Iran parliament reportedly backs closing Strait of Hormuz, which could spike oil prices
Iran's parliament has endorsed closing the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil transit point off its coast, but the authority rests with regime security officials, per summaries of state-controlled media.
Why it matters: Impeding the strait would likely bring a massive spike in oil prices that would flow through to U.S. consumers.
The narrow channel between Iran and Oman is the chokepoint for a quarter of the world's seaborne oil trade — and around one-fifth of all oil movements.
Catch up quick: The threat is among the initial responses to yesterday's U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear sites.
Trying to block the strait would be the first time that the Israel-Iran conflict meaningfully affects global oil flows.
Yes, but: Iranian efforts to close the strait and attack energy infrastructure in the Persian Gulf are "unlikely," Eurasia Group analysts said in a note earlier Sunday morning.
"The US has amassed a massive military presence in the Gulf and surrounding region, and a move by Iran against the strait would almost certainly trigger a significant military response," they write.
Eurasia said Iran is unlikely to hit strike targets while its own exports remain intact, but added: "Increased Iranian harassment of tanker traffic is likely in coming days."
Driving the news: Vice President JD Vance said Sunday that closing the channel would be economically "suicidal" for the Iranians.
"Their entire economy runs through the Strait of Hormuz. If they want to destroy their own economy and cause disruptions in the world, I think that would be their decision," he told NBC's "Meet the Press."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
5 minutes ago
- Fox News
Auburn's Bruce Pearl maintains Trump 'wants peace,' US isn't at war with Iran
Auburn Tigers men's basketball head coach Bruce Pearl fired off a reminder to his followers after President Donald Trump announced the U.S. military had struck three Iranian nuclear sites. Pearl, who is the chairman of U.S. Israel Education Association along with his duties as a college basketball coach, thanked God for protecting U.S. troops as they made the daring flight over Iran to bomb its nuclear facilities and wrote that the U.S. is not at war with Iran. "Thank you God for your protection over our troops. We are not at war with Iran, we are at war with Iran's military nuclear program," Pearl wrote on X. "The President wants peace, now the ball is in the court of the Iranian leadership. Iran's terrorist reach has been diminished but still present." Pearl has been a staunch supporter of Israel, and his voice in his support has grown since Hamas' terror attacks on the nation on Oct. 7, 2023. Earlier in the week, he expressed support for the president as he weighed potential strikes on Iran. "We can go back and talk about 1982 in Lebanon and all those U.S. Marines that were murdered," he said on OutKick's "Don't @ Me with Dan Dakich." "We can talk about Oct. 7, where 45 Americans were killed. And they abducted, you know, six or seven more and executed them before Israel rescued them. "This has been going on since 1979, and it is about to become a safer place, a non-nuclear Iran. And without having the money to be able to do what they have been doing, the world is going to be a safer place." "If the Middle East gets safer and stronger, look at what a dynamic country Israel is. Look at all the unicorns that are there. Look at all the high tech and development. Look at all the wealth. If you began to spread that to some of these other Middle Eastern countries, who are they going to partner with? The United States? Russia? China? It's going to be the U.S., because Donald Trump has led the way to create peace and prosperity for everybody in the region." Trump announced in a post on Truth Social that the U.S. military had "completed our very successful attack" on the Iranian facilities. The U.S. targeted Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. He wrote that U.S. aircraft had dropped a "full payload of BOMBS" on the nuclear installations. Follow Fox News Digital's sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.
Forbes
5 minutes ago
- Forbes
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.
6 minutes ago
US leaders warn Iran against retaliation after strikes on nuclear facilities
In the hours after its military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, U.S. officials suggested Iran ought to embrace a diplomatic off-ramp rather than choosing to retaliate. "Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace," President Donald Trump said late Saturday in an address to the nation, flanked by Vice President Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. "This cannot continue. There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days," Trump said. U.S. officials on Sunday morning doubled down on the president's message, calling for a diplomatic process and threatening Iran with additional military action should it choose to retailiate for the U.S. attack. Vance suggested the U.S. was not interested in a broader war or a conflict beyond its strikes on the Iranian nuclear program. 'We're not at war with Iran; we're at war with Iran's nuclear program,' Vance said on ABC News' "This Week." At a Pentagon news conference, Hegseth said the nuclear program was 'the line the president set' and that the 'overwhelming' military action should invite peace. 'Iran, in that sense, has a choice,' Hegseth said. 'But we've made it very clear to them -- this is nuclear sites, this is nuclear capabilities. This is the line that the president set, and we set that back.' 'Now is the time to come forward for peace,' he said. The defense secretary did not clarify any potential parameters for negotiations but said the U.S. was sending messages directly to Iran and 'giving them every opportunity to come to the table.' 'They understand precisely what the American position is, precisely what steps they can take to allow for peace, and we hope they do so,' he said. Hegseth said the scope of the U.S. attack -- which struck three nuclear sites including the uranium enrichment facility located deep underground in Fordo -- was 'intentionally limited" and not aimed at "regime change." Trump ordered that the offensive "is most certainly not open-ended,' Hegseth said, calling the attack 'a focused, powerful and clear mission on the destruction of Iranian nuclear capabilities.' 'Those were the targets. That's what was struck. That was overwhelming,' the defense secretary said. Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters at the Pentagon on Sunday that the U.S. was prepared for a potential response from Iran. Caine said 'any Iranian retaliation or proxy attacks…would be an incredibly poor choice,' and Hegseth noted U.S. and allies' assets near Iran. The secretary said the strikes -- which included 14 massive ordnances flown by seven stealth bombers -- "devastated" their targets and left Tehran's nuclear ambitions "obliterated." Caine said a damage assessment was " way too early" to report, but said the operation had 'severely damaged' the targeted facilities. The president suggested Saturday that Iranian retaliation would amount to an escalation and would warrant U.S. attacks which would be 'far worse' than the strikes on nuclear sites. Instead, Trump, Vance, Rubio and Hegseth are signaling to Iran that it should return to the negotiating table to discuss Iran's nuclear program. The U.S. and Iran held five rounds of diplomatic talks -- with a sixth round scheduled -- before Israel attacked Iran last week and the U.S. joined with strikes of its own on Saturday. 'I think it is irrelevant to ask Iran to return to diplomacy because we were in the middle of diplomacy,' Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Sunday. 'We were in the middle of talks with the United States when [the] Israelis blew it up. And again, we were in the middle of talks and negotiation with Europeans, [which] happened only two days ago in Geneva, when this time Americans decided to blow it up,' he said,– referencing his hastily arranged meetings with European leaders on Friday. 'So we were in diplomacy. But we were attacked,' he added. Rubio, America's top diplomat, characterized those talks as delaying tactics by Tehran. 'They play too many games,' he said Sunday on Fox News. 'They use diplomacy to hide behind and obfuscate and think they can buy themselves time. They think they're cute, they're not cute, and they're not going to get away with this stuff, not under President Trump.' Rubio said repeatedly that regime change was not the objective of the attacks, but he suggested a renewed Iranian nuclear buildup would change Washington's calculus. 'If Iran is committed to becoming a nuclear-weapons power, I do think it puts the regime at risk. I think it would be the end of the regime if they tried to do that,' he said.
