ConflictClarifier

Rastreador de la Crisis Irán-Golfo 2026
CC
Events Archive
strikeMar 14, 2026

The Strait of Hormuz has always had a problem. So where are the alternatives?

Summary

The Strait of Hormuz has always had a problem. So where are the alternatives? Of all the risks the global energy system has long faced, none was bigger or better known than the potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The narrow passageway out of the Persian Gulf is both vital – serving as the only gateway to the rest of the world for huge amounts of oil and natural gas – and extremely vulnerable to attacks. But despite being widely recognised as a potential choke point, the strait remains the only way to export most of the energy produced in the region. That has come into sharp relief heading into the third week of the war in the Middle East, as the near-closure of the waterway sent oil prices soaring above $US100 a barrel for the first time in almost four years. The reason there is no true alternative comes down to a combination of geography, political tensions and economic competition among the region’s oil powers. There have been efforts to circumvent the strait, notably by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. But the pipelines through those countries can carry only a small fraction of the energy produced in the Persian Gulf. For many other energy-producing countries in the region, the only way to avoid the strait would be to lay a pipeline across a neighbouring country – an expensive and politically fraught endeavour. Take Qatar, one of the world’s biggest natural gas exporters. Its only land border is with Saudi Arabia, a country that cut off diplomatic ties and closed that border during a regional spat resolved five years ago. Plus, any pipeline would itself be vulnerable to Iranian attacks. “There’s nothing which is totally secure here,” said John Browne, a former CEO of the London-based oil giant BP, once known as the Anglo-Iranian oil company. “In the end, someone with bad intention can do all sorts of things to oil and gas infrastructure.” Some oil analysts also assumed that, if the time came, the United States, which has a keen interest in keeping energy markets stable, would use its military might to keep the strait passable. “There always has been the nightmare scenario, but it seemed to be a scenario that was not very likely,” said Daniel Yergin, a Pulitzer Prize-winning energy historian and vice chair of the research firm S&P Global. “The diversification or security came from the fact that the consumers would be there to protect the oil.” But in this case, the United States, acting with Israel, instigated the conflict by attacking Iran on February 28. While President Donald Trump has floated the possibility of providing US naval escorts for oil and gas tankers, he has not followed through so far. With Iran attacking vessels and refineries, oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz have fallen to less than 10 per cent of their prewar levels, according to the International Energy Agency. And Qatar, the region’s gas-exporting powerhouse, has not been cooling natural gas for shipment since the early days of the war. As a result, oil, natural gas and other commodities are stuck. Some countries are putting more fuel in storage tanks, but those are running out of room. That is forcing countries to cut back. Within little more than a week, oil production collectively fell by several millions of barrels a day in Iraq, Kuwait, the Emirates and Saudi Arabia, according to estimates from the research firm Rystad Energy. All told, countries across the region slashed production by at least 10 million barrels of oil a day by Tuesday — around 10 per cent of global supply — according to the IEA. Companies are also turning much less oil into fuels like gasoline, diesel and jet fuel as they shut down refineries or operate them at lower levels. “It doesn’t matter where the price of oil gets. If you can’t sell any oil, you might as well keep it under the ground,” said Shwan Ibrahim Taha, chair of Iraqi bank Rabee Securities. The six fossil-fuel-rich countries of the Gulf — Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and Bahrain — belong to a loose union called the Gulf Cooperation Council, but cooperation is often lacking. Leaders have talked about building a unified passenger and freight rail system for more than a decade to little avail. Building a shared system for exporting energy would be substantially more fraught and unlikely to surmount political and economic hurdles. In recent years, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the two most powerful countries in the region, have often been at odds, pursuing different oil policies and backing different parties in armed conflicts around the region, including in Yemen, a poor war-torn country that has a long border with Saudi Arabia and sits at the opening of the Red Sea. More than a quarter of the oil typically exported via the Strait of Hormuz in the form of either crude or fuels like diesel is still able to get out, the IEA estimated. That is because the UAE built a short pipeline from Abu Dhabi to Fujairah that started operating in 2012, circumventing the Strait of Hormuz, though Iran has targeted facilities on both ends. The biggest alternative is Saudi Arabia’s conduit to the Red Sea, which opened in the 1980s during what came to be known as the “tanker wars” between Iran and Iraq. The pipeline can carry up to 7 million barrels of oil a day. But with 2 million barrels headed to refineries within the kingdom, only about 5 million barrels a day of capacity is available to oil that otherwise would be shipped through the strait, Amin H. Nasser, CEO of Saudi Aramco, said this past week. “Immediately, as the Strait of Hormuz starts closing, we ramped up production through the East-West pipeline,” he said. Nasser separately warned that global oil markets would face “catastrophic consequences” without access to the strait. Iran has also managed to move some oil through the strait on tankers, frustrating UAE officials. “How come they are allowed to sell, while we are deprived from selling?” asked Nadim Koteich, an Emirati Lebanese commentator who is close to the UAE government. The end result is that “someone is picking up the tab” from the war’s disruptions, “and that’s us” — even after the UAE invested in contingency plans, like its pipeline, he added. On Friday (US Time), Trump said the United States attacked military sites on Kharg Island, Iran’s main hub for exporting oil, but had spared oil infrastructure on the island “for reasons of decency.” Even if the war ends with a severely weakened Iran, insurgents could emerge to attack shipping through the strait, putting the lives of sailors and valuable ships and cargo at risk. Yemen’s Iranian-backed Houthi militia has done just that in the Red Sea over the past few years. At relatively little expense, the group was able to significantly disrupt global shipping through that passage to the Mediterranean Sea via the Suez Canal. How countries respond to the “nightmare scenario” of a near-closure of the Strait of Hormuz, as Yergin put it – including whether they decide to build more pipelines – will depend partly on how long the waterway remains impassable. Even once it becomes safe to sail the strait again, it is likely to take weeks or months for oil production to reach prewar levels, the IEA has said. “What people have been warning about has finally happened,” said Majid Jafar, CEO of Crescent Petroleum, an oil and gas producer based in the UAE. “We’ll have to see how the world adjusts.” This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Get a note directly from our foreign correspondents on what’s making headlines around the world. Sign up for our weekly What in the World newsletter.

Actors involved

USIranIsraelProxy

Sources

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