As of May 5, 2026, the Strait of Hormuz has become one of the most sensitive axes of regional tension. Iran’s announcement of a new coordination mechanism for ship passages, its request for commercial ships to establish contact with military authorities, and its publication of an expanded map regarding the control of the strait take the issue far beyond the classic energy security debate. Washington’s escort initiative, launched under the name “Freedom Project,” has taken Hormuz to a brand new phase. This phase is a period of controlled uncertainty, lying between complete closure and free passage.
The period in question represents a gray area that Tehran has deliberately maintained. By increasing the cost of transit before making the decision to close the strait, Iran injects a permanent sense of risk into the energy market. This is where the method’s effectiveness stems from. Instead of intercepting every ship, Tehran has turned the question of which ship will pass along which route under what security umbrella into a tool of political pressure. In this case, uncertainty is the strategy itself.
The fast boats within the Revolutionary Guard Corps do not aim to engage in a symmetrical contest with conventional naval forces through their coastal-to-sea missile capabilities, unmanned aerial vehicles, mine threat capabilities, and electronic surveillance capabilities. The aim is to confront the United States (US) Navy with operational costs despite its military superiority. Producing maximum uncertainty with limited means constitutes the essence of asymmetric logic. Even a small-scale incident of harassment against a commercial vessel can rapidly affect oil prices, insurance premiums, and shipping plans.
In this context, the US’s Freedom Project initiative can be seen as an attempt to break this pressure. However, the situation on the ground is much more fragile. The approach of American warships to commercial convoys is interpreted by Tehran as a violation of the ceasefire or an actual challenge.[i] Every step taken for defensive purposes carries the risk of escalation, and the line between a security measure and an act of provocation is becoming increasingly blurred.
The practical success of the escort arrangement hinges firmly on the confidence of commercial actors. The passage of a few ships through the strait cannot be taken as evidence that the crisis has been resolved. In an environment where hundreds of ships remain in waiting positions, sailors are left in uncertainty, and companies must change their route decisions daily, a significant gap emerges between the security declaration and market behavior. Without closing this gap, it is not possible to speak of normalization.
The importance of Hormuz cannot be reduced to the amount of oil alone. The strait is an axis at the center of an integrated economic system that includes liquefied natural gas (LNG), petrochemical products, fertilizer shipments, and marine transportation insurance. Therefore, any delay in Hormuz not only affects the price of oil per barrel. It can also put pressure on a wide economic chain extending from refineries in Asia to industrial production in Europe, from fuel costs in Africa to food prices.
The areas where the impact is felt most rapidly are insurance and freight costs. Whether a ship passes through or not often results from insurance companies’ risk calculations rather than the captain’s discretion.[ii] Every mine warning, every drone report, and every escort convoy increases invisible costs.[iii] Thus, military risk is transformed into an economic cost, and energy security becomes intertwined with financial security.
For the Gulf States, this crisis brings about a contradictory squeeze. While Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, and Kuwait want the energy flow to continue, they also know very well the regional cost of direct conflict with Iran. On the one hand, there is a need for the US security umbrella; on the other hand, it is calculated that open confrontation could make ports, facilities, and cities targets. Therefore, the main challenge for the Gulf capitals is to support Washington’s move while at the same time not completely losing diplomatic channels with Tehran.
The positions of China and India, however, reinforce the global dimension of the crisis. Both countries are heavily dependent on Gulf energy. While China maintains its strategic relationship with Iran, it does not wish to see energy flows disrupted. New Delhi, on the other hand, closely monitors all kinds of activity in the strait through its workforce presence in the Gulf, energy imports, and maritime trade routes. This dynamic reveals that the uncertainty in Hormuz could affect Asia’s growth calculations beyond the West-Iran tension.[iv]
The ongoing sanctions debate within the UN Security Council also reveals another dimension of the crisis. The United States and some Gulf partners are attempting to put the pressure on Iran on a legal basis. However, the positions taken by Russia and China demonstrate that the Hormuz Crisis cannot be viewed separately from great power competition. Although maritime security is presented as a global common interest, each capital takes its position in line with its own strategic priorities.
In international maritime law, the principle of transit passage through straits is considered a strong norm. However, Iran opens this norm to de facto negotiation by citing its own security, territorial sovereignty, and wartime conditions. Thus, in Hormuz, the distance between law and power is narrowing, and every transit decision acquires a diplomatic significance. This situation may also set a precedent for similar maritime passages.
The crisis unfolds decisively not only on the military front but also on the psychological front. Markets often price in the possibility of closure before it actually occurs. States also shift positions under the pressure generated by the expectation of an attack rather than as a result of a single attack. This is exactly where Iran’s strategic gain comes into play. Constructing a wide zone of uncertainty with limited means involves making diplomacy a complementary element of military deterrence in shaping this line, and shaping crisis management not only through ship traffic but also through public perception.
For Turkey, the Hormuz Crisis is a development that must be carefully evaluated along the axes of energy costs, foreign trade, logistics lines, and regional balance. The volatility in oil and LNG prices could put pressure on the current account balance and inflation outlook. The disruption of trade with the Gulf could directly affect industrial and transportation costs. In response, the strategic value of the Central Corridor, the Iraq Development Road, and Mediterranean-connected routes is increasing. For Ankara, the priority is to maintain a balanced approach that prevents the conflict from spreading, safeguards energy flows, and creates space for regional diplomacy.
The era of controlled uncertainty in Hormuz ultimately rests on Iran’s ability to generate risk rather than its military capacity. The US naval security initiative seeks to break this pressure. However, each escort mission may inevitably entail the possibility of new contacts. What will be decisive in the coming period is whether the parties will completely exhaust the fragile equilibrium while testing each other. Hormuz is no longer just a routine transit point; it is also the narrowest but most effective stage for the energy order, great power competition, and regional deterrence.
[i] “Trump’s Plan to ‘Guide’ Ships Through Hormuz Leaves Questions Unanswered”, CNN, https://edition.cnn.com/2026/05/04/middleeast/project-freedom-hormuz-guide-ships-intl-hnk-ml, (Date Accessed: 05.05.2026).
[ii] “Ships Seek Iranian Clearance in Hormuz as Insurance Costs Surge”, Euronews, https://www.euronews.com/business/2026/03/26/ships-seek-irans-clearance-to-cross-hormuz-as-risks-rise-and-insurance-costs-surge, (Date Accessed: 05.05.2026).
[iii] “Shipping Insurance Costs to Cross Hormuz Soar After Ship Attacks”, Bloomberg, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-16/shipping-insurance-costs-to-cross-hormuz-soar-after-ship-attacks, (Date Accessed: 05.05.2026).
[iv] “How the Iran War Has Stoked Competition Between India and China for Russian Oil”, CNBC, https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/23/india-china-russian-oil-supply-strait-hormuz-disruption.html, (Date Accessed: 05.05.2026).
