Share Story
AMMAN — In a dramatic escalation of US–Iran tensions, Iran’s parliament approved binding measures to close the Strait of Hormuz, subject to final approval by the Supreme National Security Council, following recent U.S. strikes on its nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi stated on X: “In accordance with the UN Charter and its provisions allowing a legitimate response in self-defence, Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interests, and people.” Revolutionary Guards Commander Esmail Kosari stated to local media: “It will be done whenever necessary.”
Strategic importance of the strait
The Strait of Hormuz, situated between Iran and Oman, spans just 33 kilometres at its narrowest point, with shipping lanes approximately 3 km wide in each direction. It serves as the world’s most critical maritime chokepoint, carrying nearly 20 million barrels of oil and around 20 percent of global LNG (liquefied natural gas) trade daily. Major Gulf producers such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Iraq, Kuwait, and Qatar rely heavily on this route.
Lessons from history
Despite repeated threats, Iran has historically refrained from fully closing the strait. During the 1980s Tanker War, Iran employed mines and missile attacks but kept Hormuz open. In the 1988 U.S. retaliation of Operation Praying Mantis, mining incidents did not lead to a prolonged blockade. Similarly, threats in the 2011–12 sanctions era caused temporary spikes in oil prices but were forestalled by a multinational naval presence. Economist Julian Lee of Bloomberg warns that while Iran “could make Hormuz dangerous to pass,” a complete blockade would “destabilise the global economy” and significantly damage Iran’s own exports.
Economic and regional fallout
A closure would resonate well beyond the Gulf. Brent crude prices surged over 10 percent in June, climbing past US $77 per barrel, with analysts forecasting a further immediate increase of US $3–$5—and up to US $130 in worst-case scenarios. Asian importers such as China, India, Japan, and South Korea—which collectively account for more than 80 percent of crude oil transiting through Hormuz, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration—would be severely affected. India, for example, has already begun diversifying its oil import routes to reduce reliance on Hormuz.
Jordan, which imports over 90 percent of its total energy needs via the Red Sea port of Aqaba and through land-based natural gas pipelines, would feel the impact indirectly. Rising global oil and LNG prices would likely increase domestic costs for fuel and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). This inflationary pressure would burden households, strain subsidies, and challenge public finances.
Iran’s dilemma
Iran’s threats serve as a strategic deterrent, but executing a full blockade would carry serious repercussions. In an interview with Fox News, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said: “If they [close the Strait]… it will be economic suicide for them. And we retain options to deal with that, but other countries should be looking at that as well. It would hurt other countries’ economies a lot worse than ours.” Rubio also urged China to pressure Tehran not to proceed with their threat.
Conclusion
Iran’s endorsement of a possible closure underscores a high-stakes deterrent strategy, yet history, economic self-interest, and naval realities suggest full execution is unlikely. Nonetheless, even short-term disruptions at Hormuz could ripple across global markets—inflating energy and food prices and imposing substantial financial strain on energy-importing Arab countries.