On April 21, the Valdai Club hosted an expert discussion titled “Shipping Blockade in the Strait of Hormuz: Consequences and Future Scenarios.” Moderator Ivan Timofeev emphasised that, amid the US and Israeli military operation against Iran, shipping in the Strait of Hormuz has been effectively paralysed, and the scale of naval combat has begun to resemble World War II. Given the active use of unmanned aircraft and missiles, it can be said that scenarios that were purely hypothetical in recent years are now being realised.
Abbas Mirzai Ghazi, Representative of the Russian-Iranian Centre for Legal and Economic Cooperation, stated that the Strait of Hormuz has long ceased to be merely a geographical point. Today, it is a key node of global vulnerability, where energy security, maritime logistics, strategic deterrence, and the political will of states intersect. Any disruption in this corridor stops being a regional crisis and becomes a global issue. This is why the issue of halting shipping in the strait requires not an emotional reaction, but a cool-headed systemic analysis. An escalation here could develop into a structural crisis of the global order, causing a chain reaction in the already fragmenting global economy. This trigger could change the balance of power not only in the Middle East but throughout Eurasia. “Hormuz is not just a bottleneck; it is a litmus test of the real state of the international system. If the crisis around it spirals out of control, it will mean that existing de-escalation mechanisms, guarantees of free trade, and the maritime security architecture are unable to cope with the new reality,” Ghazi said.
Although the Americans have the technical capability to temporarily block the Strait of Hormuz, this is fraught with serious risks, noted Maksim Shepovalenko, Deputy Director of Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, discussing the capabilities of the parties to the conflict. In principle, the US Navy has sufficient forces to conduct a naval blockade, although given the asymmetric threats from Iran, its implementation will differ from historical examples. The only question is its longevity. This entails high costs, increased wear and tear on materiel, and the need to rest crews. Iran, in turn, can counter US forces with a variety of weapons, from drones to anti-ship ballistic missiles; each of them is capable of disabling even an aircraft carrier. The US Navy, according to Shepovalenko, was built on a traditional paradigm and is designed to counter conventional threats, while the Iranians are pursuing an asymmetric response based on new trends in weaponry. The effectiveness of the US blockade will be undermined by this factor, he believes.
Major General Ranjan Wijedasa (Retd), Director General of the Institute of National Security Studies (Sri Lanka), emphasised that any disruption to navigation in the Strait of Hormuz impacts both the economy and security. The scale of the threat is not limited to the Middle East – a regional conflict involving the Gulf states could escalate into something larger. Insurance premiums will rise and delays on shipping routes will occur, creating uncertainty in global markets. A global energy shock is possible due to the disruption of global oil and gas supply chains, with significant impacts on the manufacturing and transportation sectors, and a risk to food security. Analysing the conflict’s impact on the Indian Ocean region, Wijedasa pointed to rising tensions and the dangerous increase in the naval presence of major powers. For Sri Lanka, the economic and social consequences of this situation are particularly serious, as the country is heavily dependent on oil imports and approximately one million of its citizens work in the Middle East. However, the situation also offers opportunities for the country, including through the diversification of maritime routes.
Prokhor Tebin, Director of the Centre for Military-Economic Studies at HSE University’s Institute for Global Military Economics and Strategy, noted that one of the pillars of American power is its status as a leading maritime power, ensuring global maritime trade. Meanwhile, the Americans are currently undermining this pillar for unclear purposes. The Middle East is clearly not a priority region for current American political and military strategy, unlike the Western Pacific. However, instead of reorienting itself toward this, the United States has engaged in a protracted campaign in the Persian Gulf, which is politically destructive to the philosophical foundations of its national power. According to Tebin, this campaign will lead to the fragmentation and regionalisation of the global economy and the creation of regional security blocs. Against this backdrop, more and more countries are considering hedging maritime trade risks by developing land routes. All of this is undermining the very foundations of American power, the analyst concluded.
“Iran’s weaponisation of geography is shifting geopolitical dynamics,” asserts Hasan Selim Özertem, Director of Research at Ussal Consultancy (Turkey). “Now, the first nation-states of the 21st century are seeking to fully control geographic chokepoints, using them as political leverage not only against immediate adversaries but also against the global economy.” The United States underestimated Iran’s capabilities, preparing for a short-term conflict rather than a long-term one. No one expected Iran to strike the Gulf states and seize control of the Strait of Hormuz. Against this backdrop, the US strategic objective remains unclear. Meanwhile, the status quo in the Strait of Hormuz has been disrupted, and this has become a structural problem. No ceasefire can guarantee a return to the previous norm and freedom of navigation, Ozertem believes. Therefore, countries in the region must now diversify their energy routes, taking into account the connectivity and resilience of the international system.
Pavel Gudev, a leading researcher at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO RAS), examined the legal aspects of the current situation. He pointed out that international maritime law regulates most aspects of maritime economic activity in peacetime. In this case, however, we are talking about an area governed by the international law of armed conflicts at sea, which is part of international humanitarian law. Accordingly, in general, the provisions of Part III of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, concerning the right of transit passage, apply to the Sea of Hormuz in peacetime. These extremely liberal provisions allow unimpeded passage for civilian and military vessels and ensure freedom of overflight, including for military aircraft. Iran, however, considers these provisions to be treaty-based, not subject to international custom, and argues that the United States, which is not a signatory to the Convention, cannot avail itself of them. With respect to the United States, Tehran considers the rules on innocent passage, rather than transit, to apply. These include prohibitions on “threatening peace and security” during passage, as well as on a wide range of activities in the strait. Iran has also established in its domestic legislation that the right of innocent passage for foreign warships is permissible, although the 1958 UN Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, to which it is a signatory, prohibits obstructing the innocent passage of other states’ vessels in such cases. In wartime, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is partially applicable, including with respect to straits used for international navigation. However, this only applies to neutral vessels. “Iran is not obligated to respect either the right of transit passage or the right of innocent passage with respect to vessels of countries with which it is engaged in an international armed conflict, namely the United States and Israel,” Gudev emphasised.
The Valdai Discussion Club was established in 2004. It is named after Lake Valdai, which is located close to Veliky Novgorod, where the Club’s first meeting took place.
Please visit the firm link to site
