant limitations in regional naval capabilities, particularly in mine countermeasures and integrated air defence. The risk of escalation is also high, given Iran’s doctrine of “forward defence”, which could lead to retaliatory strikes on energy infrastructure across the Gulf.

- A second scenario envisages coordinated action alongside the United States, with Gulf states providing basing access and political support for a US-led operation. This approach would fall under coercive diplomacy, relying on limited force to compel behavioural change while avoiding full-scale war. However, internal divisions within the coalition and differing strategic priorities—particularly concerns raised by Israel over negotiations—could complicate unified action. In this context, Pakistan would function as a diplomatic buffer, maintaining communication channels between Washington and Tehran even amid heightened tensions.

- The third and most widely considered near-term scenario involves Iran maintaining effective control over the strait while using selective access as leverage in negotiations. Tehran has already demonstrated this approach by allowing transit for vessels linked to certain countries while restricting others, signalling both continued operational control and a willingness to calibrate pressure.

Iran’s use of what scholars describe as “coercive bargaining” reflects an attempt to extract concessions without triggering outright confrontation. Its counterproposals to US-led negotiation frameworks reportedly include demands for sanctions relief and broader political concessions, indicating a willingness to negotiate from a strong initial position.

Pakistan’s role is central in this scenario. As one of the few countries maintaining communication channels with both Washington and Tehran, Islamabad is positioned to facilitate indirect negotiations. Such mediation could support a phased agreement linking incremental sanctions relief to the gradual reopening of shipping routes, potentially under an internationally supervised framework.

Analysts note that the three scenarios are not mutually exclusive, but rather represent overlapping pressures within a complex geopolitical environment. While military options remain on the table, they carry significant risks of escalation. By contrast, the diplomatic pathway—dependent on sustained mediation, mutual signalling, and compromise—offers a more stable, if gradual, route to easing tensions.