The Gulf Between Narrow Options and Expanding Risks: Hormuz, Bab al-Mandeb, and the Complex Deterrence Equation

Ambassador Dr. Muawiya Al-Bukhari

The Strait of Hormuz: A Global Energy Artery Under Threat
The threat by to close the marks a critical juncture in global energy security. A significant share of seaborne oil trade passes through this narrow corridor. Any disruption—even partial—would trigger an immediate shock to markets, drive up prices, and disrupt international supply chains, making the crisis a direct reflection on the global economy.

Limited Alternatives… Capacity That Falls Short of the Risk
Despite developing export pipelines through and the enhancing its capacity via , these alternatives remain insufficient relative to total export volumes. They also fail to address the vulnerability of other Gulf states, rendering the crisis inherently collective and in need of coordinated action—particularly to secure these ports against potential Iranian targeting.

Bab al-Mandeb: Expanding the Scope of the Threat
An escalation extending to the is plausible, potentially opening a second maritime front. This would transform the crisis into a dual chokehold on strategic waterways, multiplying costs and further constraining regional maneuverability.

Absence of a Unified Gulf Vision: Reliance on Broad Frameworks
The core dilemma remains that most Gulf states operate within general frameworks and broad policy outlines, lacking a unified strategic vision for managing major crises. This coordination gap results in delayed or limited-impact decisions and allows external powers to shape the overarching response framework, while regional states bear the immediate risks to their territories and economies.

U.S. Power and Allies: Protection with Limits
Despite the extensive military presence of forces in the Gulf, escalation decisions have not always been based on full consensus or meaningful consultation with regional states. These forces have achieved partial success in safeguarding oil flows and preventing a total collapse of maritime routes, while also helping to avert a full-scale military confrontation through naval patrols and monitoring systems for critical infrastructure.

However, deterrence has remained incomplete. It has not prevented unconventional threats such as tanker attacks, indirect strikes, or the surge in insurance and shipping costs. As a result, a high-risk environment persists despite the protective umbrella—particularly amid recent threats associated with .

Uncalculated Costs: When Conflict Exceeds Its Initial Scope
The true cost of this escalation was not fully accounted for in the initial calculations of the parties involved. Rising energy prices, increased insurance and shipping costs, and declining confidence in supply stability all exert pressure on the global economy. Gulf states bear a dual burden: protecting oil infrastructure on one hand, and facing instability in export flows on the other—compounding costs amid institutional shifts within the United States.

Potential Crisis Scenarios

• Direct Military Scenario: A limited confrontation between Iran and Gulf states, potentially targeting oil facilities or tankers, leading to sharp oil price spikes and diminished confidence in supply stability.
• Economic Scenario: Partial bottlenecks in Hormuz and Fujairah triggering global inflationary waves, higher shipping and insurance costs, and sustained pressure on regional budgets.
• Diplomatic Scenario: Efforts by major powers, particularly the United States, to establish a collective security framework for maritime routes, or to impose sanctions and pressure on Iran to de-escalate—though with limited effectiveness in the absence of a unified Gulf vision.

Deterrence Without War: A Difficult Equation
Gulf states, with support from and , seek to balance deterrence while avoiding war by strengthening defenses, expanding international partnerships, and promoting collective protection of maritime corridors. Yet limited international consensus, diverging interests among major powers, and the absence of a unified Gulf strategy reduce the effectiveness of this approach. Meanwhile, Iran continues to use pressure as a tool to reshape the rules of engagement without engaging in direct war.

Conclusion: Between Consensus and International Vacuum
Amid narrowing options and expanding risks, Gulf consensus and effective international action become strategic imperatives. Closing Hormuz is no longer merely a military threat—it is a tool for reshaping geopolitical balances. This moment demands intelligent deterrence that prevents escalation into an open conflict whose consequences would be difficult to contain, despite the presence of allies and foreign power in the region, and in the continued absence of a fully unified Gulf strategy.

The recent U.S. pullback from striking Iranian energy facilities may open the door for de-escalatory understandings in the near term, though Gulf concerns over potential outcomes—and the ability to achieve sustainable security—remain firmly in place.