The "Gray Zone" of the Strait of Hormuz: A New Situation of Neither War Nor Peace and a Stalemate in the Game Between the US and Iran
2026-04-23 20:16:59
In April 2026, the two-week temporary ceasefire agreement between the US and Iran expired. Instead of the anticipated war or peace, the world entered a new normal of stalemate characterized by escalating military confrontation and paralyzed diplomatic channels. Iran countered the asymmetric confrontation of the US blockade with its control of the Strait of Hormuz, while the US's maximum pressure strategy failed, leading to internal divisions. The current situation has entered a complex phase of neither war nor peace.
Iran: Using the "Strait bargaining chip" to seize the initiative in the game.
In the US-Iran standoff, Iran, leveraging its de facto control over the Strait of Hormuz, has transformed a passive situation into a strategic initiative. Economically, Iran innovatively established a "toll gate" along the strait. On April 23, 2026, the official confirmation that the first toll payment had been deposited into the central bank's account marked the formal implementation of the "privatized" control of this international waterway. According to Iranian rules, merchant ships from non-hostile countries must register with the Revolutionary Guard and pay dynamically adjusted tolls based on vessel type and cargo volume to pass safely; while ships from the US, Israel, and countries participating in sanctions against Iran face the risk of direct interception or seizure. As of late April, over 20 merchant ships of 10,000 tons or more had chosen Iranian territorial waters, transforming the "toll-based passage" from an implicit rule into an explicit one. This has brought stable economic benefits to Iran while strengthening its strategic deterrent.
In the military sphere, Iran has constructed an asymmetric warfare system, creating a "sea no-go zone" that the US military finds difficult to overcome. By deploying drones and anti-ship missiles in islands and sea caves along the Strait of Hormuz, combined with high-speed boat forces, it has formed a three-dimensional defense network of "low-altitude + sea surface + shore-based." On April 22, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard intercepted three merchant ships and seized two in a single day, directly responding to the US military's previous seizures of ships, escalating the maritime confrontation into a high-intensity "tit-for-tat" confrontation. Simultaneously, Iran has laid more than 20 long-range and short-range mines in and around the Strait of Hormuz. According to US military assessments, complete mine clearance will take six months, further restricting the US military's operational space.
In its negotiating stance, Iran has maintained a hardline position, making the complete lifting of the US maritime blockade and the cessation of global economic coercion the sole precondition for resuming negotiations. Iran's chief negotiator and parliamentary speaker, Ghalibaf, clearly stated that military pressure and economic bullying cannot force Iran to compromise, and its current stockpile of over 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium (approaching weapons-grade standards) gives Iran a solid bargaining chip. Furthermore, Iran has utilized the eastern port of Chabahar as a "secret outlet," allowing it to directly access the Indian Ocean without passing through the Strait of Hormuz, successfully circumventing the core of the US blockade. Data shows that within 10 days of the US announcing a total blockade of Iranian ports on April 13, 26 vessels involving Iranian interests had broken through the blockade, including 11 oil tankers fully loaded with crude oil, transporting a total of over 9 million barrels of crude oil, rendering the US blockade policy "semi-ineffective."
United States: Maximum pressure strategy fails, internal divisions intensify.
The Trump administration is facing a clear strategic dilemma in the Strait of Hormuz standoff. The marginal effect of its maximum pressure campaign is diminishing, and internal divisions are making its policy toward Iran wavering. After the ceasefire agreement expired on April 21, Trump did not deliver on his threat to "restart military strikes," but instead announced an indefinite extension of the ceasefire while insisting on maintaining the maritime blockade. This decision is essentially a stopgap measure: unwilling to compromise by lifting the blockade and attempting to force Iran to yield through economic suffocation, yet also worried that military conflict would trigger soaring oil prices and global economic turmoil, ultimately finding itself in a dilemma of "neither striking nor letting go."
The internal divisions within the US government have become public and intense, with the core conflict centered on the choice of strategic direction regarding Iran. Recently, Navy Secretary John Phyllan was abruptly dismissed due to serious disagreements with Defense Secretary Hergese over naval deployments in the Middle East and wartime resource allocation. Behind the frequent changes in leadership at the Pentagon lies a deep-seated split at the top: one faction advocates increasing troop deployments in the Middle East, strengthening the blockade, and even supporting an Israeli surprise attack on Iranian nuclear facilities to break the deadlock with a "hardline strike"; the other faction worries that a full-scale war would lead to the complete blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, potentially causing oil prices to soar to over $200 per barrel, ultimately hindering the US economic recovery, and therefore advocates "maintaining the stalemate and a protracted war of attrition." This internal division has directly resulted in a lack of consistency and enforceability in US policy toward Iran, significantly diminishing the effectiveness of the blockade.
On the diplomatic front, US efforts have come to a complete standstill. A diplomatic delegation led by Vice President Vance was even forced to cancel its trip before leaving Washington due to irreconcilable differences between the two sides. The core demands of the current US-Iran negotiations are completely opposed: the US demands that Iran "permanently abandon its nuclear program and cease its interference in the Strait of Hormuz" before it is willing to lift some sanctions; Iran insists that "the US must first fully lift the blockade and sanctions before negotiations can resume." Both sides refuse to compromise, third-party mediation has failed, diplomatic channels are effectively closed, and neither side has proposed a new negotiating plan.
Pakistan: Mediation fails, struggling to maintain a balance.
As the sole official mediator in this round of conflict, Pakistan is experiencing severe "diplomatic fatigue," struggling to maintain a balance between the US and Iran while failing to break the deadlock. On April 12, US and Iranian representatives held their first face-to-face talks in Islamabad, the Pakistani capital, but due to sharp differences in their positions, the talks broke down after only a few hours, failing to reach any consensus. Since then, Pakistan has repeatedly called on both sides to exercise restraint and restart dialogue, and has actively maintained communication with Tehran and Washington to convey their respective demands. However, faced with Iran's hardline stance of "no negotiations without lifting the blockade" and the US's stubborn position of "maintaining the blockade without compromise," mediation efforts have repeatedly hit a snag. Currently, Pakistani officials are unable to provide a timetable for the next round of talks, leaving diplomatic mediation in a "vacuum."
Global Market Impact: Polarization and Spreading Inflation Risks
The deadlock in the Strait of Hormuz has triggered differentiated reactions in global markets. Capital markets are showing a polarized pattern of "a tech stock frenzy and an energy market anxiety," while inflationary pressures from rising oil prices are gradually spreading to global supply chains, and the risk of stagflation continues to rise.
In the capital markets, Wall Street interprets the "neither war nor peace" stalemate as a signal of "limited risk," believing that as long as a full-scale war does not break out, the global supply chain will not be completely disrupted, and corporate profitability can remain resilient. This expectation has driven US stocks higher, with the S&P 500 repeatedly hitting new historical highs since April, and the Nasdaq rising by more than 8%, led by tech giants such as Tesla, Nvidia, and Microsoft. Investors generally believe that current geopolitical risks are manageable, and the Federal Reserve does not need to restart its easing policy due to the impact of war. The high-interest-rate environment has limited downward pressure on the valuation of tech stocks, thus funds continue to flow into sectors with strong earnings certainty, such as technology and industrials.
In stark contrast to the euphoria in US stocks, the energy market was dominated by anxiety, with uncertainty surrounding the Strait of Hormuz becoming the core driver of rising oil prices. As of April 23, Brent crude oil prices rose to $103.5 per barrel, a cumulative increase of over 13% since the beginning of April; WTI crude oil prices rose in tandem, approaching $96 per barrel, a monthly increase of 3.58%. The International Energy Agency issued a stern warning, stating that one-fifth of global oil transportation relies on the Strait of Hormuz. If the situation deteriorates and leads to a blockade of the strait, a rigid shortage of 13 million barrels per day will emerge in global crude oil supply, potentially causing oil prices to soar to over $200 per barrel. This has entered the "most severe energy crisis in history," with an impact far exceeding that of the energy crises of 1973, 1979, and 2022.
The shipping market has also been significantly impacted. Asian buyers, seeking to avoid risks in the Strait of Hormuz, have switched to purchasing crude oil from the US Gulf Coast, causing waiting times at the Panama Canal to extend to 40 days. This shift in shipping routes has triggered a chain reaction of congestion. Freight rates on grain shipping routes have increased by 50%-60%, and some oil tankers are paying millions of dollars in "queue-jumping" fees to secure priority passage. More seriously, the rise in oil prices is being transmitted through the industrial chain, with many countries in Europe, America, and Asia experiencing increases in refined oil prices and industrial raw material costs. Inflation rates in some countries are rising again, and central banks are caught in a dilemma: "raising interest rates to curb inflation, but not raising interest rates will lead to runaway inflation." The risk of global stagflation has increased significantly.
Key predictions
In the short term (1-3 months), the stalemate in the Strait of Hormuz is likely to continue. Iran's "toll-based passage" rule will become more entrenched, and more merchant ships from non-hostile countries may choose to pay fees and register to ensure safe passage. The US mine-clearing operation is progressing slowly and is unlikely to break Iran's military deterrence posture in the short term. Oil prices will remain in a high-level fluctuation range of $95-110 per barrel, and uncertainty in the global energy market will continue to dominate market sentiment.
Iran: Using the "Strait bargaining chip" to seize the initiative in the game.
In the US-Iran standoff, Iran, leveraging its de facto control over the Strait of Hormuz, has transformed a passive situation into a strategic initiative. Economically, Iran innovatively established a "toll gate" along the strait. On April 23, 2026, the official confirmation that the first toll payment had been deposited into the central bank's account marked the formal implementation of the "privatized" control of this international waterway. According to Iranian rules, merchant ships from non-hostile countries must register with the Revolutionary Guard and pay dynamically adjusted tolls based on vessel type and cargo volume to pass safely; while ships from the US, Israel, and countries participating in sanctions against Iran face the risk of direct interception or seizure. As of late April, over 20 merchant ships of 10,000 tons or more had chosen Iranian territorial waters, transforming the "toll-based passage" from an implicit rule into an explicit one. This has brought stable economic benefits to Iran while strengthening its strategic deterrent.
In the military sphere, Iran has constructed an asymmetric warfare system, creating a "sea no-go zone" that the US military finds difficult to overcome. By deploying drones and anti-ship missiles in islands and sea caves along the Strait of Hormuz, combined with high-speed boat forces, it has formed a three-dimensional defense network of "low-altitude + sea surface + shore-based." On April 22, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard intercepted three merchant ships and seized two in a single day, directly responding to the US military's previous seizures of ships, escalating the maritime confrontation into a high-intensity "tit-for-tat" confrontation. Simultaneously, Iran has laid more than 20 long-range and short-range mines in and around the Strait of Hormuz. According to US military assessments, complete mine clearance will take six months, further restricting the US military's operational space.
In its negotiating stance, Iran has maintained a hardline position, making the complete lifting of the US maritime blockade and the cessation of global economic coercion the sole precondition for resuming negotiations. Iran's chief negotiator and parliamentary speaker, Ghalibaf, clearly stated that military pressure and economic bullying cannot force Iran to compromise, and its current stockpile of over 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium (approaching weapons-grade standards) gives Iran a solid bargaining chip. Furthermore, Iran has utilized the eastern port of Chabahar as a "secret outlet," allowing it to directly access the Indian Ocean without passing through the Strait of Hormuz, successfully circumventing the core of the US blockade. Data shows that within 10 days of the US announcing a total blockade of Iranian ports on April 13, 26 vessels involving Iranian interests had broken through the blockade, including 11 oil tankers fully loaded with crude oil, transporting a total of over 9 million barrels of crude oil, rendering the US blockade policy "semi-ineffective."
United States: Maximum pressure strategy fails, internal divisions intensify.
The Trump administration is facing a clear strategic dilemma in the Strait of Hormuz standoff. The marginal effect of its maximum pressure campaign is diminishing, and internal divisions are making its policy toward Iran wavering. After the ceasefire agreement expired on April 21, Trump did not deliver on his threat to "restart military strikes," but instead announced an indefinite extension of the ceasefire while insisting on maintaining the maritime blockade. This decision is essentially a stopgap measure: unwilling to compromise by lifting the blockade and attempting to force Iran to yield through economic suffocation, yet also worried that military conflict would trigger soaring oil prices and global economic turmoil, ultimately finding itself in a dilemma of "neither striking nor letting go."
The internal divisions within the US government have become public and intense, with the core conflict centered on the choice of strategic direction regarding Iran. Recently, Navy Secretary John Phyllan was abruptly dismissed due to serious disagreements with Defense Secretary Hergese over naval deployments in the Middle East and wartime resource allocation. Behind the frequent changes in leadership at the Pentagon lies a deep-seated split at the top: one faction advocates increasing troop deployments in the Middle East, strengthening the blockade, and even supporting an Israeli surprise attack on Iranian nuclear facilities to break the deadlock with a "hardline strike"; the other faction worries that a full-scale war would lead to the complete blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, potentially causing oil prices to soar to over $200 per barrel, ultimately hindering the US economic recovery, and therefore advocates "maintaining the stalemate and a protracted war of attrition." This internal division has directly resulted in a lack of consistency and enforceability in US policy toward Iran, significantly diminishing the effectiveness of the blockade.
On the diplomatic front, US efforts have come to a complete standstill. A diplomatic delegation led by Vice President Vance was even forced to cancel its trip before leaving Washington due to irreconcilable differences between the two sides. The core demands of the current US-Iran negotiations are completely opposed: the US demands that Iran "permanently abandon its nuclear program and cease its interference in the Strait of Hormuz" before it is willing to lift some sanctions; Iran insists that "the US must first fully lift the blockade and sanctions before negotiations can resume." Both sides refuse to compromise, third-party mediation has failed, diplomatic channels are effectively closed, and neither side has proposed a new negotiating plan.
Pakistan: Mediation fails, struggling to maintain a balance.
As the sole official mediator in this round of conflict, Pakistan is experiencing severe "diplomatic fatigue," struggling to maintain a balance between the US and Iran while failing to break the deadlock. On April 12, US and Iranian representatives held their first face-to-face talks in Islamabad, the Pakistani capital, but due to sharp differences in their positions, the talks broke down after only a few hours, failing to reach any consensus. Since then, Pakistan has repeatedly called on both sides to exercise restraint and restart dialogue, and has actively maintained communication with Tehran and Washington to convey their respective demands. However, faced with Iran's hardline stance of "no negotiations without lifting the blockade" and the US's stubborn position of "maintaining the blockade without compromise," mediation efforts have repeatedly hit a snag. Currently, Pakistani officials are unable to provide a timetable for the next round of talks, leaving diplomatic mediation in a "vacuum."
Global Market Impact: Polarization and Spreading Inflation Risks
The deadlock in the Strait of Hormuz has triggered differentiated reactions in global markets. Capital markets are showing a polarized pattern of "a tech stock frenzy and an energy market anxiety," while inflationary pressures from rising oil prices are gradually spreading to global supply chains, and the risk of stagflation continues to rise.
In the capital markets, Wall Street interprets the "neither war nor peace" stalemate as a signal of "limited risk," believing that as long as a full-scale war does not break out, the global supply chain will not be completely disrupted, and corporate profitability can remain resilient. This expectation has driven US stocks higher, with the S&P 500 repeatedly hitting new historical highs since April, and the Nasdaq rising by more than 8%, led by tech giants such as Tesla, Nvidia, and Microsoft. Investors generally believe that current geopolitical risks are manageable, and the Federal Reserve does not need to restart its easing policy due to the impact of war. The high-interest-rate environment has limited downward pressure on the valuation of tech stocks, thus funds continue to flow into sectors with strong earnings certainty, such as technology and industrials.
In stark contrast to the euphoria in US stocks, the energy market was dominated by anxiety, with uncertainty surrounding the Strait of Hormuz becoming the core driver of rising oil prices. As of April 23, Brent crude oil prices rose to $103.5 per barrel, a cumulative increase of over 13% since the beginning of April; WTI crude oil prices rose in tandem, approaching $96 per barrel, a monthly increase of 3.58%. The International Energy Agency issued a stern warning, stating that one-fifth of global oil transportation relies on the Strait of Hormuz. If the situation deteriorates and leads to a blockade of the strait, a rigid shortage of 13 million barrels per day will emerge in global crude oil supply, potentially causing oil prices to soar to over $200 per barrel. This has entered the "most severe energy crisis in history," with an impact far exceeding that of the energy crises of 1973, 1979, and 2022.
The shipping market has also been significantly impacted. Asian buyers, seeking to avoid risks in the Strait of Hormuz, have switched to purchasing crude oil from the US Gulf Coast, causing waiting times at the Panama Canal to extend to 40 days. This shift in shipping routes has triggered a chain reaction of congestion. Freight rates on grain shipping routes have increased by 50%-60%, and some oil tankers are paying millions of dollars in "queue-jumping" fees to secure priority passage. More seriously, the rise in oil prices is being transmitted through the industrial chain, with many countries in Europe, America, and Asia experiencing increases in refined oil prices and industrial raw material costs. Inflation rates in some countries are rising again, and central banks are caught in a dilemma: "raising interest rates to curb inflation, but not raising interest rates will lead to runaway inflation." The risk of global stagflation has increased significantly.
Key predictions
In the short term (1-3 months), the stalemate in the Strait of Hormuz is likely to continue. Iran's "toll-based passage" rule will become more entrenched, and more merchant ships from non-hostile countries may choose to pay fees and register to ensure safe passage. The US mine-clearing operation is progressing slowly and is unlikely to break Iran's military deterrence posture in the short term. Oil prices will remain in a high-level fluctuation range of $95-110 per barrel, and uncertainty in the global energy market will continue to dominate market sentiment.
- 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.
