
The Strait Of Consequences: World Braces For Potential Energy Shock
ANKARA, TURKIYE - JUNE 17: An infographic titled "Strait of Hormuz" created in Ankara, Turkiye on ... More June 17, 2025. Connects oil and LNG production in the Middle East to global markets via the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean. (Photo by Murat Usubali/Anadolu via Getty Images)
There are several important energy chokepoints around the world, but none is more significant and vulnerable than the Strait of Hormuz. Now, following the U.S. bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday, the Iranian Parliament has reportedly voted to close this important energy transit chokepoint. Such a move could severely disrupt the world's energy markets.
While the final decision still rests with Iran's Supreme National Security Council--and Iran has failed to follow through on previous threats to close the Strait--the vote signals intent to weaponize one of the world's most economically sensitive maritime corridors. If carried out, the consequences would be swift, severe, and global.
Let's take a closer look at how we got here—and why the stakes are so high.
Background
On June 21, the United States launched coordinated airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. The strikes marked the most serious U.S.–Iran escalation in over a decade. The campaign featured B-2 stealth bombers and submarine-launched Tomahawk missiles.
In his remarks following the strike, President Trump struck a conciliatory tone, stating, 'Now is the time for peace.'
Iran, unsurprisingly, interpreted it differently. Within hours, the Iranian parliament voted to close the Strait of Hormuz—a move the U.S. would certainly interpret as a major escalation.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Fox News, "If they do that, it will be another terrible mistake. It's economic suicide for them if they do it. And we retain options to deal with that, but other countries should be looking at that as well. It would hurt other countries' economies a lot worse than ours."
Why the Strait of Hormuz Matters
The accompanying picture illustrates why the Strait of Hormuz is so vital. At just 21 miles wide at its narrowest point--and significantly bordered by Iran--the Strait of Hormuz handles the transit of nearly 20% of global oil supply. But that's only part of the story. It is also a critical artery for liquefied natural gas (LNG) transit. Many important energy-producing countries rely on the Strait of Hormuz to get these products to market.
There are three major global LNG producers, each with about 20% of the global market: The U.S., Qatar, and Australia. Qatar ships around 77 million metric tons of LNG annually, most of it passing through the Strait. Its customers include energy-hungry economies such as Japan, South Korea, China, and India, as well as parts of Europe. If Qatar is cut off, those nations lose part of their energy supply almost overnight.
And LNG isn't as fungible as oil. While oil can be rerouted and drawn from strategic reserves, LNG infrastructure is far more rigid. Ships must be able to dock at specially equipped terminals, and production and liquefaction aren't easily shifted. The LNG market is fragile, and supply shocks can ripple fast and violently.
Consequences of a Closure
If Iran follows through with closing the Strait of Hormuz, the impact on global energy markets would be immediate and far-reaching.
Energy prices would spike across the board. Oil could surge past $90 per barrel, and LNG spot prices—particularly in Asia and Europe—could return to levels not seen since 2022. For countries that rely heavily on imported natural gas, the consequences would be renewed inflation, worsening energy insecurity, and even the possibility of fuel rationing as winter approaches.
Shipping and insurance markets would be thrown into disarray. Tanker traffic through the Persian Gulf would grind to a halt. Maritime insurers may suspend coverage for vessels transiting the Strait or demand prohibitively high war-risk premiums. Some shipping companies would avoid the region altogether, forcing longer routes and tighter global shipping capacity—raising costs not just for energy, but for commodities and consumer goods across the board.
Strategic petroleum and gas reserves would likely be tapped as immediate substitutes. Countries like Japan, South Korea, and India—heavily dependent on Persian Gulf energy flows—would be among the first to draw from their stockpiles. But those reserves are limited, and a prolonged closure of the Strait would quickly strain their ability to buffer continued supply disruptions.
Broader economic consequences would follow. As energy prices rise, so do input costs for key sectors like transportation, chemicals, and heavy manufacturing. Inflation would reaccelerate globally, putting renewed pressure on central banks and undermining recent progress in stabilizing prices. Some emerging economies, which lack the finances to subsidize rising energy costs, would be hit hardest, but developed economies would feel the squeeze too.
Finally, a sustained disruption would accelerate the global energy realignment already underway. Policymakers would move quickly to diversify energy sources—fast-tracking LNG terminals, expanding storage capacity, and increasing imports from more stable suppliers like the U.S. It would also strengthen the case for more long-term investments in nuclear power and renewables, both of which offer insulation from the geopolitical volatility that continues to define fossil fuel markets.
A Risky Game
Closing the Strait would also damage Iran's own economy, which relies heavily on maritime exports. But history shows that governments under pressure don't always act rationally—especially when nationalism and survival are in play.
Tehran may view the closure as a way to rally domestic support, push back against the West, or extract concessions in future negotiations. But it is a high-stakes move with no easy exit.
The U.S. has made clear that such an act would be seen as hostile—and not just by Washington. Many of the world's major economies have a vested interest in keeping the Strait open, and a multinational response is more than likely.
Bottom Line
The world is watching closely. Energy companies are reviewing contingency plans, and governments are dusting off emergency protocols. Even in the absence of direct military escalation, the growing geopolitical risk is already being priced into oil and LNG futures.
But it's worth noting that the Strait of Hormuz has never been fully closed in modern history—not even during periods of intense regional conflict. The closest call came during the Iran–Iraq War of the 1980s, particularly during the 'Tanker War,' when both countries targeted commercial shipping and laid mines throughout the Persian Gulf. Despite the violence, the Strait remained open—albeit under heavy military escort and with soaring insurance costs.
Iran has issued similar threats before—most notably in 2011–2012 and again in 2019—in response to sanctions and military pressure. In each case, the threat alone was enough to shake global energy markets, even without an actual blockade.
This time may be no different. But markets are rightly on edge, because the Strait of Hormuz isn't just a shipping lane—it's a pressure point for the entire global economy. And right now, that pressure is building.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Oil prices poised to jump after US strikes on Iran with Strait of Hormuz status in focus
Oil was poised to open higher Sunday after US strikes on Iran's three main nuclear sites intensified fears of a potential supply shock, amid growing concerns that Tehran could retaliate by closing a key maritime chokepoint. Crude futures had already posted weekly gains following the outbreak of conflict between Israel and Iran just over a week ago. West Texas Intermediate (CL=F) closed at $74.93 per barrel, while Brent crude (BZ=F), the international benchmark, settled at $76.73. Prices are up over 10% in the week since the conflict began. 'Oil prices are expected to open at least $5 per barrel higher when trading begins at 6:00 p.m. Eastern. We're looking at $80 oil on the open,' said Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates. On Sunday, traders weighed possible retaliation moves from Iran, a major oil producer and exporter, following the US's direct involvement. According to state media, Iran's parliament voted to close the Strait of Hormuz. The final decision on whether to shut the vital waterway — which handles roughly 20% of global oil flows — rests with Iran's Supreme National Security Council and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. What Wall Street once viewed as a low-probability event is now being treated as a significantly heightened risk. "Should oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz be affected, we could easily see $100 oil," Lipow said. Following the outbreak of the Israel-Iran war, JPMorgan analysts forecast that under a "severe outcome," a closure of the Strait of Hormuz could push oil prices to $120–$130 per barrel. If crude climbs into that range, analysts predict gasoline and diesel prices could rise by as much as $1.25 per gallon. 'Consumers would be looking at a national average gasoline price of around $4.50 per gallon—closer to $6.00 if you're in California,' Lipow said. Other possible retaliatory moves from Iran could include supporting Yemen's Houthi rebels in renewed attacks on commercial shipping. If the conflict escalates and the US or Israel targets Iran's oil export infrastructure, analysts warn that Tehran may retaliate by striking export facilities in neighboring countries. 'In other words, 'If we can't export our oil, you can't have yours,'' Lipow said. The key issue isn't just the potential for disruption, but how long it lasts, Rebecca Babin, senior energy trader at CIBC Private Wealth, told Yahoo Finance on Sunday. 'If infrastructure is hit but can be quickly restored, crude may struggle to hold gains,' she said. 'But if Iran's response causes lasting damage or introduces long-term supply risk, we're likely to see a stronger and more sustained move higher.' Last week, JPMorgan analysts noted that since 1967 — aside from the Yom Kippur War in 1973 — none of the 11 major military conflicts involving Israel have had a lasting impact on oil prices. In contrast, events directly involving major regional oil producers — such as the first Gulf War in 1990, the Iraq War in 2003, and the imposition of sanctions on Iran in 2018 — have all led to meaningful and sustained moves in oil markets. 'During these episodes, we estimate that oil traded at a $7–$14 per barrel premium to its fair value for an extended period,' wrote JPMorgan's Natasha Kaneva and her team. They added that the most significant and lasting price impacts historically come from 'regime changes' in oil-producing countries — whether that be through leadership transitions, coups, revolutions, or major political shifts. 'While demand conditions and OPEC's spare capacity shape the broader market response, these events typically drive substantial oil price spikes, averaging a 76% increase from onset to peak,' Kaneva wrote. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies (OPEC+) had raised output in the months leading up to Israel's strike on Iran on June 13. Ines Ferre is a Senior Business Reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow her on X at @ines_ferre. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Sign in to access your portfolio


Newsweek
17 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Trump Trolls Iran With Post About 'Regime Change'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump asked on Sunday why there "wouldn't" be "regime change" in Iran if the country's government isn't able to "MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN." The U.S. president mused about the possibility on his social media website, Truth Social, writing: "It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!" Trump's comments came after multiple top Trump administration officials said that regime change was not the U.S.'s goal in launching a series of strikes against three Iranian nuclear facilities this weekend. "This mission was not and has not been about regime change," Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told reporters at the Pentagon on Sunday morning. Vice President JD Vance told NBC's Kristen Welker in a "Meet The Press" interview that the U.S. was not at war with Iran but rather with its nuclear program. This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.


Bloomberg
18 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Two Supertankers U-Turn in Strait of Hormuz After US Strikes
Two supertankers both capable of hauling about 2 million barrels of crude U-turned in the Strait of Hormuz after US airstrikes on Iran raised the risk of a response that will ensnare commercial shipping in the region. The Coswisdom Lake and South Loyalty both entered the waterway and abruptly changed course on Sunday, according to vessel tracking data compiled by Bloomberg. The two empty freighters then sailed south, away from the mouth of the Persian Gulf.