Assessing the aftermath of Strait of Hormuz shutdown

Solly Rakgomo | Monday May 18, 2026 06:00

The Strait is not just a waterway; it is the heart of the global energy system. If it were to fully shut down, the effects would not be limited to oil markets or the region's geopolitics. It would disrupt the reasoning behind globalisation itself. The world's oil supply is estimated to pass through this area, accounting for about a fifth of the total of around 20 million barrels daily, and a significant portion of global liquefied natural gas (LNG). However, it is not only their magnitude that can be important. It is a fact that the contemporary global economy has been constructed on the premise that such flows are continuous, predictable, and politically controllable. The complete shutdown of the Strait refutes the assumption in its most fundamental form. The fall of so-called invisible stability Over the decades, the international energy systems have operated on what could be referred to as invisible stability, namely, the assumption that the flow of energy resources is given. Oil moves between producers and consumers with minimal interruption, enabling industries, governments, and societies to plan confidently.

This illusion would be broken if the Strait of Hormuz were closed. Markets are not mere supply-and-demand mechanisms; they are structures that operate through expectations. The effect of such an act of a chokepoint is not only physical but also a psychological shock when such a large-scale chokepoint is closed. The prices are not only higher because supply is lower, but there is also a loss of certainty. Under such circumstances, volatility is a market characteristic. This is why the threat of disruption in the Strait traditionally causes oil prices to rise. The outright closure would signify much deeper: the disappearance of predictability. A shock beyond oil Although it can be said that oil is the nerve of the argument, the shutdown of the Strait would reveal a greater weakness of the systems around the world. The contemporary economy is intertwined, and energy serves as a base on which other industries rely.

The transit of ships along the Strait also brings with it petrochemicals, fertilizers, and other industrial inputs, which are subsequently used in manufacturing and farming across the world. When these flows are disturbed, the effects spread. Consider agriculture. The Gulf's exports have been used to obtain fertilizers that are essential to global food production. The effects of a supply break could include decreased crop production, increased food prices, and pressure on food-importing countries. Therefore, a shipwreck at sea becomes a food security problem thousands of miles away. Likewise, manufacturing industries that depend on petrochemical derivatives, such as plastics, pharmaceuticals, and electronics, would be shorted and face price increases. The shutting down of one chokepoint, therefore, has a ripple effect on industries, and this example shows how closely contemporary economies are intertwined. The geography of dependence The shock does not occur in all the regions equally. The Strait of Hormuz would be closed, and the world’s vulnerability would be redrawn. Asia turns out to be the most vulnerable area. China, India, Japan, and South Korea rely more on the Gulf’s energy sources. To most of these economies, the Strait is not merely a significant route; it is a major route. An interruption compels them to fight over other available supplies, which in most cases cost them much more. Europe is experiencing another problem.

Europe is less dependent on Gulf oil than Asia, but imports LNG in the region, specifically Qatar LNG. The low gas supply may put pressure on energy systems, particularly during peak demand. Developing economies are the worst hit. These nations have few financial resources to absorb rising energy prices. The inflation rate, currency pressure, and fiscal deficit can rapidly rise, and an energy shock can be transformed into a broader economic crisis. This skewed distribution of the effect reveals one important fact: global interdependence does not mean that we are all equally resilient. The illusion of alternatives When talking about the Strait of Hormuz, one is likely to refer to alternative paths and emergency measures. In the case of pipelines in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, they can, in part, circumvent the Strait. These alternatives, however, tell more of the constraints of global infrastructure than its elasticity.

A pipeline’s capacity is limited and cannot be compared to the amount that can be carried by the maritime routes. Strategic reserves are only a short-term solution and cannot be permanent. Renewable energy is a promising prospect; however, the transition process will take time and cannot replace large-scale oil and gas flows immediately. The shutdown of the Strait consequently reveals a structural limit: the world energy system is not resilient but optimised for efficiency. It depends on some cardinal chokepoints, rendering it susceptible to interference. Turning an energy crisis into a systemic crisis The greatest consequence of an absolute shutdown is not the shock in the economy but the change it may bring in the long run. In the past, structural changes have occurred due to major disruptions in energy. Such occurrences as the oil crises of the 1970s encouraged shifts in the energy policy, the rise of efficiency, and the creation of strategic reserves.

The same would happen with a Strait of Hormuz closure, but on a significantly greater scale. To start with, it would accelerate the shift toward energy diversification. Nations would more aggressively strive to become less reliant on single routes or suppliers and invest in renewable energy, nuclear power, and other supply chains. Second, it may transform international trade. It could lead to the emergence of new transport corridors, pipeline networks, and regional energy markets as states seek to reduce their exposure to chokepoints. Third, it can also affect the strategic thinking concerning globalization itself. It would reevaluate the notion that economic interdependence would ensure stability. Rather, resilience and redundancy can be the key priorities in the economic planning. The politics of interdependence The shutdown of the Strait also reveals more tension in the world connected with globalisation: the interdependence and weakness that coexist. On the one hand, international trade and energy networks are interdependent, stimulating collaboration between states.

Alternatively, they focus risk on certain nodes known to be sensitive to disruption, such as the Strait of Hormuz, which can have disproportionate impacts. This two-sidedness is that the stability of the global system does not rely solely on economic factors but also on political coordination. States must cooperate to maintain open and secure trade routes, even when tensions are high. In this context, the Strait of Hormuz is not just a geographical place. It is an examination of the international system's capacity to address common vulnerabilities collectively. In summation, closing the Strait of Hormuz would not merely interfere with the circulation of oil—it would interfere with the reasoning of a world system based on constant interconnection. It would be a change agent by showing the vulnerabilities inherent in the energy networks and supply chains. The short-term consequences, which include price increases, supply shortages, and economic strain, are not the only ones. What is more profound is the reaction of the states and markets to the shock