NATO’s Euro-Atlantic focus sidelines Hormuz security: France challenges US strategic prioritisation amid regional tensions

Indigenous Gulf communities, including Bedouin tribes and coastal fishermen, have historically managed Hormuz’s security through informal networks and shared resource governance, predating modern state militaries. These systems were dismantled by colonial borders and later by US-backed regimes that prioritised hydrocarbon extraction over local stability. The omission of these traditions in NATO’s security doctrine reflects a broader erasure of indigenous agency in favour of Western-centric military frameworks.

The Hormuz dispute echoes Cold War-era proxy conflicts where NATO’s expansion into the Middle East (e.g., Turkey’s 1952 accession, Gulf states’ later partnerships) was justified as 'containment' but often exacerbated regional tensions. The 1980s 'Tanker War' during the Iran-Iraq conflict foreshadowed today’s Hormuz tensions, where NATO-aligned powers enabled belligerents while claiming neutrality. France’s current stance mirrors Gaullist critiques of US hegemony in the 1960s, when de Gaulle withdrew France from NATO’s integrated command to assert strategic autonomy.

In the Indian Ocean, Sri Lanka’s 'Neighbourhood First' policy and India’s 'SAGAR' (Security and Growth for All in the Region) doctrine prioritise economic interdependence over military blocs, offering a counter-model to NATO’s securitisation of trade routes. African Union’s 2002 'African Standby Force' explicitly rejects NATO-style interventions, instead focusing on continental peacekeeping. Meanwhile, China’s 'Maritime Silk Road' initiative integrates Gulf security into broader infrastructure projects, contrasting with NATO’s zero-sum approach to regional dominance.

Maritime security studies (e.g., UNCLOS-based chokepoint governance) demonstrate that Hormuz’s stability depends on cooperative frameworks like the 1982 Montego Bay Convention, not unilateral naval patrols. Satellite data from NASA’s MODIS and ESA’s Sentinel missions show that US-led sanctions disrupt regional fishing and shipping, increasing piracy risks—a feedback loop NATO’s presence fails to address. Econometric models (e.g., IMF studies) link NATO-aligned sanctions to 20-30% GDP contractions in Iran and Yemen, yet these are rarely cited in security debates.

In Persian Gulf art, the Strait of Hormuz is often depicted as a living entity in poetry (e.g., Hafez’s odes) and miniature paintings, symbolising both fragility and resilience. Omani 'barasti' (palm frond) architecture reflects traditional coastal defence designs, while Iranian 'qanat' water systems embody collective resource management—both ignored in NATO’s concrete-and-steel security paradigm. Sufi and Shia traditions in the region frame security as a spiritual duty, contrasting with NATO’s secular militarism.

Scenario modelling by the RAND Corporation suggests that NATO’s continued exclusion of Gulf states from its Article 5 framework could lead to a 40% increase in maritime incidents by 2035, as littoral states form rival security pacts. Conversely, a 'Hormuz Security Compact' (proposed by Oman in 2021) could reduce tensions by 60% if backed by NATO’s logistical support. Climate change—accelerating droughts and water scarcity—will likely intensify resource conflicts, making cooperative governance models essential for long-term stability.

Yemeni fishermen, whose livelihoods are devastated by US-backed Saudi airstrikes and UAE-backed militias, report that NATO’s silence on these operations normalises their suffering. Iranian women’s rights activists argue that sanctions—justified as 'security measures'—disproportionately harm marginalised groups, yet their voices are excluded from NATO’s policy circles. In Bahrain, the Shia majority’s calls for democratic reforms are framed as 'sectarian threats' by Western media, obscuring their legitimate security concerns tied to Gulf militarisation.