As the war between Israel and Iran intensifies, attention has turned to one of the world’s most vital maritime choke points: the Strait of Hormuz.
A narrow stretch of water situated between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, the strait plays a significant role in the global economy. Roughly 20% of the world’s oil supply passes through this corridor daily, making it an artery not only for Gulf exporters such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Kuwait, but also for the energy security of Europe, Asia, and North America.
In recent days, Iranian officials, albeit not from the top leadership, have hinted at the possibility of disrupting traffic through the strait. While such threats have been issued before, analysts are now watching closely as escalation scenarios multiply.
It is a threat which they usually raise, and if you can notice, it is never done by senior officials. It is always done by second- or third-rate officials, so they can always deny it later.
Meir Litvak, an Israeli expert on Iran now based in the United States, described Iran’s threatening rhetoric as highly calculated. “It is a threat which they usually raise, and if you can notice, it is never done by senior officials,” he told The Media Line. “It is always done by second- or third-rate officials, so they can always deny it later.”
The consequences of closing or significantly disrupting the strait would be global. Claude Moniquet, a counterterrorism analyst and former French intelligence officer, told The Media Line that the price of oil would rise by 40-50% within hours of Iran blocking the Strait of Hormuz. Such a scenario would be “a nightmare for the world,” he said.
Moniquet emphasized that the strait is particularly vulnerable due to its narrow width; each navigational channel is only about 2 miles wide. “If you put mines there, nobody will go through and nobody will dare to go through,” he warned.
The potential methods Iran might employ to escalate in Hormuz are well-documented. “They cannot close the straits entirely, but they can make navigation extremely dangerous,” Moniquet explained. “The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has a navy of about 20,000 men, trained in recent years to board ships, mine sea lanes, or fire sea-to-sea missiles. These are not idle threats; they have the capacity.”
You can put mines, you can blow up ships. But this would be a suicidal move, because they will immediately get an American response, maybe even European.
Litvak echoed the severity of such an act: “You can put mines, you can blow up ships. But this would be a suicidal move, because they will immediately get an American response, maybe even European.”
He said that Iranian actions of that sort would be considered an act of war and would justify a military response.
For Iran, any action in Hormuz would likely mark the regime’s final gambit.
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
“If they are completely desperate, and they think the regime will collapse, they could decide, ‘If we are dead in two days or two weeks, all of you are dead also,” Moniquet said.
So far, neither the United States nor Europe has entered the Israel-Iran conflict directly. While both have issued statements of support for Israel, their military posture remains cautious.
“At the moment, we have no plans from the UK, France, and Germany to directly intervene in the conflict. Even if they say they will protect Israel, they consider it unnecessary,” Moniquet said. “But if the strait is blocked, it’s 100%—they will act.”
Arab countries, too, will consider blocking the strait cause for military intervention, he added. “All the oil of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the Emirates, and all the gas of Qatar go through the strait. For these countries, it’s unacceptable to impose a blockade,” he said.
In Washington, the political mood remains restrained. “Most Americans would be opposed to an intervention,” Litvak said. “Democrats are all against it. The Republican Party is divided. Because of the bitter experience of Iraq and the failure in Afghanistan, most Americans do not want another military involvement in the region.”
This, he believes, is one reason why President Donald Trump has not yet taken a firm stance. “He vacillates. But behind the scenes, the US is clearly helping,” he said.
According to Moniquet, the ambiguity is intentional. “It is always extremely difficult to understand what Donald Trump will do before he does it. One or two hours ago, he said, ‘Nobody knows what I will do.’ It’s a kind of strategic deception. He could decide on an intervention, or he could decide on a negotiation. But my feeling is that he will decide on an intervention,” he stated.
Meanwhile, hopes that alternative export routes could absorb the shock of a Hormuz closure appear limited.
There is no real alternative route. Certainly not one that can handle 20% of the world’s oil consumption.
“There is no real alternative route. Certainly not one that can handle 20% of the world’s oil consumption,” Moniquet stressed. “I was looking at some reports. There’s no way to expedite the oil at the same scale through pipelines from the UAE or Saudi Arabia. It’s not possible.”
Litvak agreed: “It’s not possible. The idea that the Gulf can fully bypass Hormuz is simply not realistic.”
Iran’s threat to the strait is widely seen as a last card and a final act of defiance by a regime facing mounting internal and external pressure.
Still, despite heavy blows, Litvak does not believe the Iranian regime is on the verge of collapse. “They probably build on the idea that the population will rally behind them because of the nationalist sentiment. They believe they can have more endurance than Israel,” he said.
Yet internal pressures on Iran are building, which may eventually provide an off-ramp. “They are interested in negotiations with America—not on Trump’s terms—but it’s a good sign,” Litvak said. “They understand they have major problems, major challenges.”
The long-term goal for Israel, both experts said, may not be limited to nuclear deterrence. “The official target is to destroy the nuclear program, but the real goal is clearly to overthrow the regime—or at least weaken it enough to give the Iranian people the opportunity to do it,” Moniquet said. “Everyone understands that if the regime stays, in five or 10 years everything will have to be done again.”
Litvak sees the same calculus: “Israel may be betting on US involvement, which is a risky gamble. If America doesn’t intervene, the war may turn into a strategic dead end for Israel.”
At home, support for the war remains high in Israel, but Litvak warns that it may not last.
“There is still large support in Israeli society, but some of the endgame goals may not be realistic. Israel cannot destroy sites like Fordo or Natanz by itself. If they fail to achieve those goals, public opinion might shift. The government brought us into a war which may become unwinnable,” he claimed.
For now, however, the fighting continues. “It will certainly take a minimum of some days, and probably some weeks,” Moniquet said. “If the goal is to destabilize the regime, we are speaking of one month, two months—something like this.”
Both experts agree that Israel is carrying the weight of this confrontation. “Actually, Israel is doing the dirty job we had to do for 40 years,” Moniquet said.
It is encouraging that European leaders understand this war is not just Israeli craziness. It’s an acknowledgment that sometimes you must take tough positions.
Litvak added: “It is encouraging that European leaders understand this war is not just Israeli craziness. It’s an acknowledgment that sometimes you must take tough positions.”
Whether that acknowledgment translates into direct action remains to be seen. For now, the Strait of Hormuz remains open, but precariously so.