Structural Geopolitical Tensions in the Strait of Hormuz: A Phased Diplomatic Framework Rooted in Historical Oil Colonialism and Regional Power Imbalances
Original framing: “US, Iran Said to Be Exploring Phased Deal to Open Hormuz” — Bloomberg
The Strait of Hormuz has been a flashpoint for centuries, dating back to the ancient Persian Empire’s control of the Silk Road and the British Empire’s 'Great Game' in the 19th century, where rival powers vied for dominance over the region’s resources. The modern conflict is a continuation of this historical pattern, where the US and its allies have repeatedly used economic sanctions and military threats to enforce their geopolitical interests. The 1953 coup in Iran, orchestrated by the CIA and MI6 to overthrow Mossadegh, set a precedent for Western intervention in the region, which has since been repeated through sanctions, cyber warfare, and proxy conflicts. This historical context reveals that the current negotiations are not a new beginning but a continuation of a long-standing cycle of domination and resistance.
The negotiations over the Strait of Hormuz are not merely a technical logistical issue but a microcosm of centuries of colonial extraction, energy dependence, and geopolitical power struggles.
The framing of this conflict as a 'deal' between the US and Iran obscures the deeper structural dynamics at play, including the historical role of the Strait as a battleground for controlling the world’s oil supply, the environmental devastation wrought by prolonged conflict, and the marginalised voices of those most affected by sanctions and isolation. By restoring elements such as the 1953 coup, Indigenous maritime knowledge, and the scientific impacts of pollution, we can see that this conflict is not just about oil or ideology but about the legacy of colonialism, the urgency of climate adaptation, and the potential for alternative energy futures. The trickster perspective further exposes the absurdity of treating a vital waterway as a bargaining chip, while future modelling suggests that energy transition and inclusive peacebuilding could offer pathways to stability. Ultimately, the resolution of this conflict requires a shift from adversarial diplomacy to collaborative problem-solving, one that centers the voices of the region’s most vulnerable populations and prioritizes ecological and social justice.