Strait of Hormuz

For more than five decades, the petrodollar system has served as one of the central structural pillars of American financial supremacy. Since its establishment in the 1970s, the system has anchored the United States’ monetary power by ensuring that Gulf oil exports remain overwhelmingly denominated in United States dollars. Under this arrangement, Gulf producing nations receive American security guarantees in exchange for recycling their oil revenues into US Treasury securities and dollar-denominated financial markets—a self-reinforcing cycle that has entrenched the dollar’s status as the world’s foremost reserve currency and systematically reduced American sovereign borrowing costs for decades.   The United Arab Emirates has, historically, been among the most faithful participants in this arrangement. Its national currency, the dirham, remains pegged to the USD, and its extensive sovereign wealth funds are invested predominantly in dollar-denominated assets. Nevertheless, a convergence of recent developments—an armed conflict in Iran, severe disruptions to Gulf oil exports, and an acute domestic dollar liquidity constraint—has placed the UAE at an unprecedented geopolitical and financial crossroads.

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.

The United States–Israel–Iran war, which began with a set of vaguely defined objectives including regime change in Iran and the dismantling of its missile and nuclear capabilities, now appears to be shifting toward a different set of priorities. Iran has managed to internationalise the conflict in a way that has redirected attention toward containing the scale of global economic disruption. Put simply, the focus is increasingly on securing the flow of oil amid what is being described as one of the most severe energy crises in modern history. Much of the world’s attention has centred on the Strait of Hormuz, and rightly so. This vital shipping lane accounts for roughly 20% of global liquid petroleum consumption, as well as a significant share of global liquefied natural gas trade (LNG). However, with the Iran-backed Yemeni Houthis now entering the conflict, the risks facing regional oil exports and maritime routes have intensified further. As the de facto controllers of the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, the Houthis are in a position to disrupt shipping through the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.   This raises several critical questions. Why have the Houthis chosen this moment to enter the war? Under what conditions might they escalate their involvement? And what would be the consequences of a closure of the strait?

One of the most structurally fragile economies in the Middle East serves as the backdrop to Iran’s current military confrontation. Extensive international sanctions have, for more than a decade, restricted Iran’s access to global financial markets, constrained its energy exports, and limited foreign investment. Gradually, the Iranian economy came to evolve as a sanctions-adaptation economy, surviving persistent external pressure through informal trade networks, shadow energy exports, and alternative financial channels instead of collapsing outright.   Yet unlike sanctions, which create gradual economic constraints, war introduces a fundamentally different kind of shock by disrupting logistics networks, causing unprecedented damage to national infrastructure and compelling the state to reallocate its resources toward defense spending amid military escalation. Such shocks, for an already fragile economy operating at the limits of macroeconomic stability, can generate disproportionate consequences. The current conflict therefore brings into focus a central economic question: can Iran’s sanctions-adapted economy withstand the pressures of war, or will military escalation reveal structural weaknesses previously concealed by the sanction’s system?

While global attention remains focused on the situation in the Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly twenty million barrels of crude oil pass each day, less attention is given to the potentially more significant developments occurring within Iran’s borders. As of March 2026, the military strikes carried out by the United States and Israel generated what can be described as a caloric chokepoint effect, which cannot be offset by any level of kinetic military capabilities. According to the Islamic Republic of Iran, the country’s principal vulnerability in the 21st century lies in its deep-water grain elevators, rather that its military power.   While Iran’s food supply system is logistically fragile and assumes that the country’s southern ports will always remain accessible and fully operational, however, the withdrawal of war-risk insurance and the stalling of shipping through Bandar Abbas have invalidated this assumption. Therefore, describing the current situation merely as a trade disruption is inaccurate, as it effectively represents a biological countdown. As operational feed stocks decline to a fourteen-day supply, the resulting protein shortage poses a significant risk of domestic instability—an effect that conventional military strikes are unlikely to match.

The U.S.-Israel and Iran War has affected the interests of many countries. In the last few days, China emerged as a significant player in these events. Beijing called for an immediate halt to the attacks by both sides and the protection of vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz, culminating with the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi pledging to send a special envoy to the Middle East for mediation.   Beijing has interconnected interests in the Middle East that are significantly affected by the war and will most likely reshape its strategic opportunities in the region, particularly in terms of energy security, trade routes, and diplomatic relations with key regional players. Beijing’s pragmatic foreign policy approach toward the region relies on protecting its economic interests and maintaining a strategic balance. So, the war could provide an opportunity for China to navigate new opportunities in the region and, consequently, expand its influence, particularly by strengthening ties with other oil-producing nations and increasing its investments in reconstruction efforts.   Likewise, China’s strategic partnership with Iran mainly revolves around oil supply and large-scale investments. The consequences of the war raise questions about the future of this relationship and the possibility that China may reshape its foreign policy toward Tehran if it faces a potential decline in Iran’s ability to sustain such interests as a result of the strain on its power after the war.

The Feb. 28, 2026 United States–Israeli offensive against Iran represents the most consequential escalation in Gulf security dynamics in over a decade and introduces immediate, medium-term, and long-term risks to global energy stability. The strikes targeting senior leadership and strategic military infrastructure triggered Iranian retaliation across the Gulf region and sharply increased the probability of disruption to maritime energy flows, particularly through the Strait of Hormuz.   While physical supply outages remain limited at the time of writing, markets have responded by repricing geopolitical risk. Crude benchmarks surged on reopening, freight and insurance costs rose materially, and volatility spiked across commodities and currency markets. The core economic question is not whether prices react, they already have, but whether the conflict transitions from a risk-premium shock to a sustained supply disruption.   The Strait of Hormuz remains the central transmission channel. Roughly one-fifth of globally traded oil and more than one-third of seaborne liquefied natural gas pass through this chokepoint. Even temporary interference has outsized macroeconomic implications. Assessing the implications of the crisis requires examining immediate market reactions, potential disruption scenarios, medium-term supply responses, and the longer-term structural consequences for global energy security and macroeconomic stability.

The Strait of Hormuz – a narrow, indispensable artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil and a third of its liquefied natural gas (LNG) flows– stands on a cliff. As geopolitical tensions intensify across the Middle East, fuelled by escalating Iran-Israel tensions and the shadow of direct United States (U.S.) involvement, the once-unthinkable threat of its closure looms larger than ever with Iran’s threat to close or block the Strait. In spite of the catastrophic global implications of such an act, the volatile depths of this potential crisis will be explored, unravelling the motives that could push Iran to choke this global lifeline, exposing the monumental security and geopolitical fallout, and revealing the catastrophic economic shockwave that would consume nations far beyond the region.

The world has been on edge since July 31,2024, awaiting Iran’s response to the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, head of the Hamas political bureau, in Tehran by an Israeli attack. Haniyeh was targeted while attending the inauguration ceremony of Iranian President Masoud Pezekshian, marking a direct challenge to Iranian sovereignty and its role as a regional leader of resistance movements. This event underscores the broader confrontation between Iran, which opposes what it perceives as the United States and Israeli dominance in the region. Given the assassination's symbolic and strategic significance, many see Iran’s retaliation as inevitable, particularly amid escalations between Israel and Iran. Notably, this incident is part of a broader series of high-profile killings targeting figures within the so-called resistance axis. Just hours before the explosion in Tehran, Israel launched a missile strike in Beirut's southern suburbs, killing Fouad Shukr, a senior Hezbollah military official, while also claiming—without confirmation—the assassination of Mohammed Deif, a leading Hamas military commander.   While consensus exists regarding the certainty of an Iranian response, there is sharp debate within political and military circles over the nature of this retaliation. The targeted nature of the Israeli strikes suggests that a direct and immediate Iranian response may be needed to restore its deterrent credibility. However, Iran’s extensive network of regional proxies presents an alternative, allowing Tehran to retaliate indirectly while avoiding the military and economic costs of direct confrontation. This calculation has become more critical following the U.S.’s declaration that it would militarily defend Israel against any Iranian attack, reaffirming its earlier stance on Iranian missile strikes against Israel in April.   Predicting the nature of Iran’s response can be facilitated by examining the pattern of its previous reactions to similar attacks, particularly given Iran’s long history of confrontations following the 1979 revolution and its enduring hostility toward the U.S. Among these conflicts, the one most analogous to the current situation is the so-called Tanker War, which took place between Iran and Iraq from 1984 to 1988. Iran successfully drew the U.S. into a large-scale military engagement in the Arabian Gulf during this period. This scenario holds significant parallels to today’s tensions, as will be detailed later.   This paper, therefore, aims to analyse the similarities and differences between Iran’s current posture and its stance during the Tanker War from multiple perspectives—military, political, and economic—both internally externally. By comparing the dynamics at play, including the role of the U.S. in both scenarios, this analysis seeks to clarify what can be expected from Iran in light of these combined variables.