The Strait of Hormuz crisis may come to be remembered as a defining moment in the slow deterioration of the post-Cold War international order — a moment when the world’s most important oil shipping route was shut by force, the largest oil supply disruption in history unfolded in real time, and the international community proved unable to mount a coherent collective response. President Trump called on the UK, France, China, Japan, South Korea, and all oil-importing nations to send warships to defend the passage. Each refused or stalled. The world’s most critical energy chokepoint remains under Iranian control, and the mechanisms the international community has built to manage such crises have proved inadequate to the moment.
Iran’s blockade of the strait, triggered by US-Israeli airstrikes at the end of February, has shut off a waterway through which one-fifth of global oil exports ordinarily flow. Tehran has attacked sixteen tankers and declared vessels bound for American or allied ports to be legitimate war targets. The threat of mines adds further danger. Global oil prices have surged in response, and economies across Asia and Europe are absorbing significant economic damage. The humanitarian consequences of rising energy costs and trade disruption are also beginning to be felt in developing economies that depend on affordable energy imports.
The responses of potential coalition partners reveal the depth of the failure. France refused to send ships. The UK explored lower-risk drone options. Japan cited a very high threshold. South Korea pledged careful deliberation. Germany questioned the EU’s Aspides mission’s effectiveness. No government committed forces. The US itself has not deployed its own navy to escort tankers. Every actor has calculated its own national interest and concluded that caution is preferable to commitment — a rational individual choice that produces an irrational collective outcome: the world’s most critical energy route left undefended.
The EU’s Aspides mission — three ships from France, Italy, and Greece in the Red Sea — has been proposed for expansion to the Persian Gulf, but Germany’s foreign minister described the existing mission as ineffective and doubted that expansion would provide meaningful security improvements. Building EU consensus on a sensitive military operation in an active conflict zone is inherently difficult, and the absence of French willingness to deploy ships while fighting continues effectively means that any European naval response is on hold until a political condition that shows no sign of being met has been fulfilled.
China’s diplomatic engagement with Tehran is the most substantive development in the broader effort to find any kind of resolution. Beijing is reportedly in discussions with Iran about allowing tankers to pass safely, offering a non-military pathway to partial relief. The Chinese embassy confirmed China’s commitment to constructive regional communication and de-escalation. US Energy Secretary Chris Wright expressed hope that China would prove a constructive partner, noting active dialogue with multiple nations about restoring access to the world’s most strategically vital oil corridor. If diplomacy eventually succeeds where military deterrence has failed to materialise, the lessons for how the world manages future energy security crises will be profound, far-reaching, and long overdue.
Crisis Without Resolution: The Strait of Hormuz and the Failure of the International Order
