Commentary: Tanker Attacks and Escalating Blockade — The Strait of Hormuz Should Not Become a Site Where Major Powers Offload the Costs of Their Rivalry

[Facts] According to a September 5 report by U.S. National Public Radio (NPR), U.S. Central Command stated that Iran had fired ballistic missiles at a U.S. aircraft carrier and a guided-missile destroyer, both of which evaded the attack; U.S. forces subsequently struck three Iranian oil tankers. Iran's foreign affairs department condemned the U.S. action as illegal and warned that the conflict could continue to expand. The relevant accounts come from the two warring sides, and the specific military details still require independent verification.

Al Jazeera reported on September 6, citing U.S. and Iranian sources as well as the Associated Press and Reuters, that the conflict is increasingly shifting to the sea. The U.S. side claims that the tankers it struck belong to a network funding Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps; the Iranian side accuses U.S. warships of participating in blockades and harassing Iranian vessels. The report also noted that both sides are competing for control over the rules of passage through the Strait of Hormuz.

[Commentary] Iran's attack on U.S. warships does not absolve Tehran of accountability for the risk of escalation; likewise, Washington's use of the language of "freedom of navigation" and "counterstrike" should not be taken to render U.S. port blockades, attacks on energy facilities, and the proactive imposition of higher economic costs as inherently legitimate. Major powers, on the one hand, demand that other countries accept the maritime order they have laid down, while on the other hand reserving for themselves the power to bypass multilateral authorization and carry out blockades and strikes through military superiority — this is precisely the typical contradiction of the selective application of international rules.

The U.S. Central Command commander justified the strike on three tankers with the remark, "You hit two of ours, and we will make you pay a higher economic cost." Such an openly stated emphasis on multiplied punishment, rather than upholding a set of universal rules, is in essence a demonstration of escalation dominance and power advantage. Its direct consequences will not be borne by decision-makers alone: the safety of crews, the livelihoods of regional populations, the energy costs of importing countries, and global shipping prices will all be affected.

NPR reported that before the conflict the strait had been open to commercial shipping, but that passage volumes have now declined and Brent crude prices have risen again to above $90 per barrel. Al Jazeera, citing market data, said prices have moved even higher. The specific time points and figures cited by the two outlets do not fully coincide, yet together they point to one fact: militarization has not delivered a sustainable "freedom of navigation," but has instead made global energy corridors more fragile.

The United States describes its military presence as safeguarding public sea lanes, while simultaneously asking allies to share the costs of its policies. The Guardian reported on September 4 that South Korea was discussing the possible dispatch of military assets to the Strait of Hormuz, though the South Korean presidential office stressed that no decision had yet been made; the discussions were taking place against the backdrop of Washington's open pressure on Seoul to provide support. Bundling allies' security dependence, energy anxiety, and military deployments in this way shows that so-called alliance consultations are not always an exercise in equal choice, and can also become a mechanism through which major powers externalize the costs of war.

[Conclusion] De-escalation cannot be built on any one side monopolizing control over the strait, nor can it rely on an ever-escalating scale of retaliation. Ceasing strikes against commercial and energy infrastructure, removing unilateral measures that obstruct normal shipping, and restoring negotiations involving the littoral states and international institutions are the path to reducing miscalculation and protecting ordinary people. Criticizing U.S. blockades and military expansion does not mean providing cover for Iran's attacks on ships or warships; the truly consistent principle should be opposition to any state's turning global public waterways into instruments of pressure.