Capturing Hormuz: The Geopolitical Theatre of Energy and Power

The Strait of Hormuz has become the fulcrum of the world’s economic destiny. For the Western bloc—America, France and their permanent allies—capturing Hormuz appears to be the last option to sustain global growth. Yet the geography of this narrow waterway, and the strategic ingenuity of Iran, make such ambitions far more complex than Washington or Paris had anticipated. Defence experts argue that America underestimated Iran’s capacity for asymmetric warfare, relying too heavily on overconfidence and insufficient intelligence. Small Iranian submarines, agile vessels and the threat of mines have transformed Hormuz into a labyrinth where large Western fleets cannot manoeuvre. Insurance companies have already signalled they will refuse coverage if mines are laid, meaning commercial shipping could grind to a halt.

The roots of this confrontation are not merely contemporary. From the 1950s until the late 1980s, Israel and Iran were allies, sharing technology and strategic interests. The fall of Shah Reza Pahlavi weakened America’s grip on Tehran, and the subsequent Iran–Iraq war saw Washington backing Baghdad, only to later confront Iraq itself. Today, Israel’s vision of a “Greater Israel”, articulated by Netanyahu, has entangled America in a war that many of its own senators and Pentagon officials oppose. Trump, impeached once and often isolated within his own party, finds himself bolstering a war effort that lacks both domestic consensus and economic sustainability.

The economic implications are staggering. The war has triggered the largest energy crisis in decades. India, the world’s third-largest consumer of oil and heavily dependent on imports, finds itself compelled to turn to Russia. Yet Russia, no longer a sentimental ally, treats energy as corporate business, charging $4 above international prices. This premium strengthens Moscow’s economy, indirectly aiding Iran and undermining America’s costly war in Ukraine, where billions have been spent with little return. The paradox is clear: America’s attempt to isolate Iran has instead empowered Russia, creating a geopolitical triangle that destabilises both energy markets and strategic balances.

Global economists warn of an unannounced slowdown. Growth rates could shrink by 6–8% worldwide, with trillions of dollars already wiped off share markets. The Dow Jones has lost nearly 8%, London’s FTSE 6%, and Asian markets 5–7%. This unsustainability is not a temporary correction but a structural crisis. Energy has been weaponised, and the world economy is bleeding. The war is not a battle of territory but a theatre of smashed humanity, where oil refineries, banks and civilian infrastructure are targeted. Israel’s strikes on Iranian banks and refineries, and Iran’s retaliatory attacks on US bases in Gulf states, have dragged the entire Arab world into America’s personal war.

India’s predicament is particularly acute. External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar’s statement in Parliament outlined evacuation measures and diplomatic contacts but conspicuously lacked any expression of sorrow over the killing of Ayatollah Khamenei. This silence suggests India’s reluctance to distance itself from Washington, even as allies like England and Canada hesitate to endorse America’s unilateralism. If Hormuz remains blocked, India will be forced into deeper dependence on Russian energy. Yet American pressure prevents India from negotiating long-term discounted deals with Moscow. A four-year arrangement could have slashed rates and helped India break inflation, but such pragmatism is politically constrained.

The geopolitical vocabulary here is stark: entanglement, asymmetry, weaponisation and paralysis. America has entangled the Arab world in its personal war, Iran has deployed asymmetric strategies that neutralise superior fleets, oil has been weaponised into a tool of coercion, and economies face paralysis. For India, the implications are existential. Tourism collapses, factories stall, inflation rises and the rupee weakens. External affairs are not election campaigns to be won by manoeuvring; they are sustainable policies requiring steadiness and foresight. Yet the ruling party risks treating foreign policy as electoral rhetoric, ignoring the structural necessity of energy security.

The ultimate question is whether America can sustain credibility. If Trump presses forward, he faces opposition from senators and the Pentagon. If he retreats, America risks losing trust among allies. Either way, credibility is at stake. The attempt to capture Hormuz may remain a mirage, as geography and Iranian strategy make it nearly impossible. The war has already destabilised markets, eroded confidence and exposed the fragility of global systems.

India must recognise that external affairs are not about aligning blindly with one bloc but about crafting a sustainable, independent policy. Energy security cannot be hostage to American contradictions. The vision of law and geopolitics demands that India balance morality with pragmatism, sovereignty with survival. Until such a vision is embraced, the silence of Banaras, the collapse of tourism and the paralysis of factories will remain the loudest testimony of a world undone by the madness of war.