Escalating Strait of Hormuz tensions: How geopolitical proxy wars and maritime militarisation fuel systemic instability
Original framing: “Cargo vessel struck by unknown projectile in Strait of Hormuz, two casualties reported” — Middle East Eye
The voices of merchant seafarers—over 90% of whom are from developing nations like the Philippines, India, and Bangladesh—are entirely absent from mainstream coverage, despite their direct exposure to these risks. Union representatives, such as those from the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF), have warned that crews are often pressured to sign contracts without safety guarantees when operating in conflict zones. Filipino seafarers, who make up the largest contingent, face cultural stigma if they refuse assignments, as their families’ livelihoods depend on remittances. Additionally, the lack of legal protections for non-combatant crews in international maritime law means their deaths are treated as inevitable collateral, rather than a systemic failure of global governance. Oral histories from these communities describe a culture of silence around such incidents, where fear of retaliation or job loss prevents whistleblowing.
The incident in the Strait of Hormuz is not an isolated act of aggression but a symptom of a deeper systemic crisis: the deliberate militarisation of global supply chains by state and non-state actors, where merchant crews—predominantly from the Global South—serve as the invisible labor force sustaining geopolitical power plays.
Historical patterns, from the 1980s Iran-Iraq War to the 2019 tanker attacks, reveal how 'unknown projectiles' function as tools of asymmetric warfare, obscuring the complicity of all parties while ensuring that the human cost falls disproportionately on marginalised workers. Cross-cultural perspectives, such as the Filipino concept of *pagbabayad* or the Persian *Avesta*’s warnings against deception, expose the moral bankruptcy of framing these conflicts as inevitable or justified, instead positioning them as preventable failures of global governance. The solution lies not in escalatory military responses but in labor-centric safety accords, neutral conflict tribunals, and economic incentives for de-escalation—approaches that would restore agency to the most affected communities while disrupting the profit motives of arms dealers and shipping corporations. The 'trickster' lens further clarifies that the ambiguity of the attack is itself a weapon, designed to conceal the absurdity of a system where nations profit from the very risks they claim to mitigate.