There is a growing view that the disruption of the Strait of Hormuz, as a strategy by Iran amid the war, is affecting countries that have nothing to do with its ongoing conflict with US and Israel. The strait, which carries roughly 20–25 per cent of global oil traffic and other goods, has become a central flashpoint of the war. Analysts, officials, the shipping and freight industries, and even US allies are explicitly arguing that the strait’s security and Iran’s leverage over it should be treated as a distinct issue, separate from the joint US-Israeli military campaign against Iran.No amount of US or allied attempts to secure the strait by military means is likely to be sustainable. Air or naval strikes, warship or coastguard escorts, or coalition-building efforts would not fully wrest control. Iran will still maintain some level of disruption capacity due to the advantages of geography, asymmetric capabilities, and the nature of commercial risks associated with the chokepoint.<h2>Nobody wants to ‘shift the war to the Strait of Hormuz’</h2>European allies of the US, such as Germany’s Defence Minister Boris Pistorius, along with countries including the UK, France, Canada, India and China, have either refused or diluted calls for warship coalitions to escort tankers. Such participation, they feel, would entangle them in the war while not securing their energy needs.There is a perception that the war has “shifted to the Strait of Hormuz” in recent days. However, Hormuz is not just a military issue. International bodies treat safe passage as a global shipping concern, not the responsibility of any single belligerent in the war. The International Maritime Organization has stated that naval escorts alone cannot guarantee the safety of vessels passing through, particularly without Iranian cooperation.Many believe that the strait crisis should not be allowed to escalate or become an extension of the war.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/saudi-arabia-has-offered-alternative-to-strait-of-hormuz-but-there-s-a-problem-1773669907156">Saudi Arabia has offered alternative to Strait of Hormuz - but there's a problem</a><h2>Navies or militaries cannot take Hormuz control away from Iran</h2>Several shipping, freight and oil industry executives, regional experts, military planners and officials are of the view that Iran has enduring leverage over the strait, having influenced traffic through it for decades.Iran borders the narrow strait, which is only about 21 miles wide at its narrowest point. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) can conduct mine-laying and has demonstrated the ability to launch drone or missile strikes, or engage in swarm tactics using fast boats from the sea or shore.These capabilities remain cheap, dispersed and quickly replaceable. Mines and coastal threats persist even after US strikes significantly degraded Iranian naval assets.Military escorts and naval presence are not enough for commercial vessels, given the volume of traffic transiting the strait. Insurers, shipping firms and crews still consider passage too risky even with naval protection. The strait effectively becomes a high-risk “kill zone” because threats cannot be eliminated, increasing war-risk premiums for freight passage.<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/iran-war-fruit-exporters-face-mounting-losses-disruption-1773746062782/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/iran-war-fruit-exporters-face-mounting-losses-disruption-1773746062782/embed</a><h2>US is aware of Iran’s capacity for nuisance and disruption</h2>US officials initially underestimated Iran’s willingness to escalate in the strait. However, Pentagon briefings now indicate that escort missions are currently too dangerous.Even if the US prioritises military operations to secure control of the strait, restoring transit could take months; it is prudent not to worsen the situation. Mine-clearing alone could take weeks. Restoring full transit and trade is more complex than achieving military dominance.Markets respond to perceived risk rather than raw force, and this has already been reflected in stock markets as well as crude oil and gas prices.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-us-allowing-iranian-oil-tankers-through-strait-of-hormuz-to-maintain-global-supply-says-scott-bessent-1773664766747">'US allowing Iranian oil tankers through Strait of Hormuz to maintain global supply', says Scott Bessent</a><h2>Iran has de facto control of the Strait of Hormuz: The world needs to live with it</h2>For all practical purposes, Iran retains de facto control over the strait. Even attempting to wrest that control through bombardment would not secure safe transit for the ships. Beyond mine-clearing, Iran’s capacity to disrupt the strait through guerrilla-style or asymmetric operations from the near shore or mainland cannot be ruled out.If the US were to attempt full control of the strait through military means, it would also need control over adjacent coastal territory. This would imply creating a ‘buffer zone’ to push Iranian forces away—an idea that might be unworkable.&nbsp;Given Iran’s ability to launch missile and drone strikes from inland, even a limited physical presence near the coast would not be necessary for Tehran to disrupt shipping.<h2>Negotiate a deal for Hormuz, separate trade from war</h2>It is important that hostilities around the Strait of Hormuz end as soon as possible. Strategic oil reserve releases or contingency plans for oil- and gas-importing countries cannot be sustained for more than a few weeks. Iran’s selective allowance of ship passage through the strait is also not sustainable.Iran’s disruption capacity vis-à-vis the strait is proximity-based. Restoring safe global oil transit will remain difficult as long as Hormuz remains a factor in the war. The situation echoes the 1980s Tanker War, where escorts mitigated risks but never eliminated the threat without addressing land-based sources. It is imperative to end this crisis fast, even if the main war drags on.

Amid the Iran–US–Israel conflict, theres' a growing view that the Strait of Hormuz must be treated separately. Military action cannot eliminate Iran’s disruption capacity, nor can constant Navy escorts be used to ensure safe global oil transit 

There is a growing view that the disruption of the Strait of Hormuz, as a strategy by Iran amid the war, is affecting countries that have nothing to do with its ongoing conflict with US and Israel. The strait, which carries roughly 20–25 per cent of global oil traffic and other goods, has become a central flashpoint of the war. Analysts, officials, the shipping and freight industries, and even US allies are explicitly arguing that the strait’s security and Iran’s leverage over it should be treated as a distinct issue, separate from the joint US-Israeli military campaign against Iran. No amount of US or allied attempts to secure the strait by military means is likely to be sustainable. Air or naval strikes, warship or coastguard escorts, or coalition-building efforts would not fully wrest control. Iran will still maintain some level of disruption capacity due to the advantages of geography, asymmetric capabilities, and the nature of commercial risks associated with the chokepoint. Nobody wants to ‘shift the war to the Strait of Hormuz’ European allies of the US, such as Germany’s Defence Minister Boris Pistorius, along with countries including the UK, France, Canada, India and China, have either refused or diluted calls for warship coalitions to escort tankers. Such participation, they feel, would entangle them in the war while not securing their energy needs. There is a perception that the war has “shifted to the Strait of Hormuz” in recent days. However, Hormuz is not just a military issue. International bodies treat safe passage as a global shipping concern, not the responsibility of any single belligerent in the war. The International Maritime Organization has stated that naval escorts alone cannot guarantee the safety of vessels passing through, particularly without Iranian cooperation. Many believe that the strait crisis should not be allowed to escalate or become an extension of the war. Also read: Saudi Arabia has offered alternative to Strait of Hormuz - but there's a problem Navies or militaries cannot take Hormuz control away from Iran Several shipping, freight and oil industry executives, regional experts, military planners and officials are of the view that Iran has enduring leverage over the strait, having influenced traffic through it for decades. Iran borders the narrow strait, which is only about 21 miles wide at its narrowest point. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) can conduct mine-laying and has demonstrated the ability to launch drone or missile strikes, or engage in swarm tactics using fast boats from the sea or shore. These capabilities remain cheap, dispersed and quickly replaceable. Mines and coastal threats persist even after US strikes significantly degraded Iranian naval assets. Military escorts and naval presence are not enough for commercial vessels, given the volume of traffic transiting the strait. Insurers, shipping firms and crews still consider passage too risky even with naval protection. The strait effectively becomes a high-risk “kill zone” because threats cannot be eliminated, increasing war-risk premiums for freight passage. https://www.wionews.com/videos/iran-war-fruit-exporters-face-mounting-losses-disruption-1773746062782/embed US is aware of Iran’s capacity for nuisance and disruption US officials initially underestimated Iran’s willingness to escalate in the strait. However, Pentagon briefings now indicate that escort missions are currently too dangerous. Even if the US prioritises military operations to secure control of the strait, restoring transit could take months; it is prudent not to worsen the situation. Mine-clearing alone could take weeks. Restoring full transit and trade is more complex than achieving military dominance. Markets respond to perceived risk rather than raw force, and this has already been reflected in stock markets as well as crude oil and gas prices. Also read: 'US allowing Iranian oil tankers through Strait of Hormuz to maintain global supply', says Scott Bessent Iran has de facto control of the Strait of Hormuz: The world needs to live with it For all practical purposes, Iran retains de facto control over the strait. Even attempting to wrest that control through bombardment would not secure safe transit for the ships. Beyond mine-clearing, Iran’s capacity to disrupt the strait through guerrilla-style or asymmetric operations from the near shore or mainland cannot be ruled out. If the US were to attempt full control of the strait through military means, it would also need control over adjacent coastal territory. This would imply creating a ‘buffer zone’ to push Iranian forces away—an idea that might be unworkable. Given Iran’s ability to launch missile and drone strikes from inland, even a limited physical presence near the coast would not be necessary for Tehran to disrupt shipping. Negotiate a deal for Hormuz, separate trade from war It is important that hostilities around the Strait of Hormuz end as soon as possible. Strategic oil reserve releases or contingency plans for oil- and gas-importing countries cannot be sustained for more than a few weeks. Iran’s selective allowance of ship passage through the strait is also not sustainable. Iran’s disruption capacity vis-à-vis the strait is proximity-based. Restoring safe global oil transit will remain difficult as long as Hormuz remains a factor in the war. The situation echoes the 1980s Tanker War, where escorts mitigated risks but never eliminated the threat without addressing land-based sources. It is imperative to end this crisis fast, even if the main war drags on.

Amid the Iran–US–Israel conflict, theres' a growing view that the Strait of Hormuz must be treated separately. Military action cannot eliminate Iran’s disruption capacity, nor can constant Navy escorts be used to ensure safe global oil transit&nbsp;

Trade zone, not war zone: Decouple Strait of Hormuz from Iran-US-Israel conflict if the global economy is to stay afloat

US President Donald Trump recently called for naval participation from its allies, including Japan, in the Strait of Hormuz to ensure maritime security. While Japan relies heavily on the US security umbrella, particularly regarding regional tensions with China, North Korea, and Russia, acting on the American president's request has significant legal and diplomatic challenges.&nbsp;The Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s upcoming visit to Washington could be seen as pressure to demonstrate "enthusiasm" for the alliance. But the Japanese government faces a high legal threshold for deploying the Self-Defence Forces (SDF) into potential conflict zones. Defence Minister Shinjiro Koizumi has remained cautious, noting that any such mission would require strict parliamentary approval and a clear "self-defence" justification.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uae-s-fujairah-operations-suspended-after-drone-attack-why-it-s-a-huge-deal-for-global-oil-market-1773646477977">UAE's Fujairah operations suspended after drone attack - why it's a huge deal for global oil market</a>&nbsp;Beyond legal hurdles, Japan maintains a long-standing diplomatic relationship with Iran, which it seeks to preserve. To support the US without entering direct combat, Japan may consider alternative contributions, such as:&nbsp;<ol><li>Post-conflict minesweeping: Similar to its 1991 mission following the Gulf War.</li><li>Logistical support: Expanding industrial and defence cooperation to bolster shared stockpiles.</li></ol><h2>About Japan's 1947 'Pacifist' constitution, written by US</h2>The 1947 "Pacifist" constitution, enacted during the post-World War II Allied occupation and largely drafted by American officials, is the cornerstone of the nation's post-war identity, specifically in the Constitution of Japan, Article 9. It says that the Japanese people "forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes."&nbsp;To accomplish this, the article further specifies that "land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained."&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/is-iran-being-framed-abbas-araghchi-claims-trump-is-using-lucas-drones-that-match-shahed-perfectly-to-attack-arab-nations-1773580911417">Is Iran being framed? Abbas Araghchi claims US is using 'LUCAS' drones that match Shahed 'perfectly' to attack Arab nations</a>&nbsp;Over the decades, this has been interpreted not as a total ban on defence, but as a mandate that the military (the Self-Defence Forces) exist only for "minimum necessary" protection. While recent legislative reinterpretations have allowed for "collective self-defence" (aiding an ally under specific conditions), the 1947 framework continues to limit Japan’s ability to engage in overseas military operations that do not directly threaten Japanese sovereignty.&nbsp;Disclaimer: WION takes utmost care to accurately and responsibly report ongoing conflicts in West Asia involving Israel, Iran, US, Gulf nations and non-state actors like Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, Islamic State, and others. Claims and counterclaims, disinformation and misinformation are being made online and offline. Given this context, WION cannot independently verify the authenticity of all statements, social media posts, photos and videos. &nbsp;

Japan faces a dilemma balancing US alliance pressure with Article 9 constraints. To secure the Strait of Hormuz, Prime Minister Takaichi may offer logistical support or minesweeping over direct combat.

US President Donald Trump recently called for naval participation from its allies, including Japan, in the Strait of Hormuz to ensure maritime security. While Japan relies heavily on the US security umbrella, particularly regarding regional tensions with China, North Korea, and Russia, acting on the American president's request has significant legal and diplomatic challenges. The Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s upcoming visit to Washington could be seen as pressure to demonstrate "enthusiasm" for the alliance. But the Japanese government faces a high legal threshold for deploying the Self-Defence Forces (SDF) into potential conflict zones. Defence Minister Shinjiro Koizumi has remained cautious, noting that any such mission would require strict parliamentary approval and a clear "self-defence" justification. Also read: UAE's Fujairah operations suspended after drone attack - why it's a huge deal for global oil market Beyond legal hurdles, Japan maintains a long-standing diplomatic relationship with Iran, which it seeks to preserve. To support the US without entering direct combat, Japan may consider alternative contributions, such as: Post-conflict minesweeping: Similar to its 1991 mission following the Gulf War. Logistical support: Expanding industrial and defence cooperation to bolster shared stockpiles. About Japan's 1947 'Pacifist' constitution, written by US The 1947 "Pacifist" constitution, enacted during the post-World War II Allied occupation and largely drafted by American officials, is the cornerstone of the nation's post-war identity, specifically in the Constitution of Japan, Article 9. It says that the Japanese people "forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes." To accomplish this, the article further specifies that "land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained." Also read: Is Iran being framed? Abbas Araghchi claims US is using 'LUCAS' drones that match Shahed 'perfectly' to attack Arab nations Over the decades, this has been interpreted not as a total ban on defence, but as a mandate that the military (the Self-Defence Forces) exist only for "minimum necessary" protection. While recent legislative reinterpretations have allowed for "collective self-defence" (aiding an ally under specific conditions), the 1947 framework continues to limit Japan’s ability to engage in overseas military operations that do not directly threaten Japanese sovereignty. Disclaimer: WION takes utmost care to accurately and responsibly report ongoing conflicts in West Asia involving Israel, Iran, US, Gulf nations and non-state actors like Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, Islamic State, and others. Claims and counterclaims, disinformation and misinformation are being made online and offline. Given this context, WION cannot independently verify the authenticity of all statements, social media posts, photos and videos.

Japan faces a dilemma balancing US alliance pressure with Article 9 constraints. To secure the Strait of Hormuz, Prime Minister Takaichi may offer logistical support or minesweeping over direct combat.

Strait of Hormuz crisis: Japan's US-made constitution bars it from sending warship to help Trump. All about 1947 'pacifist constitution'

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has denied any rift with US President Donald Trump. He said that his first priority is to protect British “people in the region”, &nbsp;but he doesn't intend to be drawn into the wider war. &nbsp;While speaking in the Downing Street press conference, Starmer said that he maintains a “good relationship” with Donald Trump and had a “good discussion” with him. He further added that the best way through this is to de-escalate, as it is the simple and most effective way to deal with the cost of living.&nbsp;“We’re strong allies, have been for decades, but it is for me to act in what I consider to be the best interests of Britain. And I have to keep that uppermost in my mind,” said Starmer to GB News. Starmer did not give any definitive answer on the possibility of joining forces with the US on the Strait of Hormuz. He said that they are working with the US “in relation to a viable plan”. Starmer said that he wanted as many partners as possible.Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/oil-prices-rise-100-us-israel-war-iran-hormuz-crisis-1773647064840">Oil prices cross $105 per barrel first time since Russia's Ukraine invasion</a>“There have been discussions going on in relation to a viable plan. We want to make sure that it involves as many partners as possible. That’s been our stated objective here, particularly talking to European partners, inevitably talking to Gulf Partners and to the US, because we need a credible, viable plan if we can,” said Starmer on his plan to reopen Hormuz. He added that it will be difficult to reach any conclusion.Starmer outlined three primary objectives of any British involvement: first, to protect British “people in the region”, second, to take necessary action to defend “ourselves and our allies” but not drawn to the wider war, and finally, to work "towards a swift resolution that brings security and stability back to the region."&nbsp;Starmer said that he is not completely aware of what is going to happen in future. “I’m not going to stand here and pretend to you that we all know what the situation will be in three or six months’ time. We don’t.” Further adding that his objective is to end this war as quickly as possible and not to allow it to become a “windfall for Putin”.&nbsp;

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">&#39;I have been attacked by some for my decision NOT to join the offensive against Iran&#39; — Starmer &#39;Some others would’ve rushed UK into this war without a full picture. It&#39;s not leading, it&#39;s following. My leadership is to stand firm for British interests, no matter the pressure&#39; <a href="https://t.co/gwdfL7GLKn">https://t.co/gwdfL7GLKn</a> <a href="https://t.co/cZuQtZel6P">pic.twitter.com/cZuQtZel6P</a>&mdash; RT (@RT_com) <a href="https://twitter.com/RT_com/status/2033505776661037294?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 16, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">&#39;I want to see the end of this war as quickly as possible&#39; — Starmer on UK’s main objectives in Iran &#39;Protect our people in the region… while taking action to defend our allies, not to be &#39;drawn into a wider war&#39; &amp; &#39;resolution to bring security and stability back to the region&#39; <a href="https://t.co/NpzbaiCYC7">pic.twitter.com/NpzbaiCYC7</a>&mdash; RT (@RT_com) <a href="https://twitter.com/RT_com/status/2033498811658649610?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 16, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer denied any rift with US President Donald Trump but signalled caution about joining a military operation in the Strait of Hormuz, emphasising de-escalation and protection of British citizens.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has denied any rift with US President Donald Trump. He said that his first priority is to protect British “people in the region”, but he doesn't intend to be drawn into the wider war. While speaking in the Downing Street press conference, Starmer said that he maintains a “good relationship” with Donald Trump and had a “good discussion” with him. He further added that the best way through this is to de-escalate, as it is the simple and most effective way to deal with the cost of living. “We’re strong allies, have been for decades, but it is for me to act in what I consider to be the best interests of Britain. And I have to keep that uppermost in my mind,” said Starmer to GB News. Starmer did not give any definitive answer on the possibility of joining forces with the US on the Strait of Hormuz. He said that they are working with the US “in relation to a viable plan”. Starmer said that he wanted as many partners as possible. Also Read: Oil prices cross $105 per barrel first time since Russia's Ukraine invasion “There have been discussions going on in relation to a viable plan. We want to make sure that it involves as many partners as possible. That’s been our stated objective here, particularly talking to European partners, inevitably talking to Gulf Partners and to the US, because we need a credible, viable plan if we can,” said Starmer on his plan to reopen Hormuz. He added that it will be difficult to reach any conclusion. Starmer outlined three primary objectives of any British involvement: first, to protect British “people in the region”, second, to take necessary action to defend “ourselves and our allies” but not drawn to the wider war, and finally, to work "towards a swift resolution that brings security and stability back to the region." Starmer said that he is not completely aware of what is going to happen in future. “I’m not going to stand here and pretend to you that we all know what the situation will be in three or six months’ time. We don’t.” Further adding that his objective is to end this war as quickly as possible and not to allow it to become a “windfall for Putin”.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer denied any rift with US President Donald Trump but signalled caution about joining a military operation in the Strait of Hormuz, emphasising de-escalation and protection of British citizens.

Keir Starmer denies rift with Donald Trump, says UK won’t be drawn into wider war

President Donald Trump on Saturday (March 14) claimed "Many countries, those who are affected by Iran's attempted closure of the Hormuz Strait will be sending warships in conjunction with the United States of America," to keep the strait safe and open for shipping.&nbsp;He declared that "We have already destroyed 100% of Iran's military capability, but it's easy for them to send a drone or two, drop a mine, or deliver a close-range missile somewhere along or in this Waterway, no matter how badly defeated they are," Trump said in a Truth Social post.&nbsp;In a unusal move, Trump urged multiple countries that "Hopefully China, France, Japan, South Korea and the UK and others, that are affected by this artificial constraint, will send ships to the area so that the Hormuz will no longer be a threat by a nation that has totally decapitated."&nbsp;These remarks from the US president come after the war in West Asia entered its 15th day, after joint US-Israeli strikes on February 28 targeted the top leadership of Iran, assassinating Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on the opening day of the Military campaign.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-india-has-really-helped-us-iran-envoy-on-india-s-support-after-us-sank-iris-dena-1773496529515">'India really helped us': Iran envoy on India’s support after US sank IRIS Dena</a>&nbsp;In retaliation, Iran launched missile and drone attacks on US bases across the region and announced effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which accounts for nearly 20 per cent of global oil shipping, leading sharp rise in energy prices with crude crossing $ 100 per barrel.&nbsp;Amid mounting pressure from rising oil prices, Trump on Friday ordered massive strikes on Kharag Island, Iran's critical oil export hub, to push Tehran to open strait of Hormuz.The US president repeated his warning that "the United States will be bombing hell out of the shoreline and continually shooting Iranian boats and ships out of the water, one way or another, we will soon get Hormouz Strait, Open, Safe and Free," he declared.&nbsp;(Disclaimer: WION takes utmost care to accurately and responsibly report ongoing conflicts in West Asia involving Israel, Iran, US, Gulf nations and non-state actors like Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, Islamic State, and others. Claims and counterclaims, disinformation and misinformation are being made online and offline. Given this context, WION cannot independently verify the authenticity of all statements, social media posts, photos and videos.)

Amid mounting pressure from rising oil prices, Trump on Friday ordered massive strikes on Kharag Island, Iran's critical oil export hub, to push Tehran to open the Strait of Hormuz.

President Donald Trump on Saturday (March 14) claimed "Many countries, those who are affected by Iran's attempted closure of the Hormuz Strait will be sending warships in conjunction with the United States of America," to keep the strait safe and open for shipping. He declared that "We have already destroyed 100% of Iran's military capability, but it's easy for them to send a drone or two, drop a mine, or deliver a close-range missile somewhere along or in this Waterway, no matter how badly defeated they are," Trump said in a Truth Social post. In a unusal move, Trump urged multiple countries that "Hopefully China, France, Japan, South Korea and the UK and others, that are affected by this artificial constraint, will send ships to the area so that the Hormuz will no longer be a threat by a nation that has totally decapitated." These remarks from the US president come after the war in West Asia entered its 15th day, after joint US-Israeli strikes on February 28 targeted the top leadership of Iran, assassinating Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on the opening day of the Military campaign. Also Read: 'India really helped us': Iran envoy on India’s support after US sank IRIS Dena In retaliation, Iran launched missile and drone attacks on US bases across the region and announced effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which accounts for nearly 20 per cent of global oil shipping, leading sharp rise in energy prices with crude crossing $ 100 per barrel. Amid mounting pressure from rising oil prices, Trump on Friday ordered massive strikes on Kharag Island, Iran's critical oil export hub, to push Tehran to open strait of Hormuz. The US president repeated his warning that "the United States will be bombing hell out of the shoreline and continually shooting Iranian boats and ships out of the water, one way or another, we will soon get Hormouz Strait, Open, Safe and Free," he declared. (Disclaimer: WION takes utmost care to accurately and responsibly report ongoing conflicts in West Asia involving Israel, Iran, US, Gulf nations and non-state actors like Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, Islamic State, and others. Claims and counterclaims, disinformation and misinformation are being made online and offline. Given this context, WION cannot independently verify the authenticity of all statements, social media posts, photos and videos.)

Amid mounting pressure from rising oil prices, Trump on Friday ordered massive strikes on Kharag Island, Iran's critical oil export hub, to push Tehran to open the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump urges China, France, Japan, and UK to send warships to open Strait of Hormuz

Pardon the pun, but it is time for India’s diplomats to fire on all cylinders – especially keeping in mind an emerging shortage of cooking gas for hotels, restaurants and homes that threatens the everyday eating habits of hundreds of millions of Indians.The crisis that has arisen from the militarisation of the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf offers an opportunity for India in its own interest to tell both the United States and Iran to allow legitimate Indian interests to prevail – and that is also lawful opportunity to move in coordination with other leading economies of the world, especially its Gulf friends and BRICS partners (Brazil, Russia, China and South Africa) to exercise collective leverage to end what for most analysts looks like a pointless war threatening the world economy and peace.The United States has said it took out more than a dozen mine-laying vessels from Iran, even as Tehran’s Islamic Republic regime said it would block the region’s exports, but with a helpful caveat that it would not allow things to be shipped to its “enemies”. India most certainly is not an enemy of Iran, nor is the US. But either country, indirectly or directly affecting the well-being of its citizens, is not something Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government should accept without demur. If anything, the Ministry of External Affairs has now crossed the “none of our business” threshold on the issue.Apart from the fact that the Strait of Hormuz is critical because about 20% of the world’s oil is shipped through it, it is extra important for India because about 50% of the liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies to India pass through the strait, mostly from Qatar, which is a peninsula that juts into the Persian Gulf in which the Hormuz waterway is like a bottleneck.The strait is as much a diplomatic minefield as it is a zone for military mines. About 5,800 km in area, but one that has a width of about only 37 km at its narrowest waterway, it is a choke point that needs nuanced discussion – but offers ample scope for both trade under international law and diplomatic space that India can navigate without unsolicited services from a supercop like President Donald Trump’s US.Iran controls a few islands, including Abu Musa, Greater Tunb and Lesser Tunb in the Hormuz area allowing it de facto control but these three islands are disputed by the United Arab Emirates, which is a reasonably trusted friend of India. The problem for India gets acute only if Qatar is seen by Iran as an enemy state in view of the US military facilities there. By all indications, Tehran’s Islamic rulers are using Qatar’s status in West Asia as a lever to pressure the US to stop its reckless bombings. Officially, Iran and Qatar have cordial relations, including shared interests in the oil economy.India has every right to police its own goods and services in the Hormuz area if it involves shipments from Qatar to India, from India to the UAE and other Gulf states.Authoritative legal guides say the Strait of Hormuz must be viewed under transit passage rules governed by the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). We are now understandably in a Trumpist world in which international law and UN conventions have been thrown to the sea winds, but the law does allow ships and aircraft uninterrupted and continuous rights to freely navigate the strait even when there is a security crisis, as long as the transit is legitimate which in the current context means oil and LNG supplies meant for commercial, not military use, in India.In a sense, India can become both an international interlocutor and a party legitimately pursuing the interests of bilateral trade for its own citizens in the Hormuz tangle. If played well, this can be a card of utmost geopolitical significance for India, offering an opportunity for course correction in its autonomous diplomacy in which ties with Israel and, indeed, the US, are becoming an albatross around its neck. Surely we need partners who listen to our interests, and where they are not, the much-touted term, “strategic autonomy,” has to be unequivocally invoked. Hormuz thus offers a multilateral opportunity in a bilateral package.Only defined zones near islands and exclusive economic zones are exempt from transit rights in the high seas enjoyed by trading ships. Most certainly, Iran does not have rights to plant dangerous mines in the legitimate navigation zones, nor does that allow the US to impede trade by India or other legitimately entitled states and step up its military presence in the area.Militarily and geographically, the Strait of Hormuz remains a narrow area, but diplomatically, there is enough for India to assert itself, if not as an emerging power concerned about peace and stability in Asia, at least as a country that owes its citizens some energy security for homes and hearths.

India most certainly is not an enemy of Iran, nor is the US. But either country, indirectly or directly affecting the well-being of its citizens, is not something Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government should accept without demur.

Pardon the pun, but it is time for India’s diplomats to fire on all cylinders – especially keeping in mind an emerging shortage of cooking gas for hotels, restaurants and homes that threatens the everyday eating habits of hundreds of millions of Indians. The crisis that has arisen from the militarisation of the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf offers an opportunity for India in its own interest to tell both the United States and Iran to allow legitimate Indian interests to prevail – and that is also lawful opportunity to move in coordination with other leading economies of the world, especially its Gulf friends and BRICS partners (Brazil, Russia, China and South Africa) to exercise collective leverage to end what for most analysts looks like a pointless war threatening the world economy and peace. The United States has said it took out more than a dozen mine-laying vessels from Iran, even as Tehran’s Islamic Republic regime said it would block the region’s exports, but with a helpful caveat that it would not allow things to be shipped to its “enemies”. India most certainly is not an enemy of Iran, nor is the US. But either country, indirectly or directly affecting the well-being of its citizens, is not something Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government should accept without demur. If anything, the Ministry of External Affairs has now crossed the “none of our business” threshold on the issue. Apart from the fact that the Strait of Hormuz is critical because about 20% of the world’s oil is shipped through it, it is extra important for India because about 50% of the liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies to India pass through the strait, mostly from Qatar, which is a peninsula that juts into the Persian Gulf in which the Hormuz waterway is like a bottleneck. The strait is as much a diplomatic minefield as it is a zone for military mines. About 5,800 km in area, but one that has a width of about only 37 km at its narrowest waterway, it is a choke point that needs nuanced discussion – but offers ample scope for both trade under international law and diplomatic space that India can navigate without unsolicited services from a supercop like President Donald Trump’s US. Iran controls a few islands, including Abu Musa, Greater Tunb and Lesser Tunb in the Hormuz area allowing it de facto control but these three islands are disputed by the United Arab Emirates, which is a reasonably trusted friend of India. The problem for India gets acute only if Qatar is seen by Iran as an enemy state in view of the US military facilities there. By all indications, Tehran’s Islamic rulers are using Qatar’s status in West Asia as a lever to pressure the US to stop its reckless bombings. Officially, Iran and Qatar have cordial relations, including shared interests in the oil economy. India has every right to police its own goods and services in the Hormuz area if it involves shipments from Qatar to India, from India to the UAE and other Gulf states. Authoritative legal guides say the Strait of Hormuz must be viewed under transit passage rules governed by the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). We are now understandably in a Trumpist world in which international law and UN conventions have been thrown to the sea winds, but the law does allow ships and aircraft uninterrupted and continuous rights to freely navigate the strait even when there is a security crisis, as long as the transit is legitimate which in the current context means oil and LNG supplies meant for commercial, not military use, in India. In a sense, India can become both an international interlocutor and a party legitimately pursuing the interests of bilateral trade for its own citizens in the Hormuz tangle. If played well, this can be a card of utmost geopolitical significance for India, offering an opportunity for course correction in its autonomous diplomacy in which ties with Israel and, indeed, the US, are becoming an albatross around its neck. Surely we need partners who listen to our interests, and where they are not, the much-touted term, “strategic autonomy,” has to be unequivocally invoked. Hormuz thus offers a multilateral opportunity in a bilateral package. Only defined zones near islands and exclusive economic zones are exempt from transit rights in the high seas enjoyed by trading ships. Most certainly, Iran does not have rights to plant dangerous mines in the legitimate navigation zones, nor does that allow the US to impede trade by India or other legitimately entitled states and step up its military presence in the area. Militarily and geographically, the Strait of Hormuz remains a narrow area, but diplomatically, there is enough for India to assert itself, if not as an emerging power concerned about peace and stability in Asia, at least as a country that owes its citizens some energy security for homes and hearths.

India most certainly is not an enemy of Iran, nor is the US. But either country, indirectly or directly affecting the well-being of its citizens, is not something Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government should accept without demur.

Gas diplomacy ahoy! Hormuz crisis offers opportunity for India to play mediator and help its homes

The development comes as renewed nuclear negotiations between the United States and Iran begin in Geneva, heightening concerns over maritime security and global energy stability.

The development comes as renewed nuclear negotiations between the United States and Iran begin in Geneva, heightening concerns over maritime security and global energy stability.

Iran to close parts of Hormuz Strait? How often has Iran warned of closure since 2000 & why 20% of global oil supply is at risk

strait-of-hormuz-crisis

Strait Of Hormuz Crisis, News on Strait Of Hormuz Crisis, stories on Strait Of Hormuz Crisis, articles on Strait Of Hormuz Crisis, Strait Of Hormuz Crisis stories at Wion, Strait Of Hormuz Crisis news, Strait Of Hormuz Crisis latest news

strait of-hormuz-crisis

Trade zone, not war zone: Decouple Strait of Hormuz from Iran-US-Israel conflict if the global economy is to stay afloat

Japan's US-made constitution bars it from sending warship to help Trump

Keir Starmer denies rift with Trump, says UK won’t be drawn into wider war

Trump urges China, France, Japan, UK to send warships to open Strait of Hormuz

Hormuz crisis offers opportunity for India to play mediator and help its homes

How often has Iran threatened the Hormuz strait & why 20% oil supply is at risk