The closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran following the attacks initiated by the United States (USA) and Israel on February 28, 2026, marked the onset of a crisis directly impacting the global economy, energy sectors, and supply chains. Iran’s simultaneous strikes on American bases in the Middle East and its closure of the Strait of Hormuz constituted a maneuver that was unanticipated by US President Donald Trump and, so to speak, “surprised” him. In an effort to resolve this crisis spreading across the Middle East, Trump asserted during the initial days of the conflict that they would ensure the security of the Strait of Hormuz and that it would remain open; however, upon realizing the infeasibility of this objective, he sought assistance from his allies, particularly from the member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Failing to receive support in this regard from his NATO allies, including the United Kingdom and France, Trump issued a challenge to them, stating, “Go get your own oil,”,[i] and subsequently emphasized that they had expended hundreds of billions of dollars on NATO, yet these nations failed to provide assistance, thereby rendering contributions to NATO meaningless.[ii]
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, in a statement delivered on April 1, 2026, regarding the matter, explicitly emphasized that the aforementioned war conducted against Iran was not “their own war,” and therefore, the United Kingdom could not be drawn into this conflict; with these words, he clearly manifested that they would remain outside the scope of the war.[iii] In a statement regarding the ongoing debates spanning several months, the United Kingdom proposed an agreement concerning the transfer of the Chagos Islands, where joint military bases with the USA are located, to Mauritius; within the scope of this agreement, the UK stipulated prerequisites regarding the non-utilization of the bases on the island in the war against Iran, and due to these aforementioned prerequisites, the Trump administration withdrew its support for the Chagos Islands Agreement.[iv] The Trump administration, which failed to receive the anticipated support from its largest strategic partner in Europe, the United Kingdom, and remained isolated in this war, was compelled to resolve the issue regarding the Strait of Hormuz independently.
It has been observed that the USA and the United Kingdom, which have been endeavoring to pivot NATO’s orientation toward the Asia-Pacific since 2022, have yet to develop a common stance regarding the Middle East and have fallen into a clear divergence of opinion. Conversely, from the years 2021-2022 onwards, the Conservative Party government in the United Kingdom persistently advocated that NATO should prepare for a potential Taiwan Crisis in the Asia-Pacific, drawing from the example of Ukraine,[v] and conducted efforts alongside the USA to ensure that NATO focuses on China. As a result of these efforts, NATO has included China, alongside Russia, as a “systemic challenge” in its new Strategic Concept.[vi] In this sense, a potential crisis that could arise in the Taiwan Strait has been labeled as an “issue that could threaten global security,” and there has been an intent to draft a more global vision document to enable NATO to engage with this matter. From this date onward, the diplomatic efforts led by the USA and the United Kingdom to promote the globalization of NATO and to ensure its involvement in all global issues have become noteworthy.
The Strait of Hormuz constitutes one of the critical waterways through which one-fourth of the world’s energy trade passes, and the security of this passage assumes the character of a global issue. Taiwan, on the other hand, holds the position of the world’s largest microchip (semiconductor) producer and possesses critical importance for global economic markets. While their levels of global impact are similar, the spheres of expansion and the extent to which respective continents or countries are affected by the current and potential crises regarding Hormuz and Taiwan, respectively, may exhibit variations. Furthermore, the identity of the actors involved—or those who may become involved—in these crises is of paramount significance. For instance, the crisis in Hormuz has more significantly affected Far Eastern countries that import vast quantities of energy through this strait and are, consequently, heavily dependent on it for energy. Correspondingly, the primary actors in this crisis are Iran, Israel, and the USA. Conversely, a potential crisis in the Taiwan Strait could directly impact global technology production, which is dependent on microchips. The fundamental actors in this matter would likely be Taiwan, China, and potentially the USA. Accordingly, the approaches of NATO member states toward these issues may also differ. Indeed, in recent years, NATO has exhibited a tendency to evaluate Russia and China concurrently. In this context, NATO has categorized both as “systemic rivals.” Consequently, the approaches and relations of NATO’s European members, particularly toward China, hold immense significance.
In summary, both straits possess the capacity to generate a high impact on the global system. Nevertheless, the crisis in Hormuz manifests its influence primarily through the global energy supply. While this situation directly affects Asian economies that are highly dependent on energy imports, such as Japan, South Korea, and China, it also indirectly exerts pressure on European economies. In this context, the impact of the crisis is felt predominantly through energy supply shocks and fluctuations in energy prices. Conversely, a potential crisis in the Taiwan Strait could affect the global economy in a more structural and long-term manner. Since semiconductors are a critical input in a wide range of sectors, from the defense industry to consumer electronics, a Taiwan-centered disruption has the potential to impede not only specific regions but the entirety of global production networks. For this reason, the Taiwan crisis carries a characteristic that could yield more extensive and systemic consequences compared to energy crises.
The economic ties of NATO’s European members with China entail a more cautious and balanced approach regarding Taiwan. Consequently, European actors would prefer that the USA does not enter into an overt confrontation with China over Taiwan and that this issue does not escalate further into a global crisis or conflict. In this process, China’s establishment of highly constructive relations with European actors has significant positive implications. Similar to their approach toward Hormuz, European countries will perceive taking a harsh stance on Taiwan as costly due to their deep commercial ties with China. Major economies in Europe, owing to their supply chains and export markets, will tend to avoid escalating the risk of a direct conflict in the Taiwan Strait.
[i] “Trump’s message on the Strait of Hormuz: ‘Go get your own oil’“, TRT Haber, https://www.trthaber.com/haber/dunya/trumptan-hurmuz-bogazi-mesaji-gidin-kendi-petrolunuzu-alin-939807.html, (Date Accessed: 18.04.2026).
[ii] “Leaving NATO—Even for the Wrong Reasons—Is Good Policy”, CATO, https://www.cato.org/blog/leaving-nato-even-wrong-reasons-good-policy, (Date Accessed: 18.04.2026).
[iii] “UK’s Starmer says Iran conflict ‘not our war,’ as Trump weighs NATO withdrawal”, AA, https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/uks-starmer-says-iran-conflict-not-our-war-as-trump-weighs-nato-withdrawal/3888086, (Date Accessed: 18.04.2026).
[iv] “UK forced to shelve Chagos Islands legislation after US dropped support”, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/11/uk-forced-to-shelve-legislation-to-return-chagos-islands-to-mauritius, (Date Accessed: 18.04.2026); “What the Chagos deal reversal tells us about the UK’s diplomatic weakness”, Prospect Magazine, https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/the-weekly-constitutional/73040/trump-chagos-deal-reversal-uk-diplomatic-weakness, (Erişim Tarihi: 18.04.2026).
[v] “Learn Ukraine lessons and apply them to Taiwan, Britain says”, Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-must-avoid-becoming-dependent-china-truss-2022-06-30/, (Date Accessed: 18.04.2026).
[vi] “NATO declares China a security challenge for the first time”, Al Jazeera, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/6/30/nato-names-china-a-strategic-priority-for-the-first-time, (Date Accessed: 18.04.2026).
