Iran: Is the cost of closing the Strait of Hormuz too high? – DW – 06/25/2025
Iran has struck back, but the Strait of Hormuz remains open. Why hasn't Tehran carried out its threat?China and Iran's neighbors may have affecte the decision?
For a few days, the world held its breath. It seems the conflict between Israel, the US and Iran is not going to escalate any further, at least for now. Iran opted to save face by launching an attack on a US military base in Qatar, which the stock market interpreted as a de-escalatory gesture.
This retaliatory strike by Tehran was "loud enough for headlines, quiet enough not to shake the oil market's foundations," Stephen Innes of SPI Asset Management commented to Reuters. Immediately after the strike on Monday evening, the oil price fell again sharply.
And yet Iran holds a powerful trump card. It could do immense damage to the global economy by blockading the Strait of Hormuz. But would this really be to its advantage — or would it be more of an own goal?
The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) says that "Iran's economy is relatively diversified compared with many other Middle Eastern countries." However, the goods produced by the country's industry are primarily sold on the domestic market.
The export of oil and petroleum products is therefore an important source of income for the government. These constitute more than 17% of the country's total exports, with natural gas at 12%. According to the EIA, Iran was the fourth-largest producer of crude oil among the OPEC countries in 2023, and in 2022 it was the world's third-largest producer of dry gas (natural gas that is at least 85% methane, containing only negligible quantities of condensable gases such as hydrogen).
Although it has been subject to sanctions for many years, this has not prevented the Iranian regime from exporting oil. China in particular has benefited: In 2023, it took almost 90% of the oil exported by Iran.
In March 2024, the Financial Times quoted Javad Owji, Iran's Minister of Petroleum at the time, saying that Iran's oil exports "generated more than 35 billion dollars" in 2023. According to the World Bank, between April and December 2023 the oil sector represented more than 8% of Iran's GDP. And based on estimates from the data analysis company Vortexa, it is believed to have exported even more the following year.
Iran would therefore damage itself if it blocked the Strait of Hormuz. Not only would its own oil revenue be affected, it would also upset its trading partner China, which profits from buying the oil at low cost.
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
The London-based TV station Iran International estimates that Tehran sells its oil at a 20% discount on the world market price, because its buyers risk getting into trouble on account of the US sanctions. The broadcaster explained that Chinese refineries are the biggest buyers of Iran's illegal consignments of oil. Intermediaries mix it with deliveries from other countries, and the oil is then declared in China as having been imported from Singapore or other countries of origin.
According to Rystad Energy, an independent energy research company based in Norway, China imports a total of almost 11 million barrels of crude oil per day, around 10% of which comes from Iran.
A blockade would also have caused trouble for Iran's neighbors. Kuwait, Iraq and the United Arab Emirates also transport their oil through the passage. In a post on Linkedin, the economist Justin Alexander, a Gulf region analyst, commented that if Tehran were to close the strait, this would "undermine remaining alliances" it still has with countries in the region.
Whether Iran could actually maintain a blockade is also doubtful. Homayoun Falakshahi from the analytics firm Kpler told German TV that he believed a blockade would provoke a swift and forceful military response from both the US and European countries, and that Iran would only have been able to close the strait for a day or two.
Furthermore, if Iran's economic situation were to deteriorate even further, it would go down very badly with the Iranian people. Djavad Salehi-Isfahani, professor of economics at Virginia Tech in the US, told DW that the standard of living in Iran had already dropped to the level of 20 years ago as a result of sanctions.
These apply not only to the oil industry, but also to international payment transactions with Iran, which drives up inflation. This has been rising steeply since the beginning of the year, to more than 38.7% in May 2025 compared with May 2024. The combination of sanctions and the low exchange rate is making daily life ever more expensive for people in Iran.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Int'l Business Times
an hour ago
- Int'l Business Times
UN Charter: A Founding Document Violated And Ignored
Eighty years ago Thursday, 50 countries came together in the ashes of World War II to sign the United Nations' founding charter in order "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war." UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres insisted this week the Charter "is a promise of peace, dignity and cooperation among nations." But critics say the organization has been utterly helpless in stopping the countless conflicts that have broken out since and continue around the globe today. Here is a look at the UN Charter's history. Conceived in the early years of World War II and signed on June 26, 1945 in San Francisco, the charter paved the way for the creation of the United Nations on October 24, 1945. In 19 chapters and 111 articles, the Charter lays out the principles of international relations, including the peaceful settlement of disputes, sovereignty and equality between states, humanitarian cooperation, and respect for human rights. If there is a threat to global peace, Chapter VII gives the UN Security Council the power to impose sanctions to enforce its decisions or even deploy military force. The Charter, which is very difficult to amend, also establishes the Security Council, with its five veto-wielding permanent members, the General Assembly and the Secretariat, as well as the International Court of Justice. The United Nations currently has 193 member states. But for all the good words, the Charter's principles have been continually violated across the planet for eight decades. Member states rarely agree whether self-determination trumps non-interference in a state's internal affairs, or if the right to self-defense can justify acts of aggression. In the most recent example, Tehran, backed by veto-wielding China, accused Washington of violating the UN Charter by striking Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend, an act the United States justified by the right to "collective self-defense." And the international community has never really addressed the "crime of aggression," said Gissou Nia, a fellow with the Atlantic Council think tank, be it Russia's war against Ukraine or the US invasion of Iraq. "And once impunity reigns on one set of violations, one that's never dealt with, it continues, and countries use it as justification for the actions that they take," Nia told AFP. She added: "For self-defense, you really have to show evidence of an imminent attack. I think that it's one of the more contentious issues that involve the UN Charter and the narrative has really gotten away from us." Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was denounced as a clear violation of the Charter by Guterres and the General Assembly, but not by the Security Council, where Russia has a veto. And even though the Charter allows for persistent violators to be expelled from the UN, that has never happened. In 1974, the UN did, however, suspend South Africa from the General Assembly over the crimes of apartheid, a ban that lasted two decades.
Int'l Business Times
2 hours ago
- Int'l Business Times
EU Probes Mars Takeover Of Pringles Maker Kellanova
The European Union said Wednesday that it had opened an antitrust investigation into Mars's multibillion-dollar acquisition of the snack food business Kellanova over concerns it would lead to higher prices for consumers. The European Commission said a preliminary assessment indicated the deal would increase the bargaining power of Mars, the maker of M&M's and Snickers, against retailers in the 27-nation bloc. "By acquiring Kellanova, Mars will add several very popular brands of potato chips and cereals to its already broad and strong product portfolio," EU competition chief Teresa Ribera said. "As inflation-hit food prices remain high across Europe, it is essential to ensure that this acquisition does not further drive up the cost of shopping baskets," she said. The in-depth investigation will assess the deal's impact on the price of products sold by the two companies, she added. Mars said it was cooperating with the probe and remained confident that the acquisition would "deliver more choice and innovation to consumers". "We are disappointed yet remain optimistic that this investigation will be positively resolved," the company said in a statement. The US Federal Trade Commission meanwhile approved the merger on Wednesday saying it posed no violation of antitrust law in the United States. However, the FTC noted in a statement that "in other countries, Mars and Kellanova offer different products than they do in the United States," arguing that the effects on the market could be different. "Our job is to determine whether there is a violation of American law that we can prove in court. And once we've concluded there is not, our job is to get out of the way," said Daniel Guarnera, director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition. Mars's $35.9 billion (31 billion euro) all-cash purchase of US-based Kellanova -- whose snacks include Pringles and Pop-Tarts -- was announced in August last year. At the time, Mars, which is also headquartered in the United States, said the acquisition would bring two new billion-dollar brands, Pringles and Cheez-It, into its snacks portfolio. The combined grouping aims to meet demand in fast-growing markets including Africa and Latin America, it added. But the EU said several retailers across the bloc had raised concerns about Mars's increased bargaining power, should it be able to add Kellanova's "must-have brands" to its portfolio. "As a result, retailers could be forced to accept higher prices, in order to avoid not being able to offer the products of Mars and Kellanova," the commission said, adding that its decision would be published by October 31.
DW
3 hours ago
- DW
Mars' acquisition of Pringles' maker triggers EU alarms – DW – 06/26/2025
The EU is worried the takeover would increase Mars' bargaining power and hike prices for consumers. The snack maker said it was hopeful the deal to acquire Pringles' maker Kellanova would go through. The European Union has launched an antitrust investigation into Mars' acquisition of Pringles' maker Kellanova, it announced on Wednesday, citing concerns of market price hikes. In a preliminary assessment, the European Commission said the multibillion-dollar deal between the two US-based snack makers would increase Mars' bargaining power against EU retailers. Announced last August, the $35.9 billion (roughly €31 billion) deal was meant to bring two new billion-dollar brands, Pringles and Cheez-It, into Mars' fold. Mars hoped the acquisition would help it meet demand in fast-growing markets, including Africa and Latin America. The EU said alarmed retailers across the 27-nation bloc reached out, expressing concerns regarding Mars' increased bargaining power should the deal go through. "By acquiring Kellanova, Mars will add several very popular brands of potato chips and cereals to its already broad and strong product portfolio," EU competition chief Teresa Ribera said. Aside from Pringles, Kellanova also produces Kellogg's cereals. Citing inflation and high food prices across the continent, Ribera stressed the importance of ensuring "this acquisition does not further drive up the cost of shopping baskets." She added that the EU's in-depth investigation will assess the deal's impact on the price of products sold by both companies. Mars, which also makes popular snacks including M&Ms and Snickers, defended the acquisition, saying it would "deliver more choice and innovation to consumers." "We are disappointed yet remain optimistic that this investigation will be positively resolved," the company said in a statement, adding that it was cooperating with the investigation. A decision is expected by October 31.
