The Strait of Hormuz is back in the spotlight as potential US intervention in Iran increases the risk that Iran will disrupt one of the world’s most important energy chokepoints.
US President Donald Trump is considering a range of options against Iran to crack down on protests in the country, according to multiple media reports on Sunday.
Industry experts have warned that a military conflict could lead to Iran blocking the Strait of Hormuz. The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow waterway that connects the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, and through which nearly one-third of the world’s offshore crude oil flows.
Saul Kavonic, head of energy research at MST Marquee, said that “a disruption in the Strait of Hormuz could spark a global oil and gas crisis,” especially given the “desperate and reckless measures the current Iranian regime would take” if Iran were to become increasingly cornered, with its power and lives at risk.
In 2025, about 13 million barrels of crude oil per day passed through the Strait of Hormuz, accounting for about 31% of global offshore oil flows, according to data provided by market intelligence firm Kpler. The risk of the waterway being blocked also surfaced during the clashes between Washington and Tehran last June.
Muyu Xu, senior crude oil analyst at Kpler, said Iran’s production and export volumes are much larger than Venezuela’s, so it is inevitable that there will be larger spillovers to global markets, adding that Chinese refiners may be forced to look for alternatives.
Bob McNally, president of Rapidan Energy Group, said that unlike Venezuela, any military action involving Iran would carry a “fairly high risk” given its crude oil and refined products supply and transportation exposure, and said he saw a 70% chance that the United States would selectively attack Iran.
Analysts say an extreme escalation scenario in which tankers are blocked or energy infrastructure is damaged could send oil prices up by double digits.
“Fear of a shutdown will likely push oil prices up by a few dollars a barrel, but a complete closure of the Straits could result in an increase of $10 to $20 a barrel,” said Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates.
Kavonic expects an “immediate oil price spike” following the U.S. attack on Iran, but that trend will subside if there are signs that the disruption is temporary.
Brent, the global benchmark, has recently been trading at around $63 per barrel, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate futures are trading at $59 per barrel.
Most analysts emphasize that any catastrophic outcome remains a low-probability event.
Iran could threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz at any time, but given the complexity of power relations in the region, Iran may not want to do so, and given the U.S. Navy’s patrols of the area, it may not have the ability to shut it down completely, Kupler’s Xu said.
Even in a scenario where Iran attempts a temporary disruption, such as by harassing tankers or temporarily blocking shipping, the physical impact on supply would be limited.
Kupler estimates that the oil market is currently trending towards oversupply, with the oversupply expected to be around 2.5 million barrels per day in January and more than 3 million barrels per day in February and March.
Additionally, any shutdown would likely be met with a show of force from the United States and its allies to get the flow flowing again, Kavonic said.
Still, experts caution against making direct comparisons between Iran and Venezuela, as the Trump administration used sanctions and seizures to pressure the Venezuelan regime before detaining President Nicolas Maduro.
Xu said that it would be very difficult for the United States to adopt a strategy against Iran similar to Venezuela because Iran is far away from the US mainland and the geopolitical situation in the Middle East is much more complex than in Latin America. “Furthermore, President Trump’s current priority appears to be to strengthen U.S. power in the Western Hemisphere.”
Lipow echoed that view, saying a Venezuelan-style strategy in Iran would likely involve sanctions and enforcement rather than military occupation or infrastructure attacks.
