The Strait of Hormuz is a vital route for oil. Closing it could backfire on Iran
The U.S. military's strike on three sites in Iran over the weekend has raised questions about how its military might respond.
The Strait of Hormuz is between Oman and Iran, which boasts a fleet of fast-attack boats and thousands of naval mines as well as missiles that it could use to make the strait impassable, at least for a time.
Iran's main naval base at Bandar Abbas is on the north coast of the strait. It could also fire missiles from its long Persian Gulf shore, as its allies, Yemen's Houthi rebels, have done in the Red Sea.
About 20 million barrels of oil per day, or around 20% of the world's oil consumption, passed through the strait in 2024. Most of that oil goes to Asia.
Here is a look at the waterway and its impact on the global economy:
An energy highway in a volatile region
The strait connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. It's only 33 kilometers (21 miles) wide at its narrowest point, but deep enough and wide enough to handle the world's largest crude oil tankers.
Oil that passes through the strait comes from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, and Bahrain, while major supplies of liquefied natural gas come from Qatar. At its narrowest point, the sea lanes for tankers lie in Omani waters, and before and after that cross into Iranian territory.
While some global oil chokepoints can be circumvented by taking longer routes that simply add costs, that's not an option for most of the oil moving through the strait.
That's because the pipelines that could be used to carry the oil on land, such as Saudi Arabia's East-West pipeline, they don't have nearly enough capacity. 'Most volumes that transit the strait have no alternative means of exiting the region,' according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Closing the Strait of Hormuz would send oil prices massively higher — at least at first
If Iran blocked the strait, oil prices could shoot as high as $120-$130 per, at least temporarily, said Homayoun Falakshahi, head of crude oil analyst at Kpler, in an online webinar Sunday.
That would deal an inflationary shock to the global economy — if it lasted. Analysts think it wouldn't.
Asia would be directly impacted because 84% of the oil moving through the strait is headed for Asia; top destinations are China, India, Japan and South Korea. China gets 47% of its seaborne oil from the Gulf. China, however, has an oil inventory of 1.1 billion barrels, or 2 1/2 months of supply.
U.S. oil customers would feel the impact of the higher prices but would not lose much supply. The U.S. imported only about 7% of its oil from Persian Gulf countries through the strait in 2024, according to the USEIA. That was the lowest level in nearly 40 years.
Iran has good reasons not to block the strait
Closing the strait would cut off Iran's own oil exports. While Iran does have a new terminal under construction at Jask, just outside the strait, the new facility has loaded oil only once and isn't in a position to replace the strait, according to Kpler analysts.
Closure would hit China, Iran's largest trading partner and only remaining oil customer, and harm its oil-exporting Arab neighbors, who are at least officially supporting it in its war with Israel.
And it would mean blocking Oman's territorial waters, offending a country that has served as a mediator between the U.S. and Iran.
The US would likely intervene to reopen the strait
Any price spike would probably not last. One big reason: Analysts expect that the U.S. Navy would intervene to keep the strait open. In the 1980s, U.S. warships escorted Kuwaiti oil tankers through the strait to protect them against Iranian attacks during the Iran-Iraq war.
A price spike 'wouldn't last very long' and the strait would likely be reopened 'very fast,' said Kpler's Falakshahi.
U.S. use of force to reopen the strait would likely be supported by Europe and 'even unofficially by China,' he said. 'Iran's navy would probably get destroyed in a matter of hours or days.'
David Mchugh, The Associated Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
29 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump showed moral clarity on Iran. He should do the same for Ukraine.
On June 19, facing pressure to join in Israel's bombing campaign against Iran, President Donald Trump announced, 'I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks.' Cynics assumed this was yet another example of the president putting off a difficult decision indefinitely. 'TACO,' some said, employing a popular acronym for 'Trump Always Chickens Out.' The doubters were wrong. Two days later, U.S. bombs and missiles hit three Iranian nuclear sites. Though there has been much debate over just how much damage the Iranian nuclear program suffered, at least one thing now seems clear: Trump meant it went he said that Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism that has vowed 'death to Israel,' would not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. If only the president had the same moral clarity about stopping the barbaric war being waged in Ukraine by Iran's despotic ally, Russia. When it comes to that conflict, however, Trump appears to be engaged in exactly the kind of irresolute policy that many (wrongly) suspected he was pursuing with Iran. On May 28, Trump was asked by a reporter whether Russian dictator Vladimir Putin wants to end the war. He replied: 'I can't tell you that, but I'll let you know in about two weeks. … We're going to find out whether or not he's tapping us along or not, and if he is, we'll respond a little bit differently.' More than a month later, Trump isn't doing anything differently even as Russia shows no sign of ending its aggression. Every week seems to bring fresh reports of Russian airstrikes on Ukrainian cities that are described as the largest since the war began. Over the weekend, Russia fired 537 aerial weapons, including 60 missiles, at Ukraine, primarily at civilian targets. Some Ukrainians are now going to sleep with whistles around their necks to make it easier to find them if they are buried under rubble by a Russian attack. Trump has repeatedly insisted that, if he had been president in 2022, Putin would never have invaded Ukraine. But since Trump returned to office this year, Putin's attacks have surged — and Trump hasn't done anything about it. Russia's summer offensive appears stalled, despite the country's large numerical advantage in troops, but Ukrainian cities are suffering more damage from Russian drone and missile strikes amid fears that Ukrainian air defenses are being depleted. In April, Trump beseeched Putin: 'Vladimir, STOP!' Vladimir hasn't stopped, yet Trump does not appear to be applying pressure to back up his words. Instead, at the Group of Seven summit in Canada recently, Trump complained about Russia's expulsion from the group. He apparently continues to speak regularly and cordially with Putin, who has been indicted as a war criminal by the International Criminal Court and is a pariah throughout the West. And the Trump administration continues to block legislation, with more than 80 sponsors, that would impose tariffs of 500 percent on any nations that buy Russia's energy products. Admittedly, there is a case to be made, as Post columnist Jim Geraghty recently noted, that this well-intentioned bill is impractical: Are we really willing to cut off all U.S. trade (which is what a 500 percent tariff would mean) with important international partners, including India, Turkey, Brazil, the European Union and South Korea, if they don't stop buying Russian energy? But it isn't as if Trump is doing anything else to turn up the heat on the Kremlin; since returning to office, he has not imposed any additional sanctions on Russia, thereby allowing existing sanctions to become less effective. Two other possible courses of action would be more effective and produce less collateral damage: providing Ukraine with badly needed air defense ammunition and other munitions while pressuring European countries to release to Ukraine the $300 billion in frozen Russian assets. Ukraine already produces about 40 percent of the weapons it uses on the front lines. With that influx of Russian funds, Ukraine could dramatically expand defense production and become more self-sufficient with weapons. That would send a strong signal to Putin that he might as well make a deal, because he is never going to achieve his objective of turning Ukraine into a Kremlin satrapy. Of even greater immediate impact would be additional deliveries of Patriot air defense interceptors. The Patriot is the most advanced air defense system in Ukraine and the Ukrainians' only effective means of shooting down ballistic missiles, but, more than a year after the last U.S. aid package was approved, Ukrainian stockpiles are dwindling. Last week, Trump said, 'We're going to see if we can make some available,' but there is no indication that his administration is doing so. Instead, the Pentagon this week halted further military aid, supposedly because U.S. stockpiles were running low. President Volodymyr Zelensky in recent months has done everything Trump wanted, from supporting an immediate ceasefire to signing a minerals deal with Washington. Putin would not even agree to a temporary ceasefire. And yet Trump is essentially punishing Ukraine and rewarding Russia. Having failed to end the Ukraine war in 24 hours — as he repeatedly promised on the campaign trail — Trump now seems ready to wash his hands of the conflict. He has hinted that he might step back from the frustrating peace talks, which would mean allowing Putin to wage war without repercussions. Trump has even compared the two sides to 'two young children fighting like crazy': 'Sometimes you're better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart.' Such comments suggest Trump is guilty of moral myopia about the war in Ukraine — quite a contrast to the moral clarity he displayed about the Iranian nuclear program. Ukraine and Russia are not toddlers squabbling on the playground over inconsequential stakes. Ukraine is a pro-Western democracy that is the victim of an unprovoked war of aggression launched by an anti-American dictator. There is no moral equivalence between the sides; the war is as pure an example of good vs. evil as the modern world has seen. If Russia wins, all of Europe will be endangered, and other aggressors such as China will be emboldened. That makes aid to Ukraine — leading to a peace settlement that safeguards its sovereignty — a moral and strategic imperative for the United States. Trump just doesn't get it, and Ukraine could wind up paying a heavy price for his shortsightedness.
CNBC
30 minutes ago
- CNBC
Guard against market volatility in the second half with ‘boring' stocks, investor Jeff Kilburg says
Investors may find "boring" stocks a safer bet heading into the second half of the year, according to Jeff Kilburg, founder and CEO of KKM Financial. Markets were plagued by heightened volatility at the end of the first quarter and the start of the second, as fear and uncertainty stemming from President Donald Trump's trade war spread. Stocks reached their lows of the year in early April, shortly after Trump announced his universal tariff policies. While stocks have recovered their losses since then — with the S & P 500 closing Wednesday 25% above its April closing low — Kilburg warned that volatility may not ease up for the reminder of 2025. In fact, he believes that the market is entering a new volatility regime and may continue to be sensitive to any type of geopolitical tensions. Kilburg pointed to the market's knee-jerk reaction to the Israel-Iran conflict as proof. "I think investor attention and needing to monitor your investments has never been more needed," he told CNBC in a recent interview. With volatility lingering at elevated levels, Kilburg believes that now is the time for investors to reposition themselves into the more defensive, blue-chip stocks that were sold off in April. "Some of these names that get no love on CNBC air waves, those are blue-chip industrial names that we've seen people tilt back into," he said. "The ripple effect that has happened after that really tumultuous couple of weeks is that people really want to own names that they know. They want to own names that they can touch and feel, and those are kind of the boring names." These more "boring," blue-chip stalwarts could help hedge against any upcoming uncertainty, Kilburg added, and may be why investors are again favoring industrial stocks. "That's why people have gotten a little more defensive, because honestly, we don't know what President Trump is going to say next. We don't know what his policy or ambition is next," he said. "Investors being uncertain of what shoe could potentially drop next, that has kind of made portfolios tilt more industrial, more defensive." Kilburg's top stock picks One name Kilburg likes that belongs to this category is Duke Energy . The electric and power stock has rallied nearly 9% this year, not including its 3.5% yield. Last week, Goldman Sachs upgraded its rating on Duke. "We raise Duke Energy from Neutral to Buy as the stock has lagged more defensive peers YTD and is making regulatory progress towards building significant generation that is not captured at current levels in our view," wrote analyst Carly Davenport. The bank's new price target of $132, lifted from $125, represents upside of approximately 13% from Duke Energy's Wednesday close. Another name Kilburg highlighted was Waste Management , which has gained 11% in 2025. Last month, Melius Research analyst Rob Wertheimer initiated coverage of the stock with a buy rating, highlighting its "stable growth in a chaotic world." "Despite the market's growing appreciation for the quality of these industry leaders, we think there's more outperformance to come in both the short and long run, from lower risk, less downside to earnings, and higher growth," he wrote. "While relative multiples are roughly in line with historical levels, we think the premium deserved now is larger than in the past." Kilburg also mentioned Visa , up TK% this year. In June, Mizuho upgraded the credit card issuer to an outperform rating from neutral. "We see more reason for optimism as the remaining cash-to-card runway in the U.S. is longer than previously expected (we est. true U.S. card penetration at ~75% vs. 80-90% consensus). This leaves room for another decade of solid top-line growth domestically," wrote Mizuho analyst Dan Dolev. "Plus, V's performance in Canada & Nordics offers evidence of above-PCE growth, even when card penetration is > 90%." In the same note, Dolev lifted his price target to $425 per share from $359. This updated forecast represents a TK% upside from Visa's Wednesday closing price. Other names Kilburg highlighted include Costco , Verizon , JPMorgan , Masco , CVS , Comcast , Nutrien and Sysco .
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Israel showed that seizing air superiority isn't gone from modern warfare, but Iran isn't China or Russia
Military officials and experts warn that air superiority may not be possible in modern warfare. Israel, however, was able to quickly achieve it against Iran. Iran, though capable, isn't bringing the same fight that a foe like Russia or China could. Israel swiftly seized air superiority over parts of Iran during the latest fight, showing that it's still possible in modern, higher-end warfare to heavily dominate an enemy's skies. But there's a risk in taking the wrong lesson from that win. Iran isn't Russia or China, and as the West readies for potential near-peer conflict, it really can't afford to forget that, officials and experts have cautioned. Western military officials and warfare experts have repeatedly warned in recent years that achieving air superiority against those countries would be a daunting task. Russia and China, especially the latter, boast sophisticated, integrated air defense networks with ground-based interceptors well supported by capable air forces, electronic warfare, and reliable space-based and airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. Air superiority in a limited theater is not the same as breaking through a complex anti-access, area-denial setup. Israel's victory in the air war over Iran shows that air superiority is "not impossible" in modern warfare, former Australian Army Maj. Gen. Mick Ryan, a warfare strategist, explained. That said, he continued, a Western conflict with Russia or China would be "very different." Israel attacked nuclear and military sites in Iran in bombing runs and eliminated dozens of Iranian air defense batteries. Justin Bronk, an airpower expert at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), said it "highlights what you can do with a modern air force against some, on paper, fairly impressive defenses." Iran maintained a capable layered air defense network featuring domestic systems, foreign-supplied defenses, and some modernized older systems. Though only semi-integrated compared to fully networked air defenses, it presented an obstacle. Israel dismantled Iranian defenses over multiple engagements through extensive planning, detailed intelligence, and the employment of combat-proven airpower, specifically fifth-generation F-35 stealth fighters built for penetration and suppression of enemy air defenses and fourth-generation F-15s and F-16s, which can also support that mission. Important to Israel's success in the latest fight with Iran were the engagements last year that substantially weakened Iranian air defense capabilities, as well as Israel's skills in this mission. Failures and aircraft losses in the 1973 Yom Kippur War led it to reevaluate how it approached enemy air defenses, in many ways leading to the emergence of the kind of missions used against Iran. Ed Arnold, a security expert at RUSI, said that Israel reporting no aircraft losses "was significant, and it just showed that, yeah, you can get air supremacy very quickly." The caveat there is that doing so requires the right tactics, weapons, and intelligence, but even then, it is not guaranteed. Retired Air Commodore Andrew Curtis, an airfare expert with a 35-year career in the Royal Air Force, told BI "the situation that everybody's been used to over the last 30 years is air supremacy," but when it comes to high-intensity war against a near-peer adverary, realistically, "those days are long gone." Iran had air defenses, but not airpower. It's air force is largely made up of obsolete Western, Soviet, and Chinese aircraft. The ground-based surface-to-air missile batteries are more capable, but that's only one part of the defensive picture. Curtis explained that Iran has "very little in the way of air defense aircraft, whereas of course Russia, and especially China, has stacks of them." Both Russia and China field fourth-generation-plus aircraft, as well as fifth-generation fighters. China, in particular, has multiple fifth-gen fighters in various stages of development, and there are indications it's working on sixth-generation prototypes. By comparison, Iran's air force looks a lot like a plane museum. But they also boast more advanced and more effective air defenses. Bronk said Russia's defenses are "better networked, more capable, more numerous, and more densely layered than Iran's." He said that if the West rolled back the SAM threat, it would likely be able to overcome Russia's air force, but China is a different story. China has a complex integrated air defense network supported by ground-based air defenses, naval air defenses, and what Bronk characterized as "an increasingly very capable modern air force," among other capabilities. And China also has a "far greater and more sophisticated missile arsenal for striking bases" to hamstring an enemy's airpower. Additionally, it holds a strong economic position with an industrial base that is turning out high-end weapons. China has also been tremendously increasing its number of interceptors without really expending any, unlike the US, which has been burning through interceptors in Middle Eastern conflicts. Not all of China has the same protections, but breaking through defenses would likely represent a substantial challenge in a conflict, especially in something like a Taiwan contingency. A conflict between the West and China could look like "a more traditional air war" — something not seen in a long time, Curtis said, explaining that air-to-air combat could make a comeback, with pilots again shooting down enemy planes. "In a peer-on-peer conflict, certainly with China, you would see a lot of that, because China has got a lot of air assets." Achieving air superiority, as Israel did recently and as the US did in the Gulf War in the 1990s and in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2000s, has been crucial to the Western way of war, often serving as a tool to enable ground maneuvers. Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which failed to knock out Ukraine's air defenses, now far more robust than at the start of the war, has shown what a conflict looks like when it isn't achieved. Aircraft are shot out of the sky, and ground forces are locked in grinding slogs. Devastating long-range attacks are still possible, but quick victory is generally not. It has resulted in some stark warnings for future warfare. Speaking on air superiority, Gen. James Hecker, the commander of NATO's air command, warned last year that "it's not a given." He added that "if we can't get air superiority, we're going to be doing the fight that's going on in Russia and Ukraine right now." Other military leaders have said that air superiority may only be achieved in short bursts. War is full of surprises, but evidence indicates that's a real possibility. Achieving Curtis said air planners now have to focus on specific priorities, like protecting air bases, and figuring out how to achieve a "localized time-bound air superiority or air supremacy in support of a short-term mission or operation." "It's a different mindset," he said. The key in future wars will be to seize control of as much of the aerial battlespace as possible to do what's necessary in the moment, all while holding firm defensively, as Israel did against Iran's retaliatory ballistic missile strikes, experts said. That means maintaining a strong air force and strong air defenses. "Nothing in Ukraine or Israel has shown that air superiority isn't needed in the future," Ryan shared. "I think they've both shown that having air superiority is an extraordinarily important part of warfare and remains so. Read the original article on Business Insider
