The Strait of Hormuz, which geography textbooks once described as the world’s artery, has become its most volatile maritime flashpoint today. It is where war, economics, politics - and, inevitably, definitions of legality - collide. The actions of the regime in Tehran in and around the strait have drawn global condemnation, not least because closing the strait amounts to a clear violation of a basic principle of international navigation: free passage.
We are witnessing a profound shift in the nature of global conflict- from how it is defined, to its duration, to its impact beyond the immediate parties, and even to how costs - human and economic - are calculated. The ways in which the concept of warfare itself is evolving are particularly striking; weapons are no longer judged solely by the capacity for destruction, but by their ability to impose costs.
Another feature of this transformation is the rise of cheap drones, cyberattacks carried out by small groups operating from remote locations with little more than an internet connection, and naval mines. These simple tools can be used to cause damage that ripples across the globe in the most literal sense.
Geoeconomic warfare defines the moment. The strongest card Tehran is playing in this second phase of confrontation is closing the Strait of Hormuz, which has become the center of global attention. Hardly anyone now speaks of “exporting the revolution”, proxy networks, or even enrichment levels, with the conversation almost entirely focused on this vital global passage that is so crucial to the global economy.
Is the weaponization of economics new? Hardly. As the economist and sociologist Albert O. Hirschman argued, the post-WWII global order effectively abandoned trade neutrality.
Today, however, the world faces a faster and more potent weapon: control over supply chains. Closing off the Strait of Hormuz tool has become more effective than traditional deterrence. Disruptions to maritime traffic have immediate consequences for energy, food, and technology markets. More importantly, they undermine the trust that underpins the global economic system.
Even more troubling, we are seeing an increasing militarization of the world’s critical chokepoints - its ports and maritime corridors - at a time when many countries are already facing economic strain and weakened state capacity. This combination inevitably fuels instability. At the same time, no country enjoys a degree of self-sufficiency that would make isolation viable. The world is simply too interconnected.
That is why rebuilding political and financial regulatory frameworks - whatever form they take - has become necessary for collective security. This requires new alliances among influential and capable states that foster integration, stability, and development rather than pursuing high-risk strategies, whose costs the world is now paying.
Recent actions by the American military are an effort to contain the situation without sliding back into full-fledged conflict. The United States Central Command has announced the deployment of destroyers into the Gulf as part of a broader mission to secure maritime routes and clear mines. In a noteworthy statement, Admiral Brad Cooper spoke of establishing safe corridors to ensure the continued flow of goods.
At the same time, asymmetric warfare has been Iran’s naval doctrine since the American attack that destroyed much of its fleet in a single day in 1988. Having given up on conventional naval competition, Tehran developed a strategy focused on disrupting commercial shipping. Its strategy exploits a structural vulnerability of global maritime traffic, generating instability without direct confrontation.
The Strait of Hormuz is now a test for the world. Can it act collectively to break Iran’s chokehold? The most viable path forward is coordinated institutional action by a coalition of the states concerned in cooperation with regional actors. Such an effort would offer an alternative to uncertain bets on negotiation, cyclic escalation, or acquiescence to intimidation that would risk normalizing “fees”, or even spoil-sharing if spoils were to be split.
