politics

Why forcing the strait open is high risk

As the war between the United States and Iran has entered its fourth week, the Strait of Hormuz has become the conflict’s most critical — and volatile — battlefield.

The narrow chokepoint, through which a significant share of the world’s oil passes, is now effectively paralysed.

Iran has largely blockaded the strait, snarling oil shipments and disrupting global trade.

Tehran, however, insists the waterway remains open to all shipping except vessels linked to what it calls its “enemies,” framing the disruption as a targeted response rather than a full closure.

The impact has already rippled through energy markets, pushing up fuel prices globally.

For Washington, reopening the strait is no longer just a military objective — it is an economic and political imperative.

But doing so may prove far more difficult than it appears.

The stakes have risen sharply in recent hours, underscoring how quickly the crisis could escalate.

Iran’s threat

Iran on Sunday threatened to target key infrastructure across the Middle East if US President Donald Trump follows through on his warning to “obliterate” the country’s power plants unless the Strait of Hormuz is fully reopened within 48 hours.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump issued the 48-hour ultimatum, sharply escalating pressure on Tehran’s leadership.

Iran’s military command responded that any such strike would trigger attacks on US-linked “energy, information technology and desalination infrastructure” across the region — signalling the risk of a much wider conflict.

The administration of Donald Trump is weighing several options, according to The New York Times, each carrying significant risk, complexity and the potential for escalation — with no quick or guaranteed solution in sight.

Analysts say Washington could next step up military, economic and naval pressure — from intensified strikes to tanker escorts — as it seeks to force Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz without triggering a wider war.

At a glance: Strait of Hormuz blockade

~20% of global oil & LNG flows through Hormuz in peacetime
24 vessel incidents reported since March 1, including 11 tankers (UKMTO)
8 seafarers killed, 4 missing, 10 injured (IMO)
Shipping down ~95% — from ~120 daily transits to just 124 crossings in 3 weeks
~20,000 people affected, including seafarers, port workers and offshore crews
3,200 vessels stranded in the region, many large commercial ships
250 oil tankers stuck in the Gulf (≈5% of global tanker capacity)
Ship fuel prices up ~90%, while crude shipping costs have doubled

Destroying threats from the air

The most immediate strategy is to neutralise Iran’s ability to target ships from land.

US warplanes have intensified strikes along Iran’s southern coast, targeting missile launchers, drone facilities and underground bunkers. Officials say the goal is to reduce the threat to slow-moving oil tankers before attempting to move them through the strait.

But even after weeks of bombardment, Iran retains residual capabilities. Military officials acknowledge that while its strike capacity has been significantly degraded, it has not been eliminated.

That means any attempt to reopen shipping lanes would still carry risk.

The minefield problem

Even more dangerous is the possibility that Iran has mined the strait.

Naval mines — some attached directly to ships, others floating just below the surface or lying on the seabed — are among the simplest yet most disruptive weapons in maritime warfare. A single successful strike could halt traffic entirely.

Clearing them is a painstaking and time-consuming process. Experts say it could take weeks, requiring specialised ships and exposing sailors to direct danger.

Worse, uncertainty itself is enough to paralyse shipping. Even the suspicion of mines can deter commercial vessels from entering the waterway.

Iran’s swarm tactics at sea

Beyond missiles and mines, Iran’s naval strategy relies heavily on speed and unpredictability.

The country’s Revolutionary Guard operates hundreds of fast-attack boats — small, agile vessels capable of launching sudden strikes using rockets or drones. These “swarm” tactics are designed to overwhelm defences and create chaos in crowded shipping lanes.

The US military has deployed aircraft such as A-10 warplanes to hunt these vessels, while also targeting drone storage sites along the coast. But Iran’s use of civilian ports to shelter assets complicates targeting and raises the risk of collateral damage.

A high-risk escalation: Kharg Island

One of the most aggressive options under consideration is a potential move against Kharg Island, Iran’s main oil export hub.

US strikes have already weakened defences there, hitting dozens of military targets. Some officials believe seizing or disabling the island could cripple Iran’s ability to finance the war.

But such an operation would mark a major escalation. Amphibious assaults involving thousands of Marines — or elite airborne units — would face resistance from entrenched Iranian forces and risk drawing the United States deeper into the conflict.

Even within the administration, there are mixed signals. While Trump has threatened decisive action, he has also publicly downplayed the likelihood of deploying ground troops.

Escorting tankers: Simple in theory, complex in reality

Another option — escorting commercial tankers through the strait — may sound straightforward, but military planners say it is among the most complicated.

Such operations require large numbers of naval assets, including destroyers equipped with advanced missile defence systems, supported by aircraft overhead. Even then, protecting slow-moving ships in a confined waterway remains a daunting challenge.

Past experience underscores the danger. During the 1980s “tanker war,” US-escorted vessels were still struck by mines and missiles, resulting in significant damage and loss of life.

A battlefield with no easy answers

Each option carries serious risks — from prolonged military engagement to wider regional escalation.

For now, the Strait of Hormuz stands as both a strategic chokepoint and a symbol of the war’s growing complexity.

Reopening it is essential — but doing so without triggering a broader conflict may prove far more difficult.

politics

Trump–Iran agree 2-week ceasefire, reopen Hormuz

President Donald Trump on Tuesday said he agreed to suspend planned attacks on Iranian infrastructure for two weeks, backing off his shocking threats to imminently order the destruction of Iran’s “whole civilization.”

The move, more than five weeks after the U.S. and Israel launched the war, was “subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz,” he wrote on Truth Social.

The decision was “based on conversations with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir, of Pakistan,” Trump wrote.

“This will be a double sided CEASEFIRE!” he declared.

Oil prices plunged as much as 16% following the announcement, while U.S. stock futures shot up.

Iran Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said in a separate statement that ships will be able to safely pass through the strait for the two-week interval “via coordination with Iran’s Armed Forces and with due consideration of technical limitations.”

Trump’s announcement came less than two hours before his deadline on Iran to either make a deal that includes opening the strait — a vital artery for global oil transit — or else face major attacks on its civilian infrastructure.

The 8 p.m. ET deadline — which Trump set Sunday after demanding in a belligerent social media post that Iran “Open the Fuckin’ Strait” — had caused panic in the U.S. and around the world.

Trump escalated matters dramatically on Tuesday morning, writing in another post, “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.”

Sharif on Tuesday afternoon had asked Trump for a two-week extension of his deadline for Iran. He also asked Iran’s leadership to agree to open up the strait for two weeks “as a goodwill gesture.”

“We also urge all warring parties to observe a ceasefire everywhere for two weeks to allow diplomacy to achieve conclusive termination of war, in the interest of long-term peace and stability in the region,” Sharif wrote in an X post.

Both the U.S. and Iran framed the development as a win.

Trump, in his post announcing the two-week delay, claimed the U.S. had agreed to halt its planned attacks because “we have already met and exceeded all Military objectives, and are very far along with a definitive Agreement concerning Longterm PEACE with Iran, and PEACE in the Middle East.”

“We received a 10 point proposal from Iran, and believe it is a workable basis on which to negotiate,” Trump wrote.

“Almost all of the various points of past contention have been agreed to between the United States and Iran, but a two week period will allow the Agreement to be finalized and consummated,” he wrote.

Iran’s Mehr News Agency later Tuesday posted a statement from the secretariat of the Islamic Republic’s Supreme National Security Council declaring that the U.S. “has accepted these principles as the basis for negotiations and has surrendered to the will of the Iranian people.”

“If the surrender of the enemy in the field becomes a decisive political achievement in the negotiations, we will celebrate this great historical victory together, otherwise we will fight side by side in the field until all the demands of the Iranian nation are achieved,” read a translation of the statement.

Iran will hold negotiations with the U.S. in Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, for two weeks beginning in the coming days, according to the statement.

Iran’s 10-point proposal includes withdrawing U.S. combat forces from all regional bases, lifting all sanctions, releasing Iranian assets frozen abroad and full payment of Iran’s war-related damages. It would also establish a protocol for controlled passage through the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump, on Monday, said a ceasefire proposal put forward by Iran was “not good enough.” It was not immediately clear what in the intervening hours led him to accept Iran’s proposal as a “workable basis” for negotiations.

CNBC

politics

Israel warns Iran on trains as Trump threatens infrastructure

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) is warning people in Iran not to take the train today.

In a post shared on the military’s Farsi social media account, it tells people in Iran “for the sake of your security” to “refrain from using and travelling by train” throughout the country “until 21:00 Iran time”.

It adds that “presence on trains and near railway lines endangers your life”.

It comes as US President Donald Trump threatens to strike civilian infrastructure targets across Iran, if the regime refuses to allow free passage through the Strait of Hormuz by 20:00 EDT Tuesday (01:00 BST Wednesday).

In updates issued overnight, the Israeli military also said it completed a wave of air strikes targeting “infrastructure in Tehran” linked to the regime, and killed people it said were members of Hezbollah.

Separately, the military also said it had intercepted missiles launched towards Israel by Iran.

Israel’s train travel warning comes as Trump threatens more infrastructure strikes

In a post in Farsi on social media this morning, the Israel Defense Forces gave what it described as an “urgent warning to train users and passengers in Iran”

The “warning” suggests imminent Israeli airstrikes on the Iranian rail network. But there is a weeks-long internet blackout in Iran, meaning social media posts will be seen by very few people.

The Iranian rail network is extensive and runs throughout the country. People will almost certainly already be travelling by rail this morning, travelling long distances, or be located near rail stations or lines.

Overnight, Israel carried out multiple airstrikes in Iran, with “regime infrastructure” described as the target.

BBC

Analytics

Should your next car be electric after the war?

Disruptions to energy flows, especially through the Strait of Hormuz, have triggered one of the most significant shocks to global oil markets in recent years. Fuel costs are rising, and supply chains remain exposed.

“We are in the middle of the second energy shock in the 2020s,” said Kingsmill Bond. “It will flow into people’s decisions on what energy-hungry devices they buy.” For car buyers, that shift is already underway.

1. Fuel costs spike worldwide

The impact shows up immediately:

Petrol and diesel prices are rising worldwide, with volatility complicating long-term budgeting
Supply risks are adding uncertainty to everyday transport costs

In parts of Asia, fuel rationing and reduced mobility are already visible, accelerating demand for electric two-wheelers and rickshaws. For buyers, the implication is direct: running a petrol car is becoming harder to plan, while EVs offer more stable operating costs.

That cost gap is becoming clearer in the UAE. An analysis by NIO MENA reveals just how significant the gap has become. With Super 98 petrol at Dh3.39 per litre and Special 95 at Dh3.29, a typical petrol car averaging 12 km per litre costs roughly Dh275 to Dh280 to cover 1,000 km.

An electric vehicle charged at home covers the same distance for about Dh45 — a saving of more than Dh230, or up to 84%.

2. EV cost advantage widens

Even with public charging, the economics still favour EVs:

Public AC charging: Dh120 per 1,000 km
DC fast charging: Dh180 per 1,000 km

For fleet operators, these margins scale quickly. A vehicle covering 30,000 km a year could save between Dh2,700 and Dh6,900 annually depending on charging method. Lower maintenance costs — fewer moving parts, no oil changes — add to the advantage.

“When running an electric vehicle can save you up to 84% compared to petrol, this is no longer a debate about sustainability preferences. It is a bottom-line decision,” said Mohammad Maktari, CEO of NIO MENA.

3. People already shift to electric alternatives

The response extends beyond cars. In India, LPG delivery delays of up to 25 days have pushed households toward electric cooking, with induction stove sales rising as much as 30 times on some platforms.

In Europe, solar panel sales have more than doubled in Germany, and EV buyer interest in the UK has risen nearly 30% since the conflict began.

Households in several economies are reducing reliance on fossil fuels. Electrification is becoming a practical decision tied to cost and reliability.

4. Energy security become a priority

The latest shock is reinforcing a deeper shift. “The main driver will not be climate change, the main driver will be energy security,” said Fatih Birol of the International Energy Agency.

History supports this pattern:

The 1970s oil shocks pushed fuel-efficient cars into the mainstream
High oil prices in the 2000s accelerated solar and battery innovation

For today’s buyers, the takeaway is clear: EVs reduce exposure to global oil disruptions and offer a path toward greater cost control.

5. Emerging markets accelerate shift

The pressure is strongest in economies reliant on imported fuel. Countries across Asia and Africa — dependent on shipments through the Strait of Hormuz — are facing supply disruptions and rising costs.

In Nigeria, demand for rooftop solar is increasing despite high upfront costs. In Ethiopia, fuel shortages have led to long queues at petrol stations and renewed calls to accelerate EV adoption. Electrification is increasingly seen as a response to supply vulnerability, not just pricing.

Gulf News