Opinion
By Yiannos Stavrinides
The Strait of Hormuz connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. About 20 percent of the world’s oil supply passes through the strait, which has effectively remained closed since Saturday, February 28, when the United States and Israel launched strikes against Iran. The first day of fighting resulted in the death of the religious leader and the top leadership, prompting the Revolutionary Guards to announce the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and threaten missile and drone attacks on any ship attempting to pass through.
The “closure” of the Strait of Hormuz has triggered a collapse in Gulf oil production, pushing prices toward $120 per barrel and freezing international stock markets. So far, eight sailors have lost their lives in the strait, while U.S. authorities continue to issue advisories warning vessels to avoid passing through it.
Exactly seventy years ago, the Suez Crisis disrupted one of the world’s most vital maritime corridors. In July 1956, during the second Arab–Israeli war, the passage was closed, marking the end of an era. The strategic importance of Suez lies in its role as a route for transporting oil from the Middle East to Europe, linking the Mediterranean Sea with the Red Sea. The Suez Canal, built in 1869, operated under Franco-British control until President Gamal Abdel Nasser decided to nationalize it. The Egyptian president made the move in retaliation for the withdrawal of American and British funding that had been earmarked for the construction of the iconic Aswan Dam, one of the most important infrastructure projects in the world. The immediate cause of the upheaval was Egypt’s growing ties with the former Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia. The end of the crisis also marked the end of Franco-British dominance in the Middle East.
Seven decades apart, the two crises highlight the vulnerabilities of the global energy market when supply routes run through strategically critical chokepoints whose closure can trigger wide-ranging economic consequences. In both cases, key infrastructure for the global oil trade was affected. Just as the closure of Suez created a chokehold on Europe’s oil supplies, the shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz has driven prices upward and disrupted international markets. In both crises, major powers were directly involved and military force was used. While the Suez Crisis ushered in a changing of the guard and drew the attention of the superpowers of that era, the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz, still unfolding, makes it impossible to know whether, or how, the shifting balance of power will draw in the other superpower of our time: China.
The end of the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz could permanently reshape the architecture of global energy security, forcing the search for alternative routes and suppliers, fostering new alliances, and, above all, bringing new regional players to the forefront. The Suez Crisis seventy years ago, though it affected about 10 percent of global demand, permanently altered the balance of power in the Middle East. The current crisis in the Strait of Hormuz, with twice that volume of oil now in question, is already producing upheavals significant enough that governments and markets alike are trying to understand what the global energy landscape will look like once this war ends.
