Commentary: Fixing Hormuz Will Take More Than Conventional Maritime Security

(MENAFN- Khaleej Times) The author is president of UAE Safety and Emergency Security Association and professor of sustainable development at the American University of Sharjah. He is a former UAE Minister of Climate Change and Environment and former Minister of Infrastructure. He authored two books on climate change that influenced academic and international reforms.

For decades, the world has viewed strategic straits through a largely conventional security lens. The Strait of Hormuz, in particular, is appraised by these three basic questions: Is it open? Can ships pass safely? Will energy and trade continue to flow?

Recommended For You

But that conventional framework is no longer sufficient. Strategic straits are not merely maritime chokepoints to be kept open or defended. They are complex strategic ecosystems where sovereignty, international law, energy security, global trade, environmental protection and climate resilience are deeply interconnected.

Stay up to date with the latest news. Follow KT on WhatsApp Channels.

Disruptions in these waterways do not stop at their shores. They ripple across economies, threaten livelihoods, strain diplomatic relations and expose vulnerabilities far beyond the immediate region.

We must therefore rethink how we understand and manage these critical waterways. It is time to move beyond the narrow paradigm of strait security towards a more comprehensive concept: strait sustainability.

Security is primarily concerned with whether ships can pass safely and without interruption. Sustainability asks a deeper question: Can a strategic strait continue to perform its legal, economic and environmental functions under pressure, during a crisis and after that crisis has passed?

In previous articles, I examined the Strait of Hormuz from several perspectives. I discussed its legal status and the right of transit passage, while cautioning against allowing temporary political interpretations to override established principles of international law. I later addressed the environmental consequences of maritime crises, arguing that the end of geopolitical tension does not necessarily mean the end of its impact. What a crisis leaves in the sea may remain long after politics has moved on and shipping has returned to normal routes. I have also argued that geopolitical turbulence must not be allowed to silence the urgency of climate action.

Taken together, these arguments point towards a wider conclusion: The future of strategic straits should no longer be assessed solely through the lens of maritime security. We should also assess their ability to sustain their functions in a world of interconnected risks.

The Strait of Hormuz offers a compelling example. According to the US Energy Information Administration, oil flows through the strait averaged approximately 20 million barrels per day in 2024, equivalent to around 20 per cent of global petroleum liquids consumption. The agency also notes that few alternatives exist for moving much of this oil if passage through the strait is disrupted.

Global footprint

A disturbance in a relatively small geographical space can reverberate through global energy markets, shipping, insurance and supply chains. Hormuz may be narrow on a map, but its economic footprint is global.

Yet there is another dimension that deserves greater attention. When geopolitical instability makes the shortest maritime route unsafe, vessels seek longer alternatives. Longer voyages require more fuel, increase operating costs and generate additional emissions.

The experience of other maritime chokepoints demonstrates this connection. UNCTAD reported that by mid-2024 ship capacity transiting the Gulf of Aden had fallen by 76 per cent, while tonnage passing through the Suez Canal had declined by 70 per cent. Arrivals around the Cape of Good Hope increased by 89 per cent. Longer routes increased global vessel ton-mile demand by approximately 3 per cent and container ship demand by 12 per cent.

A crisis may begin as a geopolitical problem at a strait, yet end as an additional carbon burden on the atmosphere. Maritime security, energy security, trade security and climate security can therefore no longer be treated as separate policy files.

Maritime crises do not necessarily end when tensions subside or vessels resume their normal routes. Commercial activity may recover relatively quickly, while a damaged marine ecosystem can require much longer to recover.

In May 2026, the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the International Maritime Organization adopted a resolution concerning protection of the marine environment in the Arabian Sea, Sea of Oman and Gulf region, particularly in and around the Strait of Hormuz. The organisation warned of risks of large-scale marine pollution, including oil and hazardous and noxious substances, and emphasized the importance of protecting the marine environment and biodiversity alongside shipping and supply chains.

This should encourage us to reconsider what we mean by security at sea. A ship passing safely through a strait cannot be the only measure of success. The waters through which it passes must remain safe as well.

Strait sustainability should therefore rest on four interdependent foundations: Reliable and safe navigation; stable legal frameworks governing passage; resilient marine ecosystems capable of recovering from shocks; and effective institutional cooperation among coastal states, user states and maritime stakeholders.

None of these pillars can stand alone. Legal certainty without environmental resilience is incomplete. Environmental safeguards without navigational security cannot protect global trade. Maritime security without cooperation remains vulnerable to the next crisis.

The international importance of this approach becomes even clearer when we consider that more than 80 per cent of world trade by volume is carried by sea, according to UNCTAD. Vulnerability at maritime chokepoints is therefore not solely a concern for coastal states. It is a vulnerability embedded within the architecture of the global economy itself.

From Hormuz to Bab Al Mandab, and from Malacca to the Suez Canal and Panama Canal, the nature of the threat may differ, but the underlying lesson is similar: A disruption in a confined geographical space can transmit economic and environmental consequences far beyond its shores. UNCTAD has similarly identified climatic, economic, geopolitical and operational disruptions as threats to critical maritime chokepoints.

Measurable outcome

Strait sustainability should become more than an academic concept. It could eventually become measurable. One possibility would be to develop a Strait Sustainability Index assessing strategic waterways across four dimensions: continuity and reliability of navigation, the strength of legal and institutional frameworks, marine environmental resilience and recovery capacity, and exposure to climate and geopolitical risks.

The purpose should not simply be to rank one strait against another. The more important question is preventive: 'How much disruption can a strategic strait absorb before a local shock becomes a global crisis?'

For decades, the international community has rightly asked how freedom of passage through strategic straits can be protected. The challenges of this century require us to add another question: 'How do we ensure the sustainability of the strait through which we seek to pass?'

Geography created the world's straits, and geopolitics can threaten their stability. But governance and sustainability will determine whether they can continue serving economies, ecosystems and future generations.

ALSO READ

Explainer: What Trump's decision to halt attacks but maintain Iran blockade means for the Gulf Commentary: Between two US Congresses-nine weeks that matter for Hormuz Commentary: From Oman to Iran, Strait of Hormuz remains central to Gulf security Commentary: Strait of Hormuz is trapped between geopolitics and legal vacuum

MENAFN12112026000049011007ID1111955936