More than 80% of global merchandise trade is transported by sea, a vast share that, in times of peace, allows commerce to flow smoothly but, in times of turmoil, starkly reveals the oceans’ influence over the economy and consumers’ purchasing power. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway just over 20 miles wide through which 20% of the world’s oil consumption passed as recently as February, is a traumatic and unprecedented example of how disrupting maritime traffic through a strategic chokepoint can trigger a massive snowball effect. Less energy supply, a sudden spike in fuel prices, soaring shipping costs and higher inflation. It is impossible for the global economy to function independently of the sea.

The shockwave from the closure of Hormuz has been global and has hit the U.S. economy particularly hard. U.S. President Donald Trump likely never imagined that the conflict launched alongside Israel against Iran would last this long, or that it would drive gasoline and diesel prices for Americans to record highs. The collapse in maritime traffic through Hormuz has disrupted oil exports from the Persian Gulf and sharply increased transportation costs worldwide. According to analysts, higher shipping rates are adding more than $30 to the cost of each barrel of oil, roughly 10 times more than before the conflict.

Hormuz, with its enormous influence over the world’s energy supply, is the clearest example of the strategic importance of maritime straits to global trade and the economy. But the world is dotted with other waterways that are just as critical to the movement of goods and the shape of the geopolitical landscape. These are the so-called chokepoints: highly sensitive passages through which a significant share of global trade flows. Whoever controls them holds a lever capable of moving the world.

They do not even need to be blocked, as in Hormuz. A deterioration in weather conditions or security is enough to send ripples across the global economy. That is already happening in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, which separates the Horn of Africa from the Arabian Peninsula and serves as the southern gateway to the Red Sea, before vessels pass through the Suez Canal on their way to Europe. Attacks by Yemen’s Houthi rebels against Saudi Arabia are threatening navigation in the area, which has never fully recovered since the militia disrupted traffic through the strait in 2023 and 2024 in protest against Israel’s offensive in Gaza.

For weather-related rather than military reasons, the Panama Canal is another hotspot. Drought linked to the El Niño phenomenon has forced the Panama Canal Authority to cut traffic and impose draft restrictions on vessels, as the canal’s locks require large volumes of water to operate.

The risk of disruption has also briefly hovered over the Strait of Malacca, located between Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia, which is one of the world’s busiest shipping routes, serving as the main corridor between Asia and Europe via the Indian Ocean. In April, Indonesia’s finance minister even floated the idea of introducing a toll, though he quickly walked back the proposal.

“The Strait of Hormuz is the major energy chokepoint; the Strait of Malacca is Asia’s major commercial and energy chokepoint,” notes Alicia García Herrero, chief economist for Asia-Pacific at Natixis.

Hormuz, Bab el-Mandeb, Suez, Panama and Malacca are the world’s key maritime chokepoints. Any disruption in these passages has an immediate impact on the global economy. But there are other strategically vital straits, including Gibraltar, the Bosporus and the Dardanelles in Turkey, the Taiwan Strait, Lombok and Sunda in Indonesia, and the English Channel. These critical passages are monitored daily by the powerful maritime industry: shipowners, shipping companies that manage the transport of goods, and insurers that cover vessels and cargo and also issue war-risk policies in times of conflict —premiums that have surged since the outbreak of the war against Iran. War-risk insurance premiums for ships transiting Hormuz have risen to between 3% and 10% of a vessel’s value, compared with around 0.25% before the conflict.

A study by the University of Oxford estimated last year that disruptions at maritime chokepoints cost the global economy about $192 billion annually, due to delivery delays, rerouting and higher insurance premiums. “The world has changed, but the consequences in terms of detour distances and costs remain the same,” one of the authors, Professor Jim Hall, said in an email.

In June, at the height of the Hormuz blockade, Allianz estimated that more than $125 billion worth of cargo was stranded aboard over 1,000 ships anchored in the area. In its latest report, published in October, the World Trade Organization warned that “upward momentum in trade may have stalled following the outbreak of the Middle East conflict.” Global container traffic volumes had reached record highs in February this year, but by July 2026 they had fallen by 2.5%, including a 4.0% decline in traffic through Chinese ports, according to the WTO.

Hormuz: An energy and financial chokepoint

“No shipping, no shopping” has long been a favorite slogan of the maritime industry, but it has never rung truer than it does today in Hormuz. Never before has this sea passage been completely shut down, and “there is no historical precedent in the sample for traffic at a major global chokepoint dropping to zero within days,” according to the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). The institution argues that Hormuz is the world’s most economically significant maritime chokepoint, not only because of its impact on energy supplies but also because of its financial implications.

Before the war, nearly a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas passed through Hormuz, along with 13% of all chemicals traded globally, including fertilizers and plastics.

More than 130 vessels a day used to transit the strait. That figure has now fallen to around 20, driving up the price of these commodities and fueling broader inflationary pressures for which, so far, no ceiling is in sight as long as shipping disruptions persist. The crisis in Hormuz has, in fact, forced central banks to raise interest rates, twice in the case of the European Central Bank and once, its first increase in three years, in the case of the U.S. Federal Reserve. It has also contributed significantly to the current rise in bond yields, pushing up borrowing costs across the economy.

According to the BIS, the Strait of Hormuz is of “critical importance” to global financial stability and the world’s most consequential maritime chokepoint in terms of its influence on credit conditions. “The unique role of Hormuz as a chokepoint for global energy flows makes it a key variable in assessing financial vulnerabilities,” the BIS warns, underscoring its strategic importance.

Freight rates and the inflationary chain reaction

Shipping a tonne of oil from the Persian Gulf to China now costs around $237, compared with $25 in February, before the war. On a per-barrel basis, freight costs have risen from about $3.50 to more than $30, meaning they now account for more than a quarter of the price of Brent crude, compared with barely 2% to 3% before the conflict.

Transport costs have, in fact, become the main obstacle preventing fuel prices from easing, even as Gulf producers begin to increase their oil exports. What began as a supply crisis is increasingly turning into a maritime transport crisis. Meanwhile, fears that hostilities could flare up again in the Persian Gulf remain acute, helping to push Brent prices in recent days back to their April highs of around $116 a barrel.

“Even when there is supply, there is a shortage of vessels and shipping routes have become longer,” explains Jorge Molinero, an analyst at commodities platform Sparta. “What the war has done is reduce the effective supply of tankers through several channels at once. The global fleet may be unchanged [since building a ship takes years], but many tankers have been stranded inside the Gulf. At the same time, voyages have become longer. Shipments that once travelled from the Gulf to Asia are being replaced by crude from more distant origins, which means more days at sea and fewer ships available.”

On top of that, war-risk insurance premiums for tankers have soared, a cost that shipowners are passing on through higher freight rates. The same pattern can be seen elsewhere. Freight rates for tankers sailing from the United States to Europe reached about $188 per tonne in October, an all-time high and nearly four times the level recorded in February.

“Tankers have been redeployed and voyages are longer, so there is a shortage of ships everywhere,” Molinero adds. With renewed tensions around Bab el-Mandeb, vessels avoiding the Red Sea and carrying crude to Europe via the Cape of Good Hope can add as much as two weeks to their journey.

Tankers have become the most valuable assets in global shipping, particularly for traders and energy companies that do not own fleets and must charter vessels on the open market. According to maritime consultancy Clarksons Research, average weighted tanker earnings exceeded $200,000 per day by late September. In the case of VLCCs (Very Large Crude Carriers), which can transport around two million barrels of oil, daily earnings have reached $600,000, roughly 17 times their average level over the past decade. But the impact of the disruption in Hormuz extends far beyond oil and is rippling across the entire transport chain.

“Rising crude and refined product prices are pushing up the cost of marine fuel, jet fuel and road freight, which in turn raises transport costs worldwide,” says Izabela Listowska, head transport analyst at S&P Global Ratings.

Container shipping lines have also imposed emergency surcharges to offset higher fuel and operating costs, rerouting expenses and rising insurance premiums. “For example, for a container carrying 10,000 pairs of adult shoes, an emergency surcharge of $3,000 per container would add around $0.30 per pair to shipping costs,” Listowska explains in an email. Freight rates on the route from China to the U.S. West Coast have climbed to $7,500 per 40-foot container, up from $1,850 at the end of February.

China’s search for routes beyond Malacca

The disruption of shipping through Hormuz has affected not only energy prices but the entire maritime logistics chain. Yet if there is one strait whose closure would deal a truly devastating blow to global trade, it is Malacca.

According to García Herrero, “Roughly one-third of global maritime trade passes through it and, in terms of volume, more oil now flows through Malacca than through Hormuz [around 23 million barrels a day compared with about 21 million]. It is critical for China, Japan and South Korea: nearly 80% of China’s imported oil passes through the strait.”

There are alternatives to Malacca, such as Indonesia’s Lombok and Sunda straits, but they are slower and more expensive. Anticipating the possibility of a disruption at this strategic choke point, China has developed a network of pipelines bringing crude oil from Russia, Central Asia and Myanmar, alongside a chain of ports stretching across the Indian Ocean. This network is known as the “String of Pearls”: commercial facilities with clear potential military value, including Gwadar in Pakistan, Hambantota in Sri Lanka, Kyaukpyu in Myanmar and Chittagong in Bangladesh.

“China is a power and is surrounded by governments that may become threats, such as Japan or Taiwan,” explains Emilio Rodríguez‑Díaz, director of the Department of Navigation Sciences and Naval Construction at the University of Cádiz in Spain and an expert in maritime security.

Trade protection and geopolitics converge in China’s maritime strategy. Beijing recently launched a regular commercial route linking Asia and Europe through the Arctic by way of the Northern Sea Route, which is under Russian control. While the route is highly seasonal and handles relatively small cargo volumes, China sees it as an “Ice Silk Road” because it allows ships to travel from China to Europe in roughly 20 days, about half the time required via Suez, while bypassing Hormuz, Malacca and the Red Sea.

As García Herrero notes, “It does not replace Suez or Malacca on a large scale, but it does give Beijing another card to play in its contest with Washington.”

The contest for global supremacy is therefore also being fought at sea. That helps explain Donald Trump’s determination to secure influence over Hormuz and Greenland.

“For decades the United States has been the great defender of freedom of navigation, and now it is seeking to secure control of specific points,” explains Judith Arnal, senior researcher at the Elcano Royal Institute. “It escorts the tankers of its Gulf partners in Hormuz while blocking Iranian exports; it even proposed in July to charge for that protection, and it has signed an agreement with Denmark and Greenland that allows it to expand its military presence on the island.”

A new reality

With Trump seeking greater control over key maritime routes and Iran planning to levy transit fees on ships passing through Hormuz, what lies ahead for maritime security? The Strait remains the Gordian knot at the center of the energy and shipping crisis, but “for maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz to return to normal, blockades and attacks on vessels would have to cease and safe passage would need to be guaranteed,” warns Niels Rasmussen, chief shipping analyst at the Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO), the world’s leading shipping association. For now, Rasmussen adds, most shipowners believe the risks of transiting Hormuz are too high.

A return to normality will require a credible and lasting agreement between Iran and the United States, and even that may not be enough. “Insurers and shipowners demand proof of sustained stability before they consider an area that was previously in conflict to be normal,” says Listowska. “After the memorandum of understanding signed in June between the U.S. and Iran, we observed greater insurance capacity return to the market, but premiums remained well above pre‑war levels.”

Deflating the massive shock that the war with Iran has inflicted on global shipping will not be easy, even once the conflict eventually ends. Reopening a strait can happen relatively quickly if there is a political agreement, but restoring pre-conflict security conditions and confidence in the rules of navigation is a much slower process.

“Iran has charged some vessels for crossing Hormuz and is considering legislation to formalize this. And the United States even announced a 20% toll on cargo,” recalls Arnal.

The long-term scars that the war with Iran will leave on maritime trade remain uncertain, even if the disruption is currently at its peak.

“I resist the notion that the international legal order governing the seas has somehow disappeared simply because serious regional disturbances are taking place in certain parts of the world,” says Antonios Tzanakopoulos, professor of Public International Law at the University of Oxford’s Faculty of Law. He points out that risks to navigation have fluctuated throughout history. “More than a decade ago, risks in the Gulf of Aden were significant due to piracy, and today they are less so.”

Only time will tell whether the unprecedented closure of Hormuz leaves the world with permanently higher shipping costs.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition

A statue of Justice presides, as if making a statement of principle, over the green room in Tehran where Narges Mohammadi, 54, appears for a video call with this newspaper. It is an act of courage in itself, given that the activist, who was awarded the 2023 Nobel Peace Prize for her struggle for human rights and women’s rights in Iran, still faces a prison sentence of at least 18 years.

Mohammadi’s freedom is only a reprieve, a suspension of her sentence granted in May after she suffered two heart attacks in prison. The activist has been arrested 14 times and tried on 10 occasions. In total, she has been sentenced to 44 years in prison and 154 lashes, and has spent 161 days in solitary confinement. She has paid another price as well: she has not embraced her 19-year-old twins, Ali and Kiana, since 2015, when they went into exile in Paris with their father.

Mohammadi recently published a memoir she wrote while in prison. The book, A Woman Never Stops Fighting: My Struggle for Freedom, Democracy and Human Rights in Iran, is a portrait of a woman who has spent decades going in and out of prison for refusing to give up her freedom.

Question. Your health scare led many to fear for your life. Aren’t you worried that giving this interview could send you back to prison?

Answer. During my last detention in Mashhad [in northeast Iran, on December 12, 2025], I suffered very serious injuries. I was hit repeatedly in the head and spent two months in solitary confinement. I was then transferred to another prison in Zanjan, where I received no medical care despite severe lung and heart problems. After my sentence was suspended, I was hospitalized in three provinces of Iran, and I remain under treatment. When I began writing this book in Evin [a Tehran prison notorious for holding political prisoners, from which Mohammadi secretly smuggled out her manuscript], I already knew it would have consequences for me, but I saw it as a duty.

Q. The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to you while you were in that prison. What did it change for you?

A. Contrary to the common belief that the Nobel would make life easier for me in prison, the reality was the opposite. The pressure on me and my family intensified in different ways. The prison director himself told me that until I received the Nobel, the decision to provide me with the urgent medical care I needed was partly in his hands. After the prize was awarded, decisions such as taking me to the hospital were made by much higher state authorities. Treatment became draconian, and every statement or protest I joined while in prison brought new convictions [Mohammadi received several additional sentences while already serving time, including one of seven and a half years in prison].

Q. In your book, you describe solitary confinement as a tool of torture. In your case, that isolation led you to speak to the walls and the door of your cell.

A. Solitary confinement is one of the Islamic Republic’s main instruments of torture, and its purpose is to break a prisoner’s will so that they confess whatever they are being pressured to confess. That is the result of keeping a human being isolated for long periods, with no information from the outside world, no contact from their family, and no exposure to sunlight, which produces spiritual and psychological disintegration. Many prisoners confess while in isolation, a punishment sometimes accompanied by physical torture. Courts then hand down death sentences based on those coerced confessions. Hangings in Iran have increased greatly in recent times, and that makes clear the consequences of isolation. This form of imprisonment is the mother of executions in Iran.

Q. How does the Islamic Republic use the death penalty?

A. The death penalty is a wound in Iranian society that has lasted 47 years, since the early days of the Islamic Republic. You will know about the executions of the 1980s, but you may see them only as numbers [Amnesty International estimates that, in the summer of 1988 alone, around 4,500 people — many teenagers and leftist activists — were executed in Iran]. For Iranian society, that wound has never healed and continues to bleed with each new hanging. An execution is not only the killing of a human being, but a punishment for an entire society. Lately, Iranians wake up every morning to news of another hanging of a person who was often tried behind closed doors, without a lawyer and on ambiguous charges. Executions in Iran represent the slow death of our society.

Q. Some people are hanged in public…

A. Authoritarian political systems use any tool to oppress their own people. Do you think that such regimes are unaware of how inhuman such an act is? The reason is that they seek to terrorize a society that no longer tolerates the Islamic Republic. That political system therefore uses all forms of repression at its disposal, including executions and, in their most terrifying form, public executions. Each time social movements have organized protests and voiced their demands, instead of addressing those demands, the response has been repression, prison and executions.

Q. You attribute change in Iran to social movements.

A. Iranian society is one of the most dynamic in the world. In the last two decades, there have been women’s movements and movements of young people and students that have played a decisive role in creating social awareness. Those movements aspire to secure fundamental rights like those you enjoy: freedom, justice, democracy, equality and much more. And Iranian society has paid a very high price. Workers, young people, students, women and human rights and environmental activists have paid this price. The Iranian people are fighting to achieve democracy and confront tyranny and, although that path takes time, social movements have already achieved a fundamental transformation.

Q. Are you referring to the achievements of the Woman, Life, Freedom movement, sparked by the death of young Mahsa Amini in a police station in 2022 after being detained for wearing her veil improperly? Many Iranian women no longer wear the hijab.

A. That achievement by a movement led by Iranian women would have required decades of effort under different circumstances. However, with an inclusive social movement, we achieved that advance in far less time, though at a very high price because the repression was severe. That progress, which the regime has not been able to reverse, is one of the things that allow us to imagine a democratic future. The veil law has not been abolished, but that movement has succeeded in establishing a right. That is why the authorities want to destroy it.

Q. Your book praises the role of feminism in Iran.

A. The role of women in transforming Iranian society has been decisive throughout the country’s history, but especially in the last 50 years. Who led the first mass protest march right after the founding of the Islamic Republic, when Iranian women defied the system because they were being forced to wear the hijab? When Iranian women have resisted the compulsory use of the veil, what they have challenged is the domination of an authoritarian political system that wants to force women to wear the hijab to consolidate its control over that half of the population.

Q. What is the significance of this civil disobedience against the compulsory use of the hijab?

A. It represents a challenge to domination, tyranny and the usurpation of power. Women’s resistance to a theocratic autocracy should not be confined to the veil [as an item of clothing]. We are facing a strategic issue that is not limited to a religious matter or a women-only issue. It is a matter of deep political significance.

Q. What is your view of the war the United States and Israel have launched against Iran?

A. I experienced the Iran-Iraq war [1980–1988], as a child. It lasted eight years, and our country suffered enormous losses from which it has not yet recovered. The consequence of that war was also that no one listened to the voices of the thousands of people who were executed in Iran. The human rights and the rights of the Iranian people were forgotten. That bitter experience makes my hatred of wars grow every day.

Q. Has the war radicalized the regime?

A. The Islamic Republic has become more repressive under the shadow of war. Pressure from security agencies against civil, political, social and cultural activists, as well as against protesters, has increased. In the climate of insecurity that war creates, protests against human rights violations, executions, arrests and imprisonments cannot develop. Under these circumstances, social movements have been weakened.

Q. In your book, you denounce how the Islamic Republic tried to blackmail you by using your children. Do female activists suffer this kind of pressure more than their male counterparts?

A. Many activist parents who are imprisoned also suffer that pressure, but I believe what mothers endure is worse and reflects the regime’s discrimination against women. Essentially, we are dealing with a misogynistic regime whose nature is hostile to women, and that misogyny appears in every sphere.

Q. Iranian authorities have prevented you from visiting your children in Paris. Do you hope to see them again?

A. We must never lose hope, but that does not mean ignoring reality or suffering; it means continuing the struggle and not surrendering. One way or another, that struggle will bear fruit, and I hold onto the hope of seeing my children again one day. I don’t know when, but that moment will come.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition