Middle East live: Trump threatens US takeover of Hormuz as Iran vows to retain control

The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow waterway at the entrance to the Persian Gulf. Iran lies to its north, while Oman controls territory along its southern side. The strait connects the oil-rich Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the wider Arabian Sea. Its location makes it one of the world’s most important maritime chokepoints.

Ships use designated channels through the strait, which is about 33 kilometers wide at its narrowest point. Only part of that width is available for shipping lanes. Tankers carrying crude oil, petroleum products, and liquefied natural gas pass between the Gulf’s producers and global markets.

The article highlights its political importance. Trump threatened to declare the strait US territory, while Iran’s deputy foreign minister said it “will remain Iranian.” That exchange shows how geography, energy, and military power converge there, even though legal control is more complex than either claim suggests.

According to the article, Donald Trump made the threat during a New York rally on Friday. He said he could declare the Strait of Hormuz US territory after vowing to “finish defeating” Iran. The statement raised the stakes around a waterway central to global energy trade.

Iran rejected the claim the following day. Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said the strategic waterway “will remain Iranian.” He also asserted that it can be opened or closed only at Iran’s command. His response presented Tehran as the authority able to control access.

The exchange is a political confrontation, not a settled change in ownership. A public declaration by one country would not automatically alter international maritime law. Any attempt to enforce such a claim could increase tensions, threaten shipping, and disrupt oil and gas markets. The article does not report that the United States actually changed the strait’s legal status.

The Strait of Hormuz normally carries about 20 percent of global oil consumption, according to widely used energy-market estimates. It also handles roughly one-fifth of worldwide liquefied natural gas trade. These figures measure the strait’s importance to daily global energy flows, not the share of all oil and gas reserves.

Major producers around the Persian Gulf depend on the passage to reach customers. Tankers transport crude oil, refined products, and LNG through its shipping lanes toward Asia, Europe, and other markets. Because many exporters have limited alternative routes, the strait concentrates a large volume of trade in a narrow space.

The article itself does not provide these percentages, but it identifies Hormuz as a strategic waterway at the center of the dispute. The exact share changes over time with production, pipeline use, and market demand. Even so, losing access would affect prices and supplies far beyond the region.

Closing or seriously restricting Hormuz would remove a major route for global energy supplies. Markets would quickly price in scarcity and risk, pushing crude oil, fuel, and LNG prices higher. The shock would affect transport, electricity, heating, and industries that rely on petroleum or gas.

Tankers unable to pass would wait, turn around, or use longer routes where available. Shipowners could demand higher insurance premiums because of military and seizure risks. Producers might use pipelines or ports outside the Gulf, but those systems cannot immediately replace the strait’s full capacity. Importers would compete for fewer available cargoes.

The result would depend on how long the disruption lasted and how much alternative capacity existed. Strategic reserves, increased pipeline flows, fuel switching, and lower demand could soften the blow. A prolonged closure would be more damaging than a brief scare. The article’s confrontation shows why threats around Hormuz can move markets even before physical supplies stop.

The Strait of Hormuz is bordered mainly by Iran and Oman, but that does not mean either country owns the entire waterway. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, straits used for international navigation generally allow ships and aircraft a right of transit passage. Coastal states retain sovereignty over their territorial seas, subject to those international rules.

This legal framework matters because Hormuz connects one international sea route to another. Iran and Oman may regulate safety, pollution, and security within lawful limits, but they cannot simply erase navigation rights by announcement. Iran signed the convention but has not ratified it; many of its transit principles are nevertheless widely treated as customary international law.

The article reports Trump’s threat and Iran’s rejection. Neither statement alone changes the strait’s legal status. Enforcing a unilateral territorial claim could trigger diplomatic, military, and commercial consequences. The practical balance would depend on international law, state behavior, and control of shipping lanes.

Oil-producing countries could use pipelines that bypass Hormuz, but capacity is limited. Saudi Arabia can send some crude westward through its East-West pipeline to Red Sea terminals. The United Arab Emirates can move some oil from inland fields to Fujairah, outside the strait. Iraq also has northern export links, though political and infrastructure limits matter.

These alternatives work through a simple mechanism: pipelines move oil from Gulf production areas to ports on other coasts. Tankers can then sail without entering Hormuz. Producers might also draw on stored inventories, redirect existing cargoes, or reduce domestic and foreign demand. Qatar’s LNG exports have fewer practical bypass options because liquefied gas relies heavily on marine shipping through the strait.

No alternative can instantly replace all normal traffic. Pipeline systems have fixed capacities and may already be busy. A prolonged disruption would therefore require cooperation among producers, consumers, shipping companies, and governments. Strategic reserves could buy time, but they would not permanently solve the route problem.

Narrow waterways are called chokepoints because ships cannot easily avoid them. They connect major production regions with distant consumers, making geography part of economic power. A country near a chokepoint can monitor traffic, impose security measures, or threaten disruption. Other countries must protect access because their industries and households depend on the route.

Hormuz provides a clear example. Oil and gas tankers leaving Gulf producers must pass through designated channels. If threats make the route unsafe, ships may delay voyages or demand higher insurance. Even without a closure, uncertainty can raise prices because traders anticipate future shortages and risks.

That influence extends beyond the surrounding states. Higher energy costs can increase transport expenses, inflation, and electricity prices worldwide. Governments therefore build pipelines, reserves, naval partnerships, and alternative supply chains. The article’s Trump-Iran confrontation illustrates how a dispute over one narrow waterway can become an international economic issue.