US Naval blockade ...
Page 1
How do you assess the role of countries that transit the Strait of Hormuz or benefit from it in this crisis?
Countries that transit the Strait of Hormuz or benefit from it—including Persian Gulf littoral states and major energy importers such as China, Japan, India, and South Korea—are highly sensitive to any threat of disruption in this strategic waterway. For Arab states in the southern Persian Gulf, the stability of the Strait is a vital national security issue, as a large portion of their revenue and economic stability depends on oil exports through this route.
As a result, these countries are naturally inclined to ensure that the crisis does not escalate to a level that threatens their exports. In such situations, they typically seek to step in as mediators or de-escalators, although their positions may be influenced by their relations with the United States.
Countries like China and India, as the largest consumers of the region’s energy, fundamentally oppose any action that could even raise the possibility of disrupting the daily flow of millions of barrels of oil, since even minor shocks in Hormuz could destabilize global energy prices and harm their economies. These concerns tend to push them toward exerting diplomatic pressure on Washington to moderate its actions. Accordingly, the role of these countries in the crisis is largely that of balancers and deterrents—seeking, through their economic and political influence, to contain the situation and prevent it from escalating into a broader conflict.
What role can international organizations such as the United Nations or the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) play in resolving this crisis?
The United Nations stands as the primary reference body for addressing such a crisis. Any unilateral action that threatens international peace and security must, under the UN Charter, be reviewed by the Security Council. If Iran frames such a move as a threat to regional stability, the Council could convene an emergency session and potentially issue a statement or resolution calling for de-escalation.
While, in practice, the US veto could block the adoption of a binding resolution, merely bringing the issue before the Security Council would generate considerable political and media pressure. Alongside this, UNCLOS provides a clear framework governing freedom of navigation, the security of shipping lanes, and the prohibition of hostile actions without legal basis. Iran could invoke these principles to challenge the legitimacy of US actions.
Other bodies, such as the International Maritime Organization, could also warn of the risks posed by insecurity along shipping routes. Overall, international mechanisms primarily serve to apply diplomatic pressure and undercut the legitimacy of a blockade. While their role is not absolutely binding, they are highly effective in shaping global consensus and increasing the political cost of unilateral action.