Iran is no longer using the Strait of Hormuz only as a crisis weapon. Tehran is trying to turn the waterway into a lasting source of political and economic leverage.
That shift should concern Washington and its Gulf partners. The Strait of Hormuz remains the world’s most important oil chokepoint. The US Energy Information Administration estimates that about 21 million barrels per day of crude oil and petroleum products moved through the strait in 2022, equal to roughly 21 percent of global petroleum liquids consumption. Around one-fifth of global LNG trade also passed through Hormuz.
For decades, Iran threatened to close Hormuz during confrontations with the United States. Yet Tehran usually avoided full closure because the strait also serves Iran’s own economy.
A complete blockade would damage Iranian exports, alienate Asian buyers, and likely trigger a stronger US military response. Iran now appears to be testing a different model: not total closure, but managed access.
This approach gives Tehran many of the benefits of disruption without the risks of outright blockade. Iran can slow traffic, raise uncertainty, increase insurance costs, and pressure energy-importing states while claiming it is merely “managing” maritime security.
That language matters. Iranian officials increasingly frame their actions in administrative terms: navigation services, environmental protection, and regional maritime coordination. Reuters, citing Nikkei, reported that Iran could reopen Hormuz about 30 days after a peace agreement, clear naval mines, and halt transit fees. The fact that reopening, mine clearance, and fees now appear in the same diplomatic discussion shows how Tehran has transformed access to Hormuz into a negotiating tool.
This is not traditional naval coercion. It is bureaucratic coercion at sea.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps does not need to sink ships to gain leverage. It can inspect them, delay them, redirect them, or force shipping firms to calculate whether crossing Hormuz now requires Iranian approval. That uncertainty alone influences markets.
Oil prices fell below $100 as expectations grew for a U.S.-Iran arrangement and possible reopening of the strait.
Iran understands that global markets respond not only to actual disruptions but also to uncertainty. A few delayed cargoes, higher insurance premiums, or unclear transit rules can raise costs far beyond the Gulf.
READ: Qatari mediation leads to Iran-US understanding on frozen funds
Tehran’s strategy also creates a hierarchy of access. Friendly states can receive smoother passage, while rivals face pressure and uncertainty. Neutral governments may seek direct understandings with Tehran rather than rely entirely on Washington. This allows Iran to reward alignment, pressure opponents, and present itself as the unavoidable gatekeeper of Gulf stability.
The Hormuz disruption has already forced energy importers to adapt. Reuters reported that India increased crude purchases from Latin America and Africa after instability affected Gulf supplies moving through Hormuz. Such adjustments weaken the assumption that markets will simply wait for US-led security guarantees. Countries under economic pressure often pursue temporary compromises instead.
That gives Iran room to maneuver. If Tehran keeps enough traffic flowing to avoid total collapse while retaining the ability to delay or condition passage, it can sustain leverage over time. This “managed instability” is more effective than a dramatic closure because it creates legal and diplomatic ambiguity. A total blockade invites a military response. Selective inspections, fees, and routing restrictions create confusion and hesitation. That ambiguity is part of the strategy.
Iran wants shipping companies, insurers, and regional governments to adapt gradually to Iranian oversight. Over time, temporary wartime measures can become routine operating conditions. Once that happens, Tehran will have achieved something more valuable than a short-term blockade: partial normalization of political control over an international waterway.
READ: Middle East nations ‘will no longer be shield’ for US bases, Iran’s supreme leader says
The United States should not mistake partial reopening for success. A deal that allows vessels to move again while leaving Iranian vetting, fees, or routing authority intact would not restore freedom of navigation. It would reward coercion and encourage future disruptions.
This is the central danger in any U.S.-Iran arrangement over Hormuz. Washington may want lower oil prices and short-term stability. Tehran may offer both, but only in exchange for recognition of its growing influence over Gulf shipping.
Gulf states should also be concerned. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Iraq all depend on secure maritime trade. Some possess alternative routes, but none can fully escape Hormuz’s strategic importance. If Iranian oversight becomes normalized, Gulf energy security will depend less on international maritime law and more on Tehran’s political calculations.
The consequences would extend beyond the Gulf. Other states could adopt similar tactics in contested waterways by using environmental rules, safety inspections, or selective enforcement to convert geography into political leverage. The result would be a more fragmented maritime order where chokepoints become bargaining tools.
Washington and its partners therefore need a clearer response. They should reject any arrangement that gives Iran a recognised gatekeeper role in Hormuz, strengthen sanctions enforcement against IRGC-linked maritime payments, and support Gulf efforts to diversify export routes and infrastructure.
Iran is not simply threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz. It is trying to redefine it: from an international waterway that must remain open into a zone where Tehran can grant, delay, price, or condition passage. That is the real normalization effort. If Washington treats this as a temporary inconvenience rather than a strategic shift, Iran will have turned wartime disruption into peacetime leverage.
OPINION: The UAE’s Fujairah bet: Export flexibility, energy security, and regional leverage
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.
