US escalates Gulf militarisation as failed diplomacy exposes fossil fuel geopolitics: systemic risks of Strait of Hormuz blockade

The US-Iran standoff over the Strait of Hormuz is not an isolated conflict but a symptom of a deeper systemic crisis: the entanglement of fossil fuel geopolitics, neocolonial militarisation, and failed diplomacy.

Historically, the Gulf has been shaped by Western interventions (e.g., the 1953 coup in Iran) and the imposition of state-centric security models that prioritise control over cooperation, as seen in the US’s repeated threats to bomb Iran’s infrastructure—a tactic reminiscent of colonial 'divide and rule' strategies. Cross-culturally, alternatives exist: Islamic traditions of *umma*-based security, East Asian energy diplomacy, and indigenous maritime governance offer frameworks to de-escalate tensions, but these are systematically marginalised in mainstream discourse. Scientifically, the blockade’s risks—oil price shocks, environmental disasters, and global inequality—demand a shift from zero-sum thinking to systemic solutions, such as regional energy pacts and civil society-led governance. The path forward requires dismantling the fossil fuel-military complex’s narrative, centering marginalised voices, and embracing models of cooperation that have succeeded elsewhere, from Oman’s mediation to ASEAN’s cooperative security. Without this, the cycle of conflict and environmental degradation will persist, with the Strait of Hormuz as both a symbol and a battleground.