Hormuz "Closed Tightly"! US-Iran Tensions Escalate, Why Didn't Oil Prices Soar?
2026-04-23 16:19:57
On Thursday (April 23), the Strait of Hormuz was effectively blocked again. Maersk confirmed in the morning that the strait was completely blocked. The Strait of Hormuz, an energy choke point that carries one-fifth of the world's oil shipments, is becoming the core battlefield of the US-Iran rivalry. The continued instability has plunged the global energy market into ongoing uncertainty.
Just one day after US President Trump announced a two-week extension of the ceasefire agreement with Iran, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard launched an attack near the Strait of Hormuz, opening fire on three departing ships and seizing two of them. This move was explicitly described by Iran as direct retaliation for the US Navy's blockade of its ports and seizure of Iranian cargo ships, further escalating the already tense standoff.
However, since a complete blockade of the Strait would be a lose-lose situation for both Iran and the global economy, such a prolonged standoff is not in the interest of either side, and there has been no significant increase in oil prices. The market is waiting for a possible turning point.
Iran’s de facto control of the Strait of Hormuz began in mid-March. While shipping attacks briefly decreased afterward, most ship owners remained hesitant due to the potential risks, and only a few vessels passed through the Iranian-approved near-shore channels.
Iran not only requires passing ships to submit detailed information on cargo, ownership, and crew, but also imposes a targeted passage tax of $1 per barrel (up to $2 million for large oil tankers), directly driving up freight costs on related routes.
What's even more perplexing is the shifting stance within Iran: just Friday, the Foreign Minister announced the full opening of the Strait of Hormuz, only to have the Revolutionary Guard refute it the very next day. This contradictory stance made the six stranded cruise ships that managed to escape the strait the lucky few, and subsequent shipping activities once again came to a standstill.
Torbjörn Soltwete, an analyst at risk intelligence firm Verisk Maplecroft, points out that this "substantial confusion in the standards for permitting passage" not only affects shipowners' decisions but also becomes a strategic tool for Iran by driving up insurance rates—restricting shipping through the Straits is a core bargaining chip in its negotiations with the United States, and high insurance costs directly influence the supply of shipping capacity in the market.
In response to Iran's control measures, the United States launched a global blockade.
The U.S. military conducted blockade operations in the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea, far from the threat of Iranian drones and speedboats. It claimed to have driven away 20 Iranian-affiliated vessels and even boarded and seized an oil tanker carrying Iranian oil in the Indian Ocean, 3,200 kilometers from the Strait of Hormuz, demonstrating its global interception capabilities.
However, the US blockade has always faced a dilemma: on the one hand, it needs to curb Iranian oil exports, and on the other hand, it needs to avoid excessive impact on the global energy market.
Soltveit stated bluntly that the conflict between the intensity of the blockade and the resilience of the global oil market forced the United States to adopt a selective interception strategy.
More importantly, China is the main destination for Iranian oil (accounting for more than 90% of its exports), and Trump's planned visit to China on May 14-15 has forced the United States to be more cautious in enforcing sanctions.
Despite the U.S. blockade, Iran continues to export oil through a "shadow fleet".
This special fleet, consisting of vessels over 15 years old with concealed ownership, already accounts for 12% of the world's tanker capacity. They evade sanctions through covert means such as disabling tracking systems, ship-to-ship transfers, and changing flags.
According to data from Lloyd's Register, since April 13, 11 oil tankers carrying Iranian crude oil have left the Gulf via non-strait channels. Furthermore, the RMB settlement system between China and Iran (accounting for 82%-92% of bilateral trade) has further bypassed the US dollar sanctions network, rendering the US's "financial strike" ineffective.
While a spokesperson for the U.S. Central Command refuted the claim that "ships broke through the blockade," actual data from the shipping market has highlighted the limitations of the blockade policy.
The ongoing geopolitical conflict has plunged the shipping market into a state of constant tension, with hundreds of ships and thousands of crew members still stranded. Even after the conflict ends, the global tanker network will need 6-8 weeks to reorganize, and shipowners and insurance companies will need another 2-5 weeks to adapt to the new environment.
This tight shipping capacity directly impacts energy prices: sporadic attacks by Iran continue to drive up shipping risk premiums, and soaring insurance rates, along with high freight rates, constitute "geopolitical support" for oil prices.
The uncertainty surrounding passage through the Strait of Hormuz keeps global crude oil supply under constant threat of disruption. Even with shadow fleets alleviating some of the shortfall, market concerns about supply disruptions cannot be eliminated.
The difference between this renewed blockade and the previous one is that Iran is unable to transport oil this time, increasing its domestic pressure. At the same time, the US war is approaching 60 days, with the start of the war on February 28. The US military will face pressure from Congress, and global inventory pressure and inflation pressure are also more severe than before the start of the war.
From the perspective of the logic of oil price impact, in the short term, the attacks and escalation of the blockade directly triggered a short-term rise in energy futures prices, and the increase in shipping costs further transmitted to the landed price of crude oil;
In the medium term, the huge differences between the US and Iran on core issues such as nuclear programs and ballistic missile projects mean that geopolitical risks are difficult to eliminate at their root. Iran's missile and drone strike capabilities remain a "sword of Damocles" hanging over the shipping industry and will continue to provide a risk premium for oil prices.
In the long run, the restructuring cycle of the global energy supply chain and the protracted nature of the US-Iran rivalry determine that international oil prices will always be influenced by the situation in this region, and the volatility will likely remain in a high range.
For the energy market, every change in the situation in the Strait of Hormuz will directly translate into fluctuations in oil prices, and the unresolved stalemate between the US and Iran is destined to make this uncertainty a significant supporting factor for future oil prices.
Just one day after US President Trump announced a two-week extension of the ceasefire agreement with Iran, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard launched an attack near the Strait of Hormuz, opening fire on three departing ships and seizing two of them. This move was explicitly described by Iran as direct retaliation for the US Navy's blockade of its ports and seizure of Iranian cargo ships, further escalating the already tense standoff.
However, since a complete blockade of the Strait would be a lose-lose situation for both Iran and the global economy, such a prolonged standoff is not in the interest of either side, and there has been no significant increase in oil prices. The market is waiting for a possible turning point.
Iran's tight control over the Strait: a strategic consideration as a key bargaining chip in negotiations.
Iran’s de facto control of the Strait of Hormuz began in mid-March. While shipping attacks briefly decreased afterward, most ship owners remained hesitant due to the potential risks, and only a few vessels passed through the Iranian-approved near-shore channels.
Iran not only requires passing ships to submit detailed information on cargo, ownership, and crew, but also imposes a targeted passage tax of $1 per barrel (up to $2 million for large oil tankers), directly driving up freight costs on related routes.
What's even more perplexing is the shifting stance within Iran: just Friday, the Foreign Minister announced the full opening of the Strait of Hormuz, only to have the Revolutionary Guard refute it the very next day. This contradictory stance made the six stranded cruise ships that managed to escape the strait the lucky few, and subsequent shipping activities once again came to a standstill.
Torbjörn Soltwete, an analyst at risk intelligence firm Verisk Maplecroft, points out that this "substantial confusion in the standards for permitting passage" not only affects shipowners' decisions but also becomes a strategic tool for Iran by driving up insurance rates—restricting shipping through the Straits is a core bargaining chip in its negotiations with the United States, and high insurance costs directly influence the supply of shipping capacity in the market.
The US containment dilemma: the balance between the effectiveness of sanctions and geopolitical equilibrium.
In response to Iran's control measures, the United States launched a global blockade.
The U.S. military conducted blockade operations in the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea, far from the threat of Iranian drones and speedboats. It claimed to have driven away 20 Iranian-affiliated vessels and even boarded and seized an oil tanker carrying Iranian oil in the Indian Ocean, 3,200 kilometers from the Strait of Hormuz, demonstrating its global interception capabilities.
However, the US blockade has always faced a dilemma: on the one hand, it needs to curb Iranian oil exports, and on the other hand, it needs to avoid excessive impact on the global energy market.
Soltveit stated bluntly that the conflict between the intensity of the blockade and the resilience of the global oil market forced the United States to adopt a selective interception strategy.
More importantly, China is the main destination for Iranian oil (accounting for more than 90% of its exports), and Trump's planned visit to China on May 14-15 has forced the United States to be more cautious in enforcing sanctions.
The solution: "Shadow Fleet" and RMB settlement break the blockade.
Despite the U.S. blockade, Iran continues to export oil through a "shadow fleet".
This special fleet, consisting of vessels over 15 years old with concealed ownership, already accounts for 12% of the world's tanker capacity. They evade sanctions through covert means such as disabling tracking systems, ship-to-ship transfers, and changing flags.
According to data from Lloyd's Register, since April 13, 11 oil tankers carrying Iranian crude oil have left the Gulf via non-strait channels. Furthermore, the RMB settlement system between China and Iran (accounting for 82%-92% of bilateral trade) has further bypassed the US dollar sanctions network, rendering the US's "financial strike" ineffective.
While a spokesperson for the U.S. Central Command refuted the claim that "ships broke through the blockade," actual data from the shipping market has highlighted the limitations of the blockade policy.
Shipping market under pressure: Capacity shortages due to delays and restructuring
The ongoing geopolitical conflict has plunged the shipping market into a state of constant tension, with hundreds of ships and thousands of crew members still stranded. Even after the conflict ends, the global tanker network will need 6-8 weeks to reorganize, and shipowners and insurance companies will need another 2-5 weeks to adapt to the new environment.
This tight shipping capacity directly impacts energy prices: sporadic attacks by Iran continue to drive up shipping risk premiums, and soaring insurance rates, along with high freight rates, constitute "geopolitical support" for oil prices.
The uncertainty surrounding passage through the Strait of Hormuz keeps global crude oil supply under constant threat of disruption. Even with shadow fleets alleviating some of the shortfall, market concerns about supply disruptions cannot be eliminated.
The Geopolitical Anchor of Oil Prices: How the Hormuz Situation Influences Energy Prices
The difference between this renewed blockade and the previous one is that Iran is unable to transport oil this time, increasing its domestic pressure. At the same time, the US war is approaching 60 days, with the start of the war on February 28. The US military will face pressure from Congress, and global inventory pressure and inflation pressure are also more severe than before the start of the war.
From the perspective of the logic of oil price impact, in the short term, the attacks and escalation of the blockade directly triggered a short-term rise in energy futures prices, and the increase in shipping costs further transmitted to the landed price of crude oil;
In the medium term, the huge differences between the US and Iran on core issues such as nuclear programs and ballistic missile projects mean that geopolitical risks are difficult to eliminate at their root. Iran's missile and drone strike capabilities remain a "sword of Damocles" hanging over the shipping industry and will continue to provide a risk premium for oil prices.
In the long run, the restructuring cycle of the global energy supply chain and the protracted nature of the US-Iran rivalry determine that international oil prices will always be influenced by the situation in this region, and the volatility will likely remain in a high range.
For the energy market, every change in the situation in the Strait of Hormuz will directly translate into fluctuations in oil prices, and the unresolved stalemate between the US and Iran is destined to make this uncertainty a significant supporting factor for future oil prices.
- Risk Warning and Disclaimer
- The market involves risk, and trading may not be suitable for all investors. This article is for reference only and does not constitute personal investment advice, nor does it take into account certain users’ specific investment objectives, financial situation, or other needs. Any investment decisions made based on this information are at your own risk.
