Arabian Gulf

The Strait of Hormuz is, in the modern imagination, an energy chokepoint through which roughly a fifth of global petroleum and a comparable share of liquefied natural gas transit. Yet this narrow waterway carries a far older and more contested significance, one bearing directly on questions of identity, sovereignty, and historical legitimacy in the Arabian Gulf.1 This study addresses three questions and resolves each on the basis of the documentary and archaeological record.   First, it traces the origin of the name “Hormuz”, surveying the principal etymological theories, subjecting each to critical scrutiny, and arriving at a reasoned synthesis. Second, it reconstructs the history of the Arab population on both shores of the Strait, marshalling demographic and documentary evidence to show that the enduring human substrate of the region was Arab throughout recorded history, while Persian authority was characteristically a governing superstructure rather than a settled population. Third, it situates the Battle of Chains and the defeat of the Sasanian commander Hormuz in its correct chronological place within that continuum and corrects the popular but mistaken belief that the Strait was named after him.   The central finding is that the Strait of Hormuz, far from being a frontier dividing an Arab world from a Persian one, functioned for five millennia as a connective maritime highway whose permanent population was overwhelmingly Arab in character, even during the long intervals in which a Persian imperial umbrella claimed nominal sovereignty over its northern littoral.

At the outset of 2026, the global natural gas market underwent a profound structural shift that eroded much of the stability built over years of rebalancing in the aftermath of the 2022 European energy crisis. Markets had been advancing towards a phase of relative supply abundance, underpinned by expanding liquefaction capacity in the United States (US) and large-scale Qatari projects. This trajectory was abruptly reversed on Feb. 28, 2026, when Operation Epic Fury triggered the most severe energy shock to confront the international system in decades. The US-Israel-Iran War and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, removed nearly one-fifth of global liquefied natural gas supply from circulation within days.   This paper analyses the structural transformations in the global natural gas market induced by the crisis, tracing supply and demand dynamics before and after the outbreak of the conflict. It further evaluates the implications for key actors within the international energy system, including countries most exposed to global gas market volatility, such as Egypt and Jordan.

On April 7, 2026, the United States (US) and Iran announced a temporary two-week ceasefire, following intensive diplomatic mediation led by Pakistan during a critical window of escalation. The conflict had erupted on Feb. 28, 2026, when the US and Israel launched coordinated military strikes targeting Iranian infrastructure. In response, Tehran moved to close the Strait of Hormuz to international commercial shipping, precipitating the most severe energy supply shock in modern market history.   The closure effectively paralysed approximately 20 million barrels per day that would ordinarily transit the Strait of Hormuz in peacetime, accounting for nearly a quarter of global seaborne oil trade. Under the terms of the ceasefire, Iran announced a conditional reopening of the strait, while the parties agreed to commence diplomatic talks in Islamabad on April 10. This analysis examines the full scope of the crisis and evaluates the prevailing oil price scenarios, drawing on lessons from comparable historical shocks to assess the fragility of the current environment and its potential trajectories.

The landscape of modern air warfare has undergone a profound and structural transformation over the past decade. Air superiority is no longer the exclusive domain of those possessing the most expensive and technologically advanced platforms; rather, it has become accessible to actors capable of effectively leveraging scale and repetition against sophistication and complexity. This new equation has been clearly manifested in the widespread deployment of one-way attack drones, particularly the Iranian “Shahed” series, which has significantly altered established strategic calculations. In their early iterations, these drones operated on relatively simple logic: they were pre-programmed with target coordinates and then launched to navigate their trajectories using conventional satellite navigation systems such as the American GPS and its Russian counterpart, GLONASS. However, this reliance on such systems simultaneously made them the most exploitable vulnerability, as defenders rapidly developed electronic warfare capabilities, including jamming and spoofing tools, to disrupt their guidance and neutralise their missions.   However, this reality did not endure for long. As the intensity of conflicts involving these systems escalated, Iranian drones transitioned into a fundamentally different phase with the integration of communication modules operating via the commercial satellite network Iridium. This was not merely a technical upgrade but a calculated and direct response to GPS vulnerabilities, reflecting a strategic exploitation of civilian infrastructure for military purposes. While GPS satellites struggle to withstand ground-based jamming due to the weakness of their signals transmitted from altitudes exceeding 20,000 kilometres, Iridium satellites operate in low Earth orbit at altitudes of no more than 800 kilometres, emitting signals up to a thousand times stronger. These signals are further protected by layers of encryption that make spoofing or manipulation extremely difficult.   Shahed drones have thus evolved from inert projectiles following a fixed, unalterable path into connected platforms linked to their operators in real time, capable of receiving updates, changing course, sharing data with other airborne units, and even conducting precise strikes against moving targets such as ships at sea. This report therefore offers an in-depth technical and strategic examination of this transformation and its battlefield implications, beginning with the structure and operating logic of the Iridium network, moving through an analysis of the Shahed-131 platform and the integration of these communications into it, and culminating in an assessment of the operational impact this has had on some of the world’s most complex and densely layered air defence systems, namely Israel’s multi-layered architecture, which faced its most severe tests between 2024 and 2026.

The contemporary global economy is anchored in a tightly integrated digital and physical infrastructure, in which the continuity of international markets depends on an extensive network of submarine fibre-optic cables spanning approximately 1.3 million kilometres. This strategic architecture carries between 95 and 99% of intercontinental digital communications and constitutes the foundational layer for the settlement of daily financial transactions valued at roughly 10 trillion dollars. For decades, geopolitical analysis has prioritised the security of surface maritime corridors to safeguard the uninterrupted flow of conventional energy resources. Yet evolving realities indicate a decisive shift. The durability of the global economic system now hinges just as critically on protecting these submerged networks, which have emerged as indispensable arteries of global connectivity and financial stability.   This reality is especially visible in the Middle East, particularly across the Arabian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, the Arabian Sea, and the Red Sea, where the geographic corridors that govern trade flows and energy supply chains overlap with the main routes of global data transmission. The Strait of Hormuz, which is only 21 nautical miles wide, sits at the centre of this convergence. Around 21 million barrels of crude oil and one-third of global liquefied natural gas supplies pass through it each day. At the same time, 17 submarine cable systems run across its seabed, carrying nearly 30% of total international internet traffic. This intense concentration of physical and digital infrastructure within a narrow geographic space creates a severe security vulnerability. It exposes the global economy to systemic risks tied directly to regional instability.   These structural risks moved from theoretical assessment to operational reality with the outbreak of direct military confrontation in early 2026 between the United States and Israel on one side and Iran on the other, in what became known as Operation Epic Fury. These developments marked a fundamental shift in Iranian military doctrine. Faced with growing limits on its ability to disrupt surface energy flows through conventional means, Iran increasingly turned toward asymmetric threats. This shift is reflected in a move away from the traditional threat of closing maritime chokepoints to the deliberate targeting of submarine internet cable networks, using their disruption as a tool of deterrence and geopolitical pressure. It represents a calculated effort to exploit the physical vulnerabilities of civilian infrastructure to offset conventional power imbalances. In doing so, it introduces risks that extend well beyond the regional theatre and directly affect the foundations of the digital economy, in an era increasingly shaped by hybrid warfare and the militarisation of the maritime domain.   This emerging pattern of threat also creates what can be classified academically as a dual and simultaneous crisis. In such a scenario, the systematic disruption of submarine cables would paralyse global energy supply chains while simultaneously causing severe degradation across the digital infrastructure of the Middle East, South Asia, and Europe.   The immediate consequences would extend far beyond the loss of communications services for individuals. They would include major disruptions to electronic clearing systems that underpin sovereign wealth fund investments, as well as the paralysis of digital command-and-control centres operated by state-owned energy conglomerates. Such targeting would also disrupt military command-and-control networks and sever the communication channels needed to manage maritime navigation and to reroute vessels during crises. It would further undermine the artificial intelligence and cloud computing infrastructure on which many states in the region rely for their economic diversification strategies.   The plausibility of these threats is reinforced by recent material precedents that have exposed the infrastructure's real vulnerabilities. Most notable was the damage inflicted on Red Sea cable systems following the sinking of the Rubymar in 2024, followed by multiple line disruptions in the same region in September 2025. Together, these incidents underscore the fragility of these networks in the face of both accidental disruptions and deliberate acts of sabotage.   Building on these complex strategic and economic dynamics, this paper examines the implications of a large-scale attack targeting submarine communications infrastructure in the Arabian Gulf. It does so through a detailed assessment of the technical and military capabilities available to Iran to carry out physical sabotage operations beneath the seabed, alongside an analysis of the strategic motives driving this form of asymmetric escalation. By integrating recent historical precedents with updated data on regional and international levels of digital dependence, the paper seeks to assess the scale of the losses likely to result should such a scenario materialise.

Iran has blocked maritime navigation through the Strait of Hormuz since the first week of March, following the attacks it sustained during Operation Epic Fury. This disruption has hindered the movement of nearly 20 million barrels of crude oil per day. It has trapped shipments of liquefied natural gas, accounting for around 20% of global consumption, within the waters of the Arabian Gulf. As a result, international energy markets are experiencing sharp price volatility affecting Brent crude futures and European gas contracts.   At the same time, maritime shipping lines have been compelled to reroute their commercial fleets, forcing them to navigate around the historic Cape of Good Hope route at the southern tip of Africa. This enforced geographic diversion adds approximately 19 days to maritime transit times to and from Asia, generating weekly losses for global supply chains estimated at between $2 billion and $3 billion in additional operating and fuel costs.   This operational disruption directly affects the technological infrastructure of East Asia, where advanced semiconductor fabrication facilities in Taiwan and South Korea require vast, continuous electricity supplies to operate lithography systems around the clock. These critical facilities, which account for approximately 68% of global semiconductor production, rely on imported liquefied natural gas to ensure the stability of their power networks and prevent disruptions.   In parallel, the precision manufacturing processes involved depend on highly specialised raw materials whose primary sources are concentrated in regions currently affected by the crisis. In particular, production lines require ultra-high-purity helium gas, extracted as a by-product from Gulf LNG liquefaction facilities, which represent roughly 35% of global supply, as well as bromine, which Korean factories import at a rate of 97.5% from the Dead Sea coast for chemical etching processes. Accordingly, technology firms are accelerating efforts to assess their exposure to the dual energy and critical chemical input shortages. At the same time, economic stakeholders monitor the crisis's trajectory with heightened caution to safeguard supply chain continuity.   Accordingly, this analysis examines the strategic and operational implications arising from the closure, focusing on three principal dimensions. First, it addresses the disruption of liquefied natural gas supplies and their direct impact on the security of power grids that sustain major Asian semiconductor manufacturing hubs. Second, it examines the sharp interruption in the supply of critical raw materials, particularly specialised gases and petrochemical inputs required for precision manufacturing processes. Finally, it explores the logistical repercussions of the forced rerouting of maritime shipping routes, as well as the strategic measures states are considering to mitigate future geopolitical risks.

The United States and Israel launched Operation Epic Fury in late February 2026, targeting Iran’s nuclear and missile infrastructure and seeking to remove its political leadership. Although the operation achieved its initial tactical objectives with high precision, it provoked an asymmetric retaliatory response from the remaining Iranian forces. This response took the form of a comprehensive blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most critical maritime artery for energy transport, triggering a severe global economic shock. Such disruption could propel the international system towards reducing its reliance on fossil fuels and accelerating the adoption of alternative domestic energy solutions, most notably nuclear power.   At the same time, global electricity demand is rising sharply, driven by the rapid expansion of advanced artificial intelligence infrastructure and high-performance computing facilities. This sudden disruption of fuel supplies places policymakers in major industrial economies under immediate economic and security pressures, while simultaneously exposing the profound consequences of closing the Strait. In this context, the present analysis examines the repercussions of the Strait of Hormuz's closure on global supply chains. It then develops a historical comparison with the oil price shocks of the 1970s, illustrating how those crises redirected states towards nuclear technology. The study concludes by analysing emerging regulatory and financial measures, as well as new geopolitical alignments, that are accelerating the global drive to construct nuclear reactors in 2026.

On July 28, 2025, during a joint press conference in Scotland with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, U.S. President Donald Trump issued an unexpected ultimatum to Russia. He declared that the Kremlin had no more than 10 to 12 days (until approximately Aug. 8, 2025) to make tangible progress toward ending the war in Ukraine. Should Moscow fail to comply, Trump warned that President Vladimir Putin would face a sweeping package of economic sanctions and severe trade restrictions. This escalation came on the heels of prolonged diplomatic stagnation and Trump’s increasingly vocal frustration with Russia’s continued military operations.   Subsequently, on July 31, 2025, former Russian President and current Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev responded with a pointed and ominous message via his Telegram channel. In his remarks, he invoked the “Dead Hand”—Russia’s semi-automated nuclear retaliation system designed to launch a retaliatory strike even in the event of a complete decapitation of the nation’s leadership.   In response, President Trump ordered the deployment of two U.S. nuclear submarines to strategic positions, framing the move as a necessary precaution in the face of what he described as “extraordinarily dangerous” nuclear threats. Notably, he refrained from specifying whether the submarines were nuclear-powered only or also nuclear-armed—introducing deliberate strategic ambiguity and reinforcing the doctrine of pre-emptive deterrence through calibrated uncertainty.   What renders this sequence of events particularly significant is that the confrontation did not remain confined to the U.S. and Russia. Its repercussions quickly extended to India, which was thrust into the geopolitical crossfire. On July 31, the Trump administration announced the imposition of a 25% tariff on all Indian exports to the United States, accompanied by threats of further penalties targeting Indian firms that continue to purchase Russian crude oil or engage in defence cooperation with Moscow. The rationale behind this punitive action lies in New Delhi’s deepening energy relationship with Russia.   Although the Indian government has not officially announced any suspension of contracts with Russian suppliers, discreet directives were reportedly issued to state-owned refiners instructing them to explore alternative sources in the global spot market. This pivot has begun to materialize reflecting New Delhi’s attempt to maintain equilibrium between preserving its strategic autonomy and mitigating mounting U.S. pressure.   Yet the broader implications of this crisis extend well beyond geopolitical brinkmanship. What is unfolding is a systemic shock to the global order—one that is reverberating through energy markets, food security systems, arms trade corridors, and supply chains. The consequences will not be distributed evenly: while some Middle Eastern states stand to benefit from surging demand and price shifts, others may face acute vulnerabilities due to trade disruptions, inflationary pressures, or capital flight.

Amid the intensifying confrontation between Iran and Israel throughout 2025, the prospect of a direct strike against Israel’s Dimona nuclear facility has moved from a remote possibility to a plausible escalation scenario. As military operations increasingly target strategic infrastructure on both sides, the regional system faces the risk of a threshold breach—one that could trigger not only military and political consequences but also a multidimensional crisis involving radioactive contamination, mass displacement, and economic collapse across multiple states.   While Israel would undoubtedly bear the immediate brunt—facing mass civilian evacuations, irreversible environmental degradation in the Negev, and the paralysis of its agricultural and tourism sectors—the ripple effects would extend far beyond its borders.   Jordan’s border regions and agricultural zones in the Jordan Valley could face contamination and humanitarian strain, potentially requiring the evacuation of tens of thousands of people. Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula and northern Suez region could suffer fallout exposure, disrupting global shipping through the canal and threatening the Red Sea tourism corridor. Saudi Arabia’s northern provinces, including areas tied to its Vision 2030 megaprojects, could face both environmental and demographic disruption.

Between June 13 and 14, 2025, Israel executed one of the most daring and sophisticated military operations in its contemporary history: a multi-pronged aerial strike that penetrated deep into Iranian sovereign territory in an unprecedented fashion. The offensive targeted critical nuclear infrastructure, including the Natanz and Fordow enrichment facilities, alongside additional military installations near Isfahan. Furthermore, the operation struck key airbases integral to Iran’s air defence network, most notably Hamadan and Tabriz airfields. In parallel, Israeli forces targeted senior leadership within both the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the conventional military, with subsequent intelligence assessments confirming direct hits and casualties among Iran’s high command.   Iran's response, though swift, bore the hallmarks of operational improvisation. Seeking to reassert deterrence and project resilience, Tehran launched over one hundred unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) on the same day, primarily of the Shahed-136 and Shahed-131 variants. These drones traversed approximately 2,000 kilometres through Iraqi and Syrian airspace. However, the majority failed to reach Israeli territory. Instead, they were intercepted by a multi-layered defensive network composed of Jordanian, Saudi, and Israeli air defence systems, all heavily supported by U.S. early-warning and tracking technologies. A large number were neutralized over Iraq’s Anbar province and the deserts of Jordan, while others were downed over northern Saudi Arabia.   On June 14, Iran escalated by launching its principal retaliatory strike in the form of a large-scale, coordinated ballistic missile attack. Over 150 ballistic missiles were deployed, prominently including Ghadr-110 (with a range of up to 3,000 km), Khorramshahr, and Sejjil-2—among the most advanced systems in Iran’s medium-range missile arsenal. These missiles targeted multiple sites deep inside Israeli territory. A notable strike occurred near Israel’s Ministry of Defence compound in the Kirya complex in central Tel Aviv, where one missile reportedly caused structural damage and minor injuries, though no fatalities among military personnel were confirmed. Additional missiles struck civilian infrastructure in Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan, and Rishon LeZion, injuring several individuals—one critically—with the majority suffering only mild to moderate wounds.   Despite the magnitude of the missile barrage, the strategic yield fell significantly short of Tehran’s expectations. This underperformance prompted Iranian authorities to broaden the scope of their confrontation, issuing explicit warnings that U.S. military assets across the region—particularly in the Gulf—would henceforth be considered legitimate targets. These threats referenced high-value installations such as Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates, and U.S. military positions in Iraq, including Ain al-Asad and Camp Victoria in Baghdad, as well as naval facilities in Bahrain.   From Iran’s strategic vantage point, any U.S. involvement—especially in reinforcing Israeli air defences—constitutes direct participation in the hostilities. This rationale is now used to justify Tehran’s threats to strike American military positions across the Gulf. The implications of this shift are profound: for the first time since 2020, the prospect of open military confrontation in the Persian Gulf has become a credible geopolitical scenario. The regional deterrence equation, long balanced on latent threat and calculated ambiguity, has now entered a phase of dangerous volatility.   This analysis seeks to offer a comprehensive examination of the strategic motivations underpinning Iran’s threats to target U.S. military bases in the Gulf region. By synthesizing operational data—namely, Iran’s patterns of ballistic missile and drone deployment—with broader structural dynamics of regional and international power distribution, to elucidate the strategic logic through which American military installations in the Gulf emerge as priority targets within Iran’s evolving deterrence doctrine.

The strategically significant Rajaee Port in Bandar Abbas, southern Iran, was rocked by a massive explosion during the third round of Iranian-US talks in Oman on Saturday, April 26 2025, marking a pivotal moment that warrants in-depth analysis. Located near the Strait of Hormuz, the port serves as a critical nexus for Iran's container traffic and plays a crucial role in the country’s foreign trade, especially amid the sanctions imposed on it. Initial reports point to two primary hypotheses regarding the cause of the incident: the first suggests an accidental explosion resulting from mishandling hundreds of tons of a vital chemical substance, likely used to fuel Iran’s ballistic missile programme, reminiscent of the 2020 Beirut explosion; the second, however, raises the possibility of deliberate sabotage, potentially orchestrated by Israel with the intent to disrupt the Iranian-American diplomatic track. The timing of the explosion, coinciding with intense diplomatic efforts, adds further weight to its potential ramifications.   Regardless of the final cause, an explosion of such magnitude exposes significant vulnerabilities in Iran's security and management systems, reverberating across the entire region. It casts a shadow over diplomatic efforts aimed at addressing nuclear tensions and other unresolved issues. This commentary explores the potential post-incident scenarios, the implications of each hypothesis

The term “unification of arenas” emerged in the discourse of the Arab-Israeli conflict following the 2021 Sword of Jerusalem Battle. This military and ideological strategy is primarily linked to Iran’s regional proxies within the “axis of resistance.” This coalition includes Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and various Iranian-backed militias in Syria and Iraq. Its objective is to enhance operational coordination among these groups to counter Israel and diminish American influence in the region, aligning with Iranian strategic interests. The approach involves launching simultaneous actions across different fronts, including Lebanon, Gaza, and Yemen, to orchestrate a unified battle against common adversaries, particularly Israel and the United States (U.S.).   While this strategy had been employed on a limited scale prior to October 7, it achieved unprecedented levels of coordination following these operations. The execution involved dividing targets within Israel, with coordinated attacks from Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. This meticulous synchronisation and sequence of missile and drone strikes overwhelmed Israeli air defences, with some attacks originating from Yemen and reaching targets in Tel Aviv.   These agents, particularly the Houthis, did not limit their actions to threatening Israeli facilities. Their strikes extended to disrupting navigation in the Bab El Mandab Strait off the Yemeni coast. The Houthis conducted numerous attacks on ships they claimed had ties to Israel, whether through state ownership, ownership by individuals with Israeli citizenship, or simply passing through Israeli ports. This broad targeting strategy encompassed a significant portion of the traffic in this crucial strait for global trade, particularly affecting Arab oil-exporting countries and Egypt, which relies heavily on the Suez Canal for its maritime traffic. As a result, shipping routes have shifted from the Suez Canal to the Cape of Good Hope, prompting long-term strategic transformations and immediate economic repercussions for the Arab countries involved. This analysis aims to assess the Bab El Mandab Strait's importance for Arab countries and explore the strategic implications of its disruption on their economies.