US naval blockade enforces geopolitical tensions, exposing systemic failures in maritime governance and regional security frameworks

Indigenous and traditional maritime communities in the Gulf, such as the Arab seafarers of the UAE and Oman, have long relied on cooperative governance models for trade and resource management, contrasting sharply with the militarised blockade approach. These systems prioritise seasonal rhythms, shared waterways, and conflict resolution through tribal mediation, which are systematically excluded from Western security narratives. The blockade disrupts these networks, eroding both ecological and social resilience in coastal communities.

The blockade is the latest iteration of a century-long pattern of Western intervention in the Gulf, from the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement to the 1953 CIA-backed coup in Iran, which installed the Shah’s regime and later led to the 1979 revolution. The 1980s 'Tanker War' during the Iran-Iraq conflict set a precedent for naval blockades, normalising economic warfare as a tool of statecraft. Each iteration has deepened regional distrust of Western-led security frameworks and reinforced Iran’s asymmetric military strategies.

In East Africa, the blockade is framed as a neo-colonial tactic, echoing historical patterns where European powers controlled Indian Ocean trade routes through naval dominance. Chinese maritime diplomacy, which emphasises infrastructure investment over military coercion, offers an alternative model that resonates in the Global South. The US approach is criticised for its hypocrisy, as it simultaneously condemns Iran’s nuclear programme while maintaining the world’s largest nuclear arsenal.

Naval blockades disrupt marine ecosystems by altering sediment flow, increasing pollution from rerouted shipping, and exacerbating hypoxia in the Gulf’s already fragile waters. Studies show that such disruptions can trigger cascading effects on fish stocks, which are critical for regional food security. The blockade also violates the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which mandates freedom of navigation and prohibits unilateral enforcement actions in international waters.

Persian poetry and Gulf folklore often depict the sea as a sacred space of both sustenance and conflict, with metaphors of storms and calm reflecting geopolitical tensions. The blockade is framed in regional art as a violation of the sea’s spiritual role, disrupting the balance (*mizan*) between human and natural forces. In contrast, Western military narratives frame the sea as a contested frontier, devoid of cultural or spiritual significance.

If unchecked, the blockade could trigger a regional arms race, with Iran expanding its ballistic missile programme and Gulf states accelerating naval modernisation. Long-term scenarios include the collapse of regional trade networks, food shortages in import-dependent states, and the rise of non-state actors exploiting the power vacuum. Climate change exacerbates these risks by increasing competition for dwindling water resources and disrupting agricultural supply chains.

The blockade disproportionately affects marginalised groups, including Baloch fishermen in Iran and Pakistani migrant workers in the Gulf, who face arbitrary detentions and loss of livelihoods. Women in coastal communities, who often manage local markets and fisheries, are silenced in mainstream narratives despite bearing the brunt of economic shocks. The framing excludes the voices of Arab and Persian historians who critique the blockade as a tool of collective punishment.