The Hormuz factor in global politics Overview by Teymur Atayev

The current situation surrounding the Strait of Hormuz may appear new and unexpected. However, as history shows, none of this is truly unprecedented—only the setting changes. The underlying logic remains the same: a struggle among major powers over transport routes and logistics, and ultimately over economic influence and financial gain.

Let’s recall the period of the Great Geographical Discoveries in the 15th century, when a powerful Portuguese-Spanish rivalry unfolded over the control of African territories. At the same time, both sides actively used the Papal See in pursuit of their own interests. Ultimately, according to the Treaty of Tordesillas signed in 1494, the parties agreed “not to undertake discoveries and conquests or engage in trade beyond the dividing line.”

However, France and England did not recognize these agreements. King Henry VII granted the famous navigator John Cabot official permission to seize any islands or mainland territories he discovered on behalf of England. Maritime piracy began to flourish actively. Moreover, in order to avoid seeking Papal approval, which extended to other countries, the new geopolitical centers followed the path of creating de facto “national” churches, which led to the emergence of Protestantism, in particular—the rise of the Anglican Church.

In the 19th century, the American Civil War saw the emergence of the Anaconda Plan. It envisaged the blockade of Southern ports and the establishment of control over the Mississippi River, which was intended to deprive the rebellious states of the advantages of foreign trade on which they critically depended.

Isn’t a similar situation emerging today around the Strait of Hormuz? Isn’t the struggle for control over maritime routes taking place — with the clear prospect of inflicting financial and economic damage on geopolitical rivals?

Therefore, on a global scale, the issue is not at all what many media outlets focus on when discussing which tankers have “broken through” or failed to break through the blockade. The picture is much deeper. This is evidenced, in particular, by threats coming from Tehran: in the event that the United States refuses to lift the maritime blockade of Iranian ports, trade routes in the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf, and the Gulf of Oman could be blocked. The involvement of the Houthis is also not ruled out, as they are capable of resuming attacks on ships passing through the Red Sea along their coastline.

Such developments would undoubtedly affect Saudi Arabia’s interests. But would it be the only one to suffer? There is already significant pressure on the European energy market: gas prices have risen by 70 per cent in recent weeks, while oil prices have increased by 60 per cent. At the same time, inflation on the continent could reach 4–4.5 per cent in 2026.

Against this backdrop, proposals have begun to emerge from Brussels to create an international coalition to restore freedom of navigation in the Strait. However, this appears to refer to a post-conflict scenario — after the end of the war with Iran and with Tehran’s consent. It is noteworthy that several countries potentially involved in such a coalition are opposed to US participation, although it remains unclear to what extent Washington itself is interested in such a format of cooperation with the Europeans.

China, for its part, has taken a rather firm position, stressing the importance of free passage for all vessels through the Strait of Hormuz and expressing its readiness to contribute to stabilizing the situation. At the same time, China’s representatives emphasized that Chinese vessels must be allowed to pass through the Strait regardless of the nature of their cargo. Otherwise, Beijing reserves the right to take retaliatory measures.

At the same time, reports have emerged of an alleged proposal from Tehran to Washington to unblock shipping through Omani waters in exchange for Iran’s guarantee to refrain from attacking such vessels. However, the implementation of this arrangement would only be possible in the context of a US–Iran agreement ruling out the resumption of hostilities. 

Meanwhile, several media outlets report that Iran is attempting to activate alternative routes, particularly along the coastline of the United Arab Emirates.

It is already becoming clear that the maritime blockade (which some still describe, using medieval terminology, as piracy) is aimed not so much at the physical destruction of individual tankers as at inflicting financial and economic damage on the adversary. What is at stake is control over shipping routes and, no less importantly, over maritime insurance, the cost of which has surged sharply in recent weeks.

All of this inevitably brings to mind a well-known saying about a group of hooligans breaking windows in houses, only for a glazier to “coincidentally” appear in the same neighbourhood the next day. It seems we are once again witnessing the “political games of thrones.”