The Strait of Hormuz returns to the center of attention amid possible US intervention in Iran
The Strait of Hormuz is once again coming into focus as possible US intervention in Iran increases the risk that Tehran will disrupt one of the world’s most critical energy bottlenecks.
US President Donald Trump is considering a range of options against Iran, multiple media reports said on Sunday, as the country cracks down on nationwide protests.
Industry experts have warned that a military confrontation could prompt Iran to choke the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway that connects the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea and through which nearly a third of the world’s maritime crude oil flows.
“A disruption of the Strait of Hormuz could cause a global oil and gas crisis,” especially considering the “desperate and misguided steps the current Iranian regime could go” if it finds itself increasingly trapped with its power and lives on the line, said Saul Kavonic, head of energy research at MST Marquee.
About 13 million barrels of crude oil per day passed through the Strait of Hormuz in 2025, representing about 31% of global seaborne crude flows, according to data provided by market information company Kpler. The risk of blocking the waterway also emerged during the outbreak of violence between Washington and Tehran in June last year.
As Iran’s production and exports are much larger than Venezuela’s, the global market would inevitably feel greater ripple effects, said Muyu Xu, senior crude oil analyst at Kpler, adding that Chinese refiners may be forced to look for alternatives..
Unlike Venezuela, any military action involving Iran carries “significantly higher risks” given the volume of supply of crude and refined products and exposure to transit, said Bob McNally, president of Rapidan Energy Group, who estimates a 70 percent chance of U.S. selective strikes against Iran.
In an extreme escalation scenario, in which tankers are unable to pass or energy infrastructure is damaged, oil prices could rise by double digits, analysts said.
“The fear of a shutdown will cause the price of oil to rise by a few dollars a barrel, but it’s the complete closure of the strait that could cause a rise of $10 to $20 a barrel,” said Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates.
Kavonic predicts an “immediate rise in oil prices” following any US attack on Iran, but this rise will ease at the slightest sign of temporary disruption.
Global benchmark Brent last hovered around $63 a barrel, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate futures held steady at $59 a barrel.
Most analysts emphasize that any catastrophic outcome remains a low probability event.
While Iran can always threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz, it may not want to do so given the complexity of power dynamics in the region and may not have the capacity to completely close it given how the U.S. Navy patrols the region, Kpler’s Xu said.
Even if Iran attempted a temporary disruption, such as by harassing tankers or briefly blocking transit, the physical impact on supplies would be limited.
Kpler estimates that the oil market is currently leaning toward oversupply, with about 2.5 million barrels per day of oversupply in January and more than 3 million barrels per day in February and March.
Additionally, any closure will likely be met with a show of force from the United States and its allies to restore flows, Kavonic said.
However, experts have cautioned against drawing direct parallels between Iran and Venezuela, where the Trump administration used sanctions and seizures to pressure the Venezuelan regime, before capturing President Nicolas Maduro.
It would be very difficult for the United States to adopt a strategy toward Iran similar to that of Venezuela, because Iran is far from American soil and the geopolitical situation in the Middle East is much more complex than in Latin America, Xu said. “Moreover, Trump’s priority currently appears to be consolidating American power in the Western Hemisphere.”
Lipow echoed this view, saying a Venezuela-style strategy in Iran would more likely involve sanctions and enforcement rather than military occupation or attacks on infrastructure.
