Iran Leverages Strait of Hormuz as Strategic Weapon, Analysts Warn

Tehran’s announcement on Sunday that it would close the Strait of Hormuz, together with the new rules set out by the Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA), signals that Iran will keep using the strategic waterway, an expert told The Jerusalem Post on Monday.

US Central Command (CENTCOM) claimed the strait remained open, but data from the analytics firm Kpler showed a sharp drop in vessel traffic shortly after Iran declared the closure in response to Israeli strikes in Lebanon.

CENTCOM reported on Saturday that 55 commercial vessels had passed through Hormuz, delivering over 17 million barrels of oil to world markets. However, the Israeli maritime intelligence firm Windward AI disclosed on Sunday that only 32 ships had transited the strait the previous day, with 65 % of crude exports since 8 June bound for China.

Among the vessels were three sanctioned very large crude oil carriers, one of them Iranian‑flagged, which were operating openly, Windward noted.

The Israeli firm said that throughout the conflict sanctioned vessels had operated covertly, but the shift to open loading suggests the fleet no longer sees concealment as necessary after the US‑Iran memorandum of understanding signed on 17 June.

Iran’s Strait of Hormuz Measures Violate International Law, Expert Warns

Beyond the increased use of sanctioned vessels, Iran’s Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA) continues to claim authority over Hormuz, requiring ships to obtain permission from Tehran and to disclose details of ownership, origin and cargo.

The Post also confirmed that the PGSA’s “Passage rules and regulations” state that the authority retains the right to impose penalties, revoke permissions or pursue legal action against non‑compliant vessels, and that it may introduce insurance fees for shipping in future.

Professor Michael Clarke, a distinguished British defence analyst, academic and former Director‑General of the Royal United Services Institute, told The Post that Iran’s measures breach international law.

The right to keep the Strait of Hormuz open is guaranteed under the transit‑passage regime of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and customary international law, which mandates that shipping remain unimpeded even in times of conflict.

Iran has sought to establish international authority over Hormuz by first demanding crossing tolls and later levying fees for safe passage. However, it is Iran’s attacks on vessels and the placement of mines that have jeopardised safe transit.

The United States has not disclosed how many mines Iran has deployed, although a White House official told CNBC earlier this month that more than 40 Iranian minelaying vessels had been destroyed.

Clarke said Iran aims to “normalize” coordination with the PGSA, making it a routine requirement for shipping companies before seeking a further financial advantage from controlling the strait.

According to J.P. Morgan’s 16th annual Eye on the Market Energy Paper: Fighting Words, Iran could earn $70‑$90 billion annually from tolls alone. With one‑fifth of global oil and LNG supplies disrupted for more than three months, and President Donald Trump warning last week that world oil stocks would run out within four weeks unless the strait reopened, Clarke observed that Iran could profit even more from the already highly favorable memorandum of understanding.

Clarke emphasised that the worldwide energy crisis has given Iran leverage to hold Israeli operations “hostage”, creating a pressure campaign—driven by fear of oil shortages—that would compel Israel to absorb Hezbollah attacks without retaliation.

Israel, which was not a party to the US arrangement and was largely excluded from the negotiations, will now be blamed for any further closures of Hormuz, he explained.

Trump Proposes Sharaa’s Forces Confront Hezbollah, Signaling Shift in US Support for Jerusalem

Tensions between Washington and Jerusalem have become evident as Trump indicated that Syria might be better suited to counter Hezbollah and as the US president engaged in a heated verbal exchange with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Axios reported that Trump urged Netanyahu to halt strikes on Hezbollah, calling him “f***ing crazy,” adding that Netanyahu would be imprisoned were it not for Trump’s intervention and that Israel is widely reviled because of him.

Israeli journalist Barak Ravid reported on CNN that Trump’s inner circle perceives growing uncertainty over whether Netanyahu has lost control or whether Trump has lost control of Netanyahu, as Jerusalem and Washington pursue divergent strategies for the upcoming period.

Clarke observed that US involvement in the conflict has been largely unpopular domestically, and with federal elections approaching Trump seeks an end to the hostilities. Meanwhile, Netanyahu, concerned about national security after three years of costly wars against Iranian proxies, urges a renewed push to overthrow the Islamic regime.

Clarke asserted, “The United States effectively lost the war on 8 April with the ceasefire and we are now witnessing a gradual surrender,” noting that Iran’s demands would become increasingly demanding as Washington’s desperation grows.

Having been unable to eliminate the nuclear threat, Washington must revert to a policy of containment under far more adverse circumstances, he said, arguing that the premature end of the conflict has only bolstered the IRGC‑led regime and weakened Iranian civil society.

Clarke referenced the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ estimate that the war inflicted $144 billion of damage on Iran—roughly half of its annual GDP—and noted the deep public anger over January’s massacres. When asked, he admitted that the chance for regime change had been squandered and that Iranian public trust had been lost because of what he called the US president’s “stupid” promises to protesters who had risked their lives.

He concluded, “The entire undertaking represents a strategic failure of the highest magnitude,” predicting that regime change would eventually occur but would be far more violent than if decisive action had been taken earlier.

Source link