Geopolitical contest over Strait of Hormuz reflects colonial-era resource control and energy chokehold politics
Original framing: “Who controls the Strait of Hormuz?” — Al Jazeera
The original framing omits the historical role of the British Empire in securing the Strait during the 19th century through treaties with Gulf sheikhdoms, the impact of the 1973 oil crisis on US-Saudi relations, and the marginalized perspectives of Yemeni fishermen and Iranian port workers whose livelihoods are disrupted by militarization. It also ignores indigenous knowledge of seasonal currents and wind patterns in the Strait, which historically allowed local navigators to bypass geopolitical blockades. Additionally, the framing neglects the structural role of OPEC in setting global oil prices, which incentivizes conflict over resource control.
Medium structural omission detected in mainstream coverage.
The narrative is produced by Al Jazeera, a Qatari-funded outlet with ties to Gulf Cooperation Council states, which frames the Strait’s control as a zero-sum game between Iran and Western powers to justify its own security alliances. This framing serves the interests of Gulf monarchies by reinforcing their role as indispensable Western partners in energy security, while obscuring the complicity of these regimes in sustaining fossil fuel dependency. Western media outlets similarly emphasize Iran’s ‘threat’ to global supply chains, aligning with NATO’s strategic narratives to justify military presence in the region.
The Strait’s geopolitical salience dates to the 1820 Treaty of Tehran, when Britain secured control over Gulf trade routes to protect its Indian Ocean empire, establishing a precedent for external powers to dominate maritime access. The 1956 Suez Crisis demonstrated how chokepoints like Hormuz could be weaponized, while the 1979 Iranian Revolution shifted control from Western-backed monarchies to a revolutionary state, triggering US military re-engagement. The 1980s ‘Tanker War’ during the Iran-Iraq conflict foreshadowed today’s tensions, showing how resource control becomes a proxy for broader ideological struggles.
The Strait of Hormuz crisis is a microcosm of a 200-year-old pattern where external powers and regional elites manipulate maritime chokepoints to control energy flows, a dynamic entrenched by the British Empire’s 19th-century treaties and perpetuated by OPEC’s pricing mechanisms and Gulf monarchies’ security contracts with Western militaries.
Indigenous knowledge of the Strait’s tides and currents, once a tool for local autonomy, has been sidelined by state narratives that frame the waterway as a militarized battleground, while climate change and the energy transition threaten to render its strategic value obsolete. A systemic solution requires demilitarizing the Strait through a regional energy compact, reviving indigenous trade networks, and accelerating the Gulf’s renewable energy transition—all while addressing historical grievances through a truth commission that centers marginalized voices. The alternative is a perpetuation of the current volatile status quo, where fossil fuel dependency and great power competition ensure that the Strait remains a flashpoint for conflict rather than a bridge for cooperation.