Skip to content 
They can ration resources.
They can rely on alternative trading networks.
And they can argue that surrendering under pressure would create an even more dangerous precedent.
A blockade can therefore be economically effective without immediately becoming politically decisive.
The military danger
There is also a difference between stopping ships and maintaining control of a maritime environment.
The United States may have superior naval forces.
But Iran has geographic advantages.
The Strait is close to Iranian territory.
Iran has missiles, drones, mines and other capabilities that can threaten shipping.
Even if Iranian forces cannot defeat the U.S. Navy conventionally, they may be able to make the operating environment dangerous.
That distinction matters.
Military superiority does not necessarily mean perfect control.
A single mine can stop a tanker.
A missile attack can send insurance costs higher.
A damaged vessel can cause shipping companies to avoid the region.
The economic effect can therefore be much larger than the immediate physical damage.
The insurance problem
Shipping companies make decisions based not only on fuel costs and transit times but also on risk.
When a route becomes dangerous, insurance premiums rise.
Sometimes premiums rise enough to make the route commercially unattractive.
That creates a feedback loop.
More risk produces higher costs.
Higher costs reduce shipping.
Reduced shipping creates shortages.
Shortages raise prices.
The Strait of Hormuz is particularly sensitive because there is limited capacity to replace its traffic quickly.
That is why even a partially successful disruption can have global consequences.
Why the 20% fee was such a dangerous idea
The fee would have added another layer of uncertainty to an already unstable market.
Shipping companies would have faced the physical risk of traveling through a conflict zone and the financial cost of paying a major American charge.
That could have encouraged some carriers to avoid the route.
But alternative routes are longer and more expensive.
Some cargoes might have become economically unviable.
Energy prices could have risen.
That is why the rapid abandonment of the proposal was arguably significant.
Trump could pursue economic pressure against Iran without adding a major new cost to every commercial vessel.
Politics(Right)
The politics of appearing strong
There is also a domestic political dimension.
Trump’s political brand is closely tied to strength.
Backing away from a major fee could have been portrayed by opponents as a retreat.
But Trump framed the move differently.
He said Gulf states would invest in America instead.
That allowed the administration to present the change not as surrender but as a better deal.
In political terms, that distinction matters.
The president can tell supporters that he demanded more, negotiated harder and ultimately obtained investment commitments rather than allowing foreign ships to send money through a complicated toll system.
Whether the economics justify that framing is a separate question.
The changing role of the Gulf states
The Gulf monarchies now occupy a pivotal position.
They have enormous financial resources.
They control major energy assets.
They host American military facilities.
And they have a direct interest in the stability of regional shipping.
That gives for the rest of the world is whether the blockade remains narrowly focused on Iran or evolves into a broader disruption of Gulf energy them leverage.
Washington may possess overwhelming military power, but Gulf governments possess something else: capital.
The 20% fee episode demonstrated that the two forms of power can be exchanged.
Military security can generate economic bargaining power.
Economic resources can reduce the need for direct financial charges.
This is a distinctly transactional model of alliance management.
The global energy consequences
The most important question for the rest of the world is whether the blockade remains narrowly focused on Iran or evolves into a broader disruption of Gulf energy exports.
So far, some commercial traffic continues to pass.
Recent reporting said dozens of ships had transited the Strait during 48-hour periods, even as military tensions remained high. Al Jazeera+1
That suggests the waterway is not completely closed.
But “open” and “normal” are not the same thing.
Traffic can continue while volumes remain far below previous levels.
Shipping companies can continue operating while paying substantially higher insurance premiums.
Oil can still move while prices remain elevated.
For global markets, the question is not simply whether ships are moving.
It is how many are moving, how reliably and at what cost.
What happens if the blockade continues?
If the blockade continues for months, the pressure on Iran is likely to intensify.
Foreign-currency reserves will become more important.
Alternative export routes will become more valuable.
China’s willingness to purchase stored Iranian oil will matter.
Domestic economic conditions will become increasingly important to the Iranian government.
But prolonged pressure could also create incentives for escalation.
Iran may conclude that if its oil exports are already blocked, it has little to lose by attacking American or allied shipping.
Washington could respond with additional military force.
That creates a dangerous cycle.
The economic objective of the blockade is to force negotiations.
The military consequences could instead produce a wider war.