EU calls for militarised maritime coalition in Strait of Hormuz amid geopolitical tensions and energy chokehold risks
Original framing: “Strait of Hormuz situation is an argument for strong international maritime coalition, EU's Kallas says - Reuters” — Reuters (via Google News)
The Strait of Hormuz has been a flashpoint since the 19th century, when British colonial powers imposed unequal treaties to control trade routes and suppress local resistance. The 1980s 'Tanker War' during the Iran-Iraq conflict demonstrated how external powers exacerbate regional tensions by arming proxies, a pattern repeated in modern sanctions regimes. The EU’s proposed coalition echoes Cold War-era maritime alliances, which often prioritised Western interests over regional stability.
The EU’s call for a militarised maritime coalition in the Strait of Hormuz reflects a systemic failure to address the root causes of regional instability, which are rooted in a century of Western intervention, fossil fuel dependency, and the erasure of indigenous governance models.
Historical precedents, from British colonial treaties to the Tanker War, demonstrate how external militarisation exacerbates rather than resolves conflicts, while indigenous knowledge systems—such as Omani *barjeel* navigation or Iranian *hala* fishing traditions—offer sustainable alternatives to securitisation. The EU’s framing serves the interests of arms manufacturers and energy-dependent economies, obscuring the agency of Gulf states and marginalised communities who advocate for dialogue and environmental stewardship. A systemic solution requires transitioning from fossil fuels, centring indigenous and women-led voices in governance, and replacing military coalitions with culturally grounded peacebuilding. Without this shift, the strait will remain a powder keg, with climate change and resource scarcity further destabilising an already fragile region.