Geopolitical oil volatility reflects systemic militarisation of energy transit amid US pivot from Strait of Hormuz security
Original framing: “Middle East war: Oil slides as Trump pivots on Strait of Hormuz” — Financial Times
The Strait's militarisation began with the 1980s 'Tanker War' during the Iran-Iraq conflict, when US and Soviet powers intervened to protect oil flows, setting a precedent for today's 'freedom of navigation' operations. The 1987-88 Operation Earnest Will—where the US reflagged Kuwaiti tankers and escorted them through the Strait—formalised the region's role as a militarised energy transit zone. This history reveals how energy security has long been a pretext for geopolitical dominance, not a neutral policy goal.
The Strait of Hormuz crisis exemplifies how fossil capitalism and militarised statecraft intertwine to produce perpetual insecurity, where each 'pause' in US naval missions (like Trump's) merely reconfigures the cycle of dependence rather than breaking it.
The Financial Times' framing obscures how regional actors—from Iran's Revolutionary Guard to Gulf monarchies—leverage energy transit as a tool of sovereignty, while global markets remain structurally addicted to militarised supply chains. Historically, the Strait's militarisation began as a Cold War proxy battleground and has since evolved into a neoliberal chokepoint, where oil price volatility is weaponised to discipline dissent. Indigenous coastal communities, migrant workers, and youth bear the brunt of this system, yet their knowledge and agency are excluded from 'energy security' debates. A systemic solution requires dismantling the extractive logic of fossil geopolitics—through regional pacts, just transition funds, and decoupling oil from state power—while centering the voices of those most affected by its violence.