Who wins, and who loses, if the Strait of Hormuz (SOH) and the BEM (Bab el-Mandeb) become free(er) to transit? What if they can't be reopened? Can any deal to restore free passage succeed?
A successful deal means the Europeans are reprieved from the economic effects of oil scarcity arising from the immobilization of tankers. G7 leaders (notably at the recent summit in France) have welcomed the preliminary U.S.-Iran deal. G7 economies are major importers of Gulf energy (especially Europe and Japan). Disruptions raised inflation, slowed growth, and strained supply chains with dire political effects. Reopening restores normal flows, reduces rerouting costs (transits round Africa’s Cape of Good Hope add time/fuel), and supports industries. The U.S. was probably under immense diplomatic pressure from Europe to do a deal – for the sake of money.
Russia loses money if supplies are freed up. The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz (and stabilization of Bab el-Mandeb) will exert downward pressure on Russian oil export earnings, primarily through lower global oil prices. Markets are already pricing in restored flows. Brent has fallen toward $75–$80/barrel (or lower in forecasts), with Urals dropping below $65 in some readings. This reverses the crisis premium Russia was formerly able to charge.
The proposed deal does not reverse the reported fuel shortages in Russia. Russia is experiencing fuel shortages (especially gasoline) in mid-2026 mainly due to sustained Ukrainian drone strikes on its oil refineries and related infrastructure, which have significantly reduced domestic refining capacity. Because the shortages are caused by damage to production, storage, and logistics, they are largely unrelated to a campaign in the Gulf.
But the G7 countries are only reprieved not pardoned. Russia's income will likely fall, but it may rise again. It is unlikely that the last act in the oil drama has been played. For one thing, otherwise unimportant economic actors have gotten a taste of navigational blackmail. Iran's desire to control SOH and BEM has already sparked discussions in Indonesia about charging fees for the Straits of Malacca. Somali pirates have taken advantage of the situation by boarding ships trying to evade the Iranians. Muslim nations have recovered the memory that it is possible to charge a toll for the use of the seas again.
Nor is paying bribes a reliable solution. Hardline Iranian leaders are apparently unhappy that they are not getting their share of the agreed disbursements. “Mahmoud Nabavian, a member of parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, said Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei had repeatedly objected to the course of negotiations with the United States and set conditions that were not reflected in the Iran-US memorandum of understanding.” Perhaps one of the reasons the Iran deal provisions were kept ambiguous is because no one wants to say who is not included in the payoffs. Contrary to popular belief, radical causes are not all about belief; they are mostly about money.
Because the Strait conflict is a war-within-wars, any number of actors can sabotage the ceasefire if their demands are unmet. Thus, not only Iran but Israel can close the Strait. “Iran said Saturday that the Strait of Hormuz is closed, citing ceasefire violations after Israel continued deadly strikes in southern Lebanon overnight." It turns out that the money spigot (counting the value of the ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz) can be turned off at many points. The narrows can be shut not only by Iran and not only by the USN, but also by Israel simply by retaliating against Iran's proxy attacks.
This lack of monopoly was the flaw in Tehran’s calculation. Iran saw the Strait as insurance against retaliation, but it did not stop Israel or the U.S. from bombing it. The geography of the Strait only guarantees Iran can hurt others, but it provides no protection from actors that don’t rely on Hormuz.
The situation means it takes three keys turned together to open the Strait and stop the war, but it only takes one key to close it when none of the interests of the keyholders are fully aligned. That is why it is meaningless at this point to say who ultimately "won" the Strait War. Too many people have the veto card over the truce for anyone to"'control" it. Not just state actors but even faction leaders and militia leaders inside Iran itself can jump in and spoil the broth. For any given deal, there is the likelihood that some bearded leader will object and say, "Hey I wasn't paid!" The situation will continue until the situation resolves on the ground. For now, nothing can be won or even surrendered on the basis of a sheet of paper.
Iran's whole business model was built around blackmail. What they didn't count on was others dealing themselves in. To answer the question of who started the game of navigational blackmail in the first place, we must go back to Khomeini and Jimmy Carter, or perhaps (if you're bipartisan) the former Shah of Iran. Long did the blackmail card lie there like a snake, coiled but unused until the first tanker war during the Iran-Iraq conflict saw its open employment. It took on the money aspect during the Obama administration when the Nobel Prize winner paid the ayatollahs pallets of cash to keep out of mischief. But the Islamic Republic used the funds instead to blow up coalition soldiers in Iraq and store up munitions against what would later become Oct. 7, the consequences of which they assumed would be avoided by holding the Strait hostage.
But their ace betrayed them because the very existence of a chokepoint is impossible for the world economy to endure. Hormuz turned out to be a ticking time bomb they can’t get rid of. Iran no longer "controls" Hormuz; rather, it controls them. The Persian Gulf is a classic case of broken symmetry. Hormuz seemed to be in equilibrium as an international waterway, but it was unstable, like a pencil balanced on a desk. As the first tanker war in the 1980s showed, it had a lower, "natural" ground state (also visible in the Bab el-Mandeb and Somali coast) of Muslims exacting tribute from the world. Once Western power had fallen below a certain point, the symmetry broke; the pencil fell over and what we observe in the Gulf and the Red Sea is a lower state of order where it must lie flat until another arrangement. There’s probably no going back to the past, but there is a possible future. With pipelines, nuclear energy, and adaptation, the irreplaceable waterway can someday be replaced. History goes on. It never goes back.
Editor’s Note: Thanks to President Trump and his administration’s bold leadership, we are respected on the world stage, and our enemies are being put on notice.
Help us continue to report on the administration’s peace through strength foreign policy and its successes. Join PJ Media VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member