ConflictClarifier

متتبع أزمة إيران-الخليج 2026
CC
Events Archive
strikeApr 14, 2026

How a US blockade near the Strait of Hormuz could work and the impact ahead for the global economy

Summary

A blockade of Iranian ports that President Donald Trump said began Monday could further disrupt oil prices, has spurred questions about international law and leaves doubts about whether the pressure tactic will force Tehran to reopen the vital Strait of Hormuz. Trump threatened to impose the blockade after talks to further a fragile ceasefire ended without a deal this past weekend. Iran had previously halted nearly all tanker traffic through the key waterway, allowing only some ships perceived as friendly to pass while charging considerable fees. Enforcing the blockade is likely to demand significant resources from the U.S. Navy and could prompt concerns about military force and international law, experts say. Supply chain analysts, meanwhile, stress that the restrictions could undermine the flow of oil, fertilizer, food and other goods to consumers already facing higher prices.Also read: NATO allies refuse to join Trump's Strait of Hormuz blockade From a military standpoint, the biggest challenge will be the enormous volume of shipping traffic transiting the Strait of Hormuz, where nearly 20% of the world's traded oil normally passes. A considerable number of ships may be needed to enforce the restrictions, according to Sidharth Kaushal, a naval power expert at the Royal United Services Institute, a defense and security think tank in London.Also read: US military to enforce blockade in Gulf of Oman, Arabian Sea - note to seafarers "A lot depends on the early days of the blockade, how many vessels the Americans can seize, how much they can convince vessels attempting to slip through a cordon that they're likely to be seized," Kaushal said. "But in all likelihood, I'd say it will prove difficult for the U.S. to enforce." The strait's narrow confines at least will make the geographic area of concern a limited one, said Todd Huntley, director of Georgetown University Law Center's National Security Law Program. Still, the amount of traffic that goes through "is going to be a challenge," he said. The U.S. may have to consider whether to allow humanitarian aid to reach Iranian ports, Huntley said, a decision that could determine the blockade's legality under international law. International rules also require that any nation enforcing a blockade do so impartially, after issuing an advisory to mariners. "How it is carried out will determine whether it is lawful or not," said Huntley, a retired Navy captain and judge advocate general. "You can't enact a blockade with the goal of starving the civilian population. Even the DOD law of war manual states that neutral vessels carrying relief supplies should be allowed to pass." Few merchant vessels are likely to try to evade a blockade, according to Raul Pedrozo, professor of international law at the Naval War College and a retired Navy captain and JAG officer. They won't want to take their chances against the U.S. Navy, he said. "They see a warship, and they're going to heave to," Pedrozo said. "There are always ways to economize, import, substitute, or just give up on certain things that you can no longer build for want of foreign inputs," Kaushal said. "It can make things a lot harder in a lot of ways, but it doesn't necessarily achieve decisive outcomes." A blockade alone can't sever Iran's economic ties with trading partners, including China and Russia, or cut off access to the Caspian Sea or Central Asia. The blockade also risks an Iranian response that could reignite the conflict, said Farzin Nadimi, who specializes in Iran and the Persian Gulf at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Iran could deploy naval mines, small fast-attack boats and missiles against shipping in response, further disrupting the global economy. "The U.S. wants this to be a short and sweet operation. I don't think that it can be," Nadimi said. Trump said Iran has some "fast attack ships" remaining and warned Tehran that any of them coming "anywhere close" to the U.S. blockade would be destroyed by a "quick and brutal" strike. Iran responded with its own threats on ports in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman. "The problem with a two-side blockade is that you know it's going to take much longer for the strait to open up and for some kind of agreement to come about - and that's what's going to send these prices further skyrocketing," said Vidya Mani, a visiting associate professor at Cornell University whose research focuses on supply chains. Analysts warn that the longer the waterway is closed, the worse prices could get. Oil has swung on markets' quick reactions to announcements from Trump and others about the fate of the war, but they remain steep overall, with crude trading Monday above $100 a barrel, up from roughly $70 before the war. Households and businesses are paying the consequences - particularly in Asia, where countries rely more heavily on fuel imports from the Middle East. But oil is a globally traded commodity, and consumers worldwide are feeling a pinch in their wallets. American drivers, for example, have seen gas prices spike to an average of more than $4.12 a gallon - up from $2.98 before the war. Some 30% of the world's fertilizer also comes through the strait, potentially harming farmers and as a result worsening hunger worldwide. "Now you're talking about impacting the global harvest," Penfield said. Between these disruptions and oil shocks, he noted that such chaos and uncertainty "bleeds out throughout the whole world." Mani said chemicals to make basic supplies like paint and metal, including aluminum, would see additional disruptions. She pointed to price pressures even before the U.S. and Israel launched their war against Iran - including new tariffs imposed by Trump, supply chain problems from the COVID-19 pandemic and other geopolitical conflicts. "We just have to be prepared for constant higher prices, irrespective of how this blockade turns out," she said. "Each crisis has a lingering effect on the next one." (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel) Trump threatened to impose the blockade after talks to further a fragile ceasefire ended without a deal this past weekend. Iran had previously halted nearly all tanker traffic through the key waterway, allowing only some ships perceived as friendly to pass while charging considerable fees. Enforcing the blockade is likely to demand significant resources from the U.S. Navy and could prompt concerns about military force and international law, experts say. Supply chain analysts, meanwhile, stress that the restrictions could undermine the flow of oil, fertilizer, food and other goods to consumers already facing higher prices.Also read: NATO allies refuse to join Trump's Strait of Hormuz blockade How the US could enforce a blockade of Iranian portsSuccessfully enforcing the blockade will require sustained commitment of U.S. Navy ships and personnel, as well as clear guidance from the Trump administration and the Navy's legal department, experts say. From a military standpoint, the biggest challenge will be the enormous volume of shipping traffic transiting the Strait of Hormuz, where nearly 20% of the world's traded oil normally passes. A considerable number of ships may be needed to enforce the restrictions, according to Sidharth Kaushal, a naval power expert at the Royal United Services Institute, a defense and security think tank in London.Also read: US military to enforce blockade in Gulf of Oman, Arabian Sea - note to seafarers "A lot depends on the early days of the blockade, how many vessels the Americans can seize, how much they can convince vessels attempting to slip through a cordon that they're likely to be seized," Kaushal said. "But in all likelihood, I'd say it will prove difficult for the U.S. to enforce." The strait's narrow confines at least will make the geographic area of concern a limited one, said Todd Huntley, director of Georgetown University Law Center's National Security Law Program. Still, the amount of traffic that goes through "is going to be a challenge," he said. The U.S. may have to consider whether to allow humanitarian aid to reach Iranian ports, Huntley said, a decision that could determine the blockade's legality under international law. International rules also require that any nation enforcing a blockade do so impartially, after issuing an advisory to mariners. "How it is carried out will determine whether it is lawful or not," said Huntley, a retired Navy captain and judge advocate general. "You can't enact a blockade with the goal of starving the civilian population. Even the DOD law of war manual states that neutral vessels carrying relief supplies should be allowed to pass." Few merchant vessels are likely to try to evade a blockade, according to Raul Pedrozo, professor of international law at the Naval War College and a retired Navy captain and JAG officer. They won't want to take their chances against the U.S. Navy, he said. "They see a warship, and they're going to heave to," Pedrozo said. Naval blockades aren't a fix-all but can be a toolBlockades historically haven't been enough on their own but have been used to exert pressure on other countries and their economies during conflicts, experts say. "There are always ways to economize, import, substitute, or just give up on certain things that you can no longer build for want of foreign inputs," Kaushal said. "It can make things a lot harder in a lot of ways, but it doesn't necessarily achieve decisive outcomes." A blockade alone can't sever Iran's economic ties with trading partners, including China and Russia, or cut off access to the Caspian Sea or Central Asia. The blockade also risks an Iranian response that could reignite the conflict, said Farzin Nadimi, who specializes in Iran and the Persian Gulf at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Iran could deploy naval mines, small fast-attack boats and missiles against shipping in response, further disrupting the global economy. "The U.S. wants this to be a short and sweet operation. I don't think that it can be," Nadimi said. Trump said Iran has some "fast attack ships" remaining and warned Tehran that any of them coming "anywhere close" to the U.S. blockade would be destroyed by a "quick and brutal" strike. Iran responded with its own threats on ports in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman. Oil prices could keep risingWith fears of attacks, experts say most ships won't want to take the risk. The waterway could effectively stay shut - and prices, particularly for oil and gasoline, could rise even more. Halting roughly 20% of the world's flow of oil has already led to cuts from some major producers in the region, because their crude has nowhere to go. "The problem with a two-side blockade is that you know it's going to take much longer for the strait to open up and for some kind of agreement to come about - and that's what's going to send these prices further skyrocketing," said Vidya Mani, a visiting associate professor at Cornell University whose research focuses on supply chains. Analysts warn that the longer the waterway is closed, the worse prices could get. Oil has swung on markets' quick reactions to announcements from Trump and others about the fate of the war, but they remain steep overall, with crude trading Monday above $100 a barrel, up from roughly $70 before the war. Households and businesses are paying the consequences - particularly in Asia, where countries rely more heavily on fuel imports from the Middle East. But oil is a globally traded commodity, and consumers worldwide are feeling a pinch in their wallets. American drivers, for example, have seen gas prices spike to an average of more than $4.12 a gallon - up from $2.98 before the war. Global supply chains also could see further disruptionsThe blockade also would hurt the transportation of food and fertilizer, said Patrick Penfield, professor of supply chain practice at Syracuse University. He said the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and other countries could especially see "dramatic food price increases," as supplies will have to be flown in. Some 30% of the world's fertilizer also comes through the strait, potentially harming farmers and as a result worsening hunger worldwide. "Now you're talking about impacting the global harvest," Penfield said. Between these disruptions and oil shocks, he noted that such chaos and uncertainty "bleeds out throughout the whole world." Mani said chemicals to make basic supplies like paint and metal, including aluminum, would see additional disruptions. She pointed to price pressures even before the U.S. and Israel launched their war against Iran - including new tariffs imposed by Trump, supply chain problems from the COVID-19 pandemic and other geopolitical conflicts. "We just have to be prepared for constant higher prices, irrespective of how this blockade turns out," she said. "Each crisis has a lingering effect on the next one." (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel) (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel) Explore More Stories

Actors involved

USIsraelIranRussiaChina

Sources

  • SECTIONS How a US blockade near the Strait; The Impact AheadBy SECTIONS How a US blockade near the Strait; The Impact Ahead

    A blockade of Iranian ports that President Donald Trump said began Monday could further disrupt oil prices, has spurred questions about international law and leaves doubts about whether the pressure tactic will force Tehran to reopen the vital Strait of Hormuz. Trump threatened t

See this event through different lenses

Compare how Western, Iranian, Israeli, Global South, and Pro-Peace perspectives frame this event.

Compare Perspectives

Community Notes

Community Notes

Loading notes...

Related events

strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranUN
1 source

The US and its allies Britain, France and Germany are pushing other countries on the UN nuclear watchdog's board to pass a resolution next week reporting Iran to the UN Security Council for the first time in 20 years, diplomats said on Friday. If passed, the resolution would follow up on one adopted on June 12 of last year declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for not fully cooperating with an investigation into uranium traces found at undeclared sites.

The US launched an air war against Tehran on February 28 in which, together with Israel, it destroyed or badly damaged Iran's uranium-enrichment facilities. Iran has not let International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors return to the bombed sites since then or verify what remains of its stocks of enriched uranium, some of which was enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.

Resolution would be culmination of standoff over IAEA's access to nuclear sites A resolution by the IAEA's 35-nation board reporting Iran to the Security Council would also be the culmination of a standoff over IAEA access to those sites, since the board has passed two resolutions in the past year demanding Iran declare its enriched uranium stocks and grant the IAEA full access to verify them.

A draft text for the resolution has yet to be formally submitted to the board and negotiations between countries over the exact wording are ongoing, diplomats said. A draft is usually formally submitted early in the week of a board meeting. As a party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology, including enrichment, for peaceful purposes.

Iran says it would never produce nuclear weapons. It is, however, the only country to enrich to 60% without making a bomb. The amount it has enriched to that level is "a matter of serious concern" to the IAEA. The IAEA believes well over 200 kg of that highly enriched uranium has survived the bombardments and is held in a tunnel complex at Isfahan and at the Natanz facility.

Location: Jerusalem
strikeUnverifiedUSIranChina
1 source

The U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions on the Turkish bank Golden Global Yatirim Bankasi Anonim Sirketi, alleging it facilitated the transfer of Iranian oil revenues into cash and gold. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated these measures are part of "Operation Economic Outcast," an initiative launched following more than six months of conflict to pressure Iran.

Location: Iran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranEURussiaChinaUkraineHamas
1 source

Rabobank reported that geopolitical developments, including Russian statements regarding potential peace talks in Ukraine and US-Iran hostilities, continue to dominate market sentiment, though analysts noted these claims remain unverified. The bank also cited unconfirmed reports that South Korea may deploy forces to the Strait of Hormuz and that Israel has stated regime change in Tehran is a primary objective, while noting that Ukrainian media reports of an impending northern Russian offensive lack independent verification.

Location: Tehran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranRussiaUkraine
1 source

The White House is now apparently using Russian tactics to convince the American public that the war in Iran is not, in fact, a war. When asked by reporters at the White House on Thursday whether the most intense sustained air campaign by American forces since the invasion of Iraq would be over by the midterms, Vice President JD Vance replied: “I wouldn’t call it a war.

” Vladimir Putin said much the same thing when he invaded Ukraine. Russia was not fighting a war either, the Kremlin insisted; it was merely conducting a “special military operation.” If that comparison strikes you as shocking, consider the contours of the two conflicts.

A vastly more powerful military launched a punishing offensive against a smaller, less well-equipped adversary, inflicted enormous damage without achieving a decisive resolution, and then found itself drawn into a longer, grinding conflict with no clear way out.

The motivations behind the wars may be different, and they’re playing out in different theaters, but the pattern is eerily similar. Now, so too is the attempt by those in power to control how the public understands, and even what it is allowed to call, the obvious war unfolding in front of them.

If This Isn’t a War, What Is? Let us take a moment to assess what exactly has happened since February 28, when the U.S. launched Operation Epic Fury. The opening U.S.-Israeli attack killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, along with the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the defense minister and various other senior officials.

According to the U.S. military’s own accounting, the first 38 days of major combat operations involved more than 10,200 sorties and 13,500 strikes. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) says those attacks damaged or destroyed more than 85 percent of Iran’s ballistic missile, drone and naval defense industrial base, while knocking out 82 percent of its air-defense missile systems.

The U.S. sent carrier strike groups and warships into the region, later imposing a military blockade on Iranian ports. Meanwhile, American and allied air defenses intercepted more than 6,000 Iranian attack drones and 1,500 ballistic missiles fired at U.

S. forces, Israel and American partners across the Middle East. More than 50,000 U.S. service members remain deployed across the region. The fighting has killed 18 U.S. service members and at least 8,000 people across Iran, Lebanon, Israel and the Gulf states.

More than 750 U.S. service members have been wounded. Last month, during a lull in the fighting, the U.S. Treasury unveiled a sanctions package likened to an “economic D-day” that is designed to make Iran an “economic outcast” and cut the adversary off from all available forms of economic support.

In the announcement, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent openly declared that Iran had been “at war against America” for 47 years. This week, the shooting resumed; the U.S. hit targets in and around the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran blasted missiles at targets in Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan and Iraq.

All this from an administration that almost exactly a year ago launched a rapid rebrand of the Defense Department into the “Department of War”. No boots on the ground, though, so it’s not a war, right? Tell It Kind of Like It Is Even the very best snake-oil salesman would have a hard time convincing people that the war in Iran isn’t a war.

So why is JD Vance even trying? Well, if there’s one thing politicians understand better than anyone, it’s the importance of language and rhetoric. Words have immense power; a well-written speech can unite millions of people, and a catchy slogan like Make America Great Again can come to represent an entire political philosophy.

But war is a pesky word. For one, it implies there will eventually be a winner and a loser. It also brings with it certain expectations—and some very difficult questions. What is the objective? How many people will die? When will it end? And, perhaps most dangerously of all: was it worth it?

Those are not questions the White House wants Americans to be asking. Trump built a substantial part of his political identity around ending, rather than beginning, America’s “endless wars.” When Washington and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding in June, the White House presented it as proof that Trump’s America First approach could deliver peace without another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict.

Then the hostilities started again. Earlier this week, Trump shared a Truth Social graphic declaring that “Hormuz Oil Volumes are BACK!”, saying 18 million barrels a day were once again leaving the Strait, compared with 20 million before the war. No independent commodity tracking company or energy analyst appeared to verify Trump’s claims.

But most Americans won’t be checking tanker-tracking dashboards. What they’ll care about is the cold, hard fact that diesel hit a new record price this morning, soaring to an average of $5.85 a gallon for the first time ever. Gasoline is $4.15 a gallon on average, compared with $3.

20 at this time last year, according to AAA. The numbers on the sign at the gas station and the price on the grocery receipt aren’t affected by Trump’s tall tales, but they’ll surely affect how Americans vote at the midterms. When viewed in this light, Vance’s attempt to discourage reporters from “call[ing] it a war” begins to make sense.

A war is something that we want to end. It tends to result in a winner and a loser. And its worth is up for debate at all times. A different kind of engagement that doesn’t quite meet the threshold of war—say, a special military operation—is not exposed to the same kind of scrutiny.

Vance effectively made that case himself. “When you ask, ‘When will this end?’ You’re asking me a question like, ‘When will the Iranians stop shooting at ships?’” he said. By that logic, there is no American war—only recurring Iranian provocations that require American military responses.

That’s exactly the logic applied by Putin to Ukraine and supposed expansion of NATO. Putting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube U.S. lawmakers have repeatedly invoked the War Powers Resolution to challenge Trump’s authority to keep fighting Iran without specific congressional authorization.

The law generally gives a president 60 days after U.S. forces enter “hostilities” to secure congressional approval or bring those hostilities to an end. That makes the pauses in fighting hugely important. When the original 60-day deadline arrived in May, Trump told Congress that the temporary ceasefire reached in April meant the hostilities that began on February 28 had ended.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued that the War Powers clock could “pause, or stop” when the shooting did. That position is disputed by legal experts, but its political utility is obvious. If every new outbreak of fighting can be treated as a separate skirmish, rather than part of one continuous war, the administration can argue that a fresh 60-day clock starts each time.

Vance’s insistence that there is no continuing “war” fits neatly for an administration that has already tried to divide six months of conflict into separate periods of hostilities, interrupted by ceasefires and pauses. This brings us back to Moscow.

The Kremlin’s own linguistic trick was also about making one sprawling war sound smaller, more limited and more manageable than it really was. From the very beginning of the invasion, Putin described the war as a special military operation. Only after two years of grinding warfare did Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov openly declare Russia to be in a “state of war”—and even then, he said the transformation had occurred because the “collective West” had joined the fight against Russia.

Vance is playing a similar game, but in reverse. Only now—with soaring fuel prices, mounting casualties, concerns over the military’s munitions stockpiles, and midterm elections on the horizon—is the conflict no longer a war. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle, though, and the American people aren’t stupid.

Vance and the White House may discover in November that voters are perfectly capable of recognizing a war, even when the vice president doesn’t want to call it one.

Location: Iran