USA

The Strait of Hormuz has become the central pressure point in the escalating confrontation between the United States and Iran. Before the conflict, roughly 20 million barrels of oil moved through the narrow waterway each day, equivalent to about one fifth of global oil consumption. For years, traders could therefore rely on relatively consistent estimates of the volumes passing through one of the world’s most important energy corridors.

That certainty has now disappeared.

The use of “dark crossings,” in which tankers switch off their identification and navigation systems, has made vessel movements increasingly difficult to monitor. Satellite imagery, port records, tanker drafts, loading schedules and shipping data are being used to reconstruct movements, but the information remains incomplete. Recent estimates of Hormuz flows have differed dramatically, leaving traders and governments uncertain about the true scale of oil moving through the waterway.

The uncertainty comes as Brent crude has moved above the $100 a barrel threshold for the first time since July, driven by renewed military escalation and concerns over Middle Eastern oil supplies.

The Hormuz Information Gap

The most unusual feature of the current oil crisis is not simply that supplies may have fallen. It is that markets cannot confidently determine how much oil is actually moving.

U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said more than 17 million barrels crossed the strait on August 31 under U.S. Navy supervision. Shipping intelligence firm Kpler, however, estimated that only around 6 million barrels crossed that day. Kpler put average August flows at approximately 4.3 million barrels per day, with flows rising to nearly 5 million barrels per day during the first days of September.

The difference could partly reflect different methodologies, including whether shipments using alternative routes outside Hormuz are included. Tankers that remain invisible to tracking systems for days or even weeks make the picture even harder to reconstruct.

This means that traders are attempting to price global oil supplies without reliable visibility over one of the world’s most important supply arteries.

Why the Strait of Hormuz Matters

Hormuz is strategically important because of the enormous concentration of energy exports that normally pass through it. Any sustained disruption can affect crude supplies, tanker availability, insurance costs and shipping times, eventually feeding into fuel prices and broader inflation.

The current situation is different from a straightforward blockade. The strait has not necessarily become completely impassable. Instead, its reliability has been severely compromised.

That distinction matters because a tanker does not have to be physically prevented from crossing for markets to react. The possibility that vessels may be delayed, attacked or unable to cross safely is enough to increase the cost of transporting oil.

As a result, the market is responding not only to actual supply losses but also to the risk of future disruption.

Iran’s Strategic Leverage

Iran’s ability to disrupt maritime traffic remains an important source of leverage despite indications that its military capabilities around Hormuz have been weakened.

U.S. demining operations and a growing U.S.-protected shipping corridor along Oman’s coast have allowed more vessels to enter and leave the Gulf. At the same time, Iran-linked forces continue to threaten commercial shipping, meaning Tehran retains the ability to create uncertainty even if it cannot completely shut down the waterway.

This gives Iran a form of asymmetric leverage. Tehran does not necessarily need to close Hormuz completely to impose economic costs. Sporadic attacks, warnings or restrictions can increase insurance premiums, delay shipments and encourage traders to price in a greater possibility of supply disruption.

The renewed attacks on Saudi energy infrastructure have added another layer of risk by threatening alternative routes that have become increasingly important as traffic through Hormuz has declined.

Impact on Global Oil Markets

The immediate consequence is a higher geopolitical risk premium on crude.

Oil prices normally respond to measurable fundamentals such as production, consumption, inventories and transportation. But when the market cannot establish how much oil is moving through Hormuz, uncertainty itself becomes part of the fundamental picture.

This can keep prices elevated even if actual physical supply losses are smaller than feared.

Brent has already moved above $100 a barrel, while analysts and major financial institutions have raised their oil price forecasts as concerns about prolonged disruption increase.

For oil-importing countries, sustained high crude prices could translate into higher fuel and transportation costs, increased inflationary pressure and greater economic uncertainty. Airlines, manufacturers and businesses dependent on energy-intensive supply chains would also face higher operating costs.

Economic and Geopolitical Implications

The crisis demonstrates how vulnerable the global energy system remains to a single strategic chokepoint.

For the United States, maintaining freedom of navigation through Hormuz is not simply a military objective. It is also essential to preventing a regional conflict from becoming a wider global energy crisis.

For Gulf producers, the challenge is equally significant. Even countries with substantial production capacity cannot fully compensate for disrupted shipping if export routes remain vulnerable.

For major Asian importers, the risks are particularly serious because much of the energy normally passing through Hormuz is destined for Asian markets. A prolonged disruption could therefore create significant pressure on import bills, currencies and inflation across energy-dependent economies.

The crisis also highlights the limits of alternative routes. Pipelines and routes outside Hormuz can reduce some of the pressure, but they cannot immediately replace the enormous volumes that normally pass through the waterway.

What’s Next?

The key variable is whether the confrontation between Washington and Tehran moves toward negotiations or further escalation.

A diplomatic breakthrough could rapidly reduce the geopolitical risk premium by restoring confidence in shipping and improving visibility over oil flows. A further escalation, however, could produce additional attacks on tankers, restrictions around the Gulf or renewed pressure on alternative shipping routes.

The oil market will therefore be watching tanker movements as closely as military developments.

If shipping activity becomes more visible and flows recover, some of the current premium could disappear. If the information blackout continues, traders may continue pricing the possibility of a much larger supply disruption.

Analysis

The deeper significance of the Hormuz crisis is that information itself has become a strategic commodity.

Modern energy markets have traditionally depended on the ability to monitor ships, cargoes and supply chains with increasing precision. Satellite imagery, tracking systems and port data created an assumption that physical oil flows could be observed and measured with reasonable accuracy.

That assumption is now being challenged.

The result is a market where perception can influence prices almost as powerfully as physical shortages. If traders believe Hormuz is becoming less reliable, they will pay more for crude today even without definitive evidence of a catastrophic supply loss.

This gives Iran an important form of strategic leverage. The threat of disruption can generate economic consequences even when actual disruption remains limited.

At the same time, Washington faces a difficult calculation. Greater military protection may help keep shipping moving, but prolonged confrontation can also increase the geopolitical risk premium that the United States is trying to contain.

The central question, therefore, is no longer simply how much oil is passing through the Strait of Hormuz. It is how long the global market can function without knowing the answer.

If that uncertainty persists, the oil market could continue carrying a substantial security premium even if physical supplies prove higher than current estimates suggest. The longer the uncertainty lasts, the more deeply it can become embedded in prices, inflation expectations and global economic planning.

With information from Reuters.

BEIRUT: Since a ceasefire went into effect between Israel and Hezbollah more than two months ago, fighting has stopped in much of Lebanon, but not on a strategic hill overlooking parts of a main southern city.

In recent weeks, Ali Taher hill has been the scene of daily shelling and airstrikes by Israel’s military. Hezbollah, a militant group backed by Iran, has repeatedly attacked Israeli forces in the area with drones.

The United States, which is mediating talks between Lebanon and Israel, had wanted Hezbollah to hand over the hill to the Lebanese army as part of larger plan to disarm the militant group and dismantle its infrastructure. But Hezbollah has refused.

Lebanon and Israel reached a framework agreement in June stating Israel will withdraw from Lebanon as Hezbollah is disarmed. The militant group was not a party to the negotiations and has rejected calls to disarm in areas north of the Litani river, which is where Ali Taher is located.

A full-on battle over this hill near the city of Nabatiyeh could escalate fighting across the country, and unrest in Lebanon complicates efforts to resolve the war in Iran.

On Thursday night, Israel’s military announced it had taken “operational control” of Ali Taher and a network of tunnels beneath it that Hezbollah uses to shelter its fighters and weapons. It is unclear how far Israel’s control extends. Just before Israel’s announcement, its air force was still targeting the hill, according to Lebanese state media.

There has been no official statement from Hezbollah since Israel’s announcement.

US pushes Lebanon to pressure Hezbollah

Hezbollah firmly rejected a proposal from the Lebanese government to hand over Ali Taher to the country’s army. It fears Israel would then seize control of the hill from the Lebanese army and then demand the handover of more territory.

Israel had occupied Ali Taher for 18 years before it withdrew from Lebanon in 2000.

The hill has a strategic location overlooking several villages as well as main roads leading to Nabatiyeh. Losing full control of it would disrupt Hezbollah’s presence and supply lines in the area.

The Israeli military says the site is also important to Hezbollah because of tunnels it built there, with funding from Iran.

Israel said in its statement Thursday that the hill housed underground command centers, weapons storage rooms, generators, living quarters, showers and a kitchen. Israel said it cleared Ali Taher of Hezbollah fighters and was working to “neutralize underground infrastructure sites.”

Hezbollah legislator Ihab Hamadeh questioned why the Israeli military was still attacking the hill if it was really in control of the area, according to the Arabic-language version of Russia’s state-funded news outlet Sputnik. An Associated Press photographer who visited the nearby village of Kfar Rumman on Friday saw no sign of Israeli military presence on the hill.

The hill, topped with a shrine to a Muslim scholar, sits north of the Litani river, which has become the de facto boundary of the area captured by Israel since its latest war with Hezbollah began in early March.

Fighting in the area has heated up in recent weeks

Israel has been conducting military operations around Ali Taher since July, said Nasser Khdour, a Middle East researcher at the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project, or ACLED, a US-based group that tracks conflicts around the world.

Hezbollah official Mahmoud Qamati told a Lebanese podcaster in late August that the group’s fighters were repelling attempts by Israeli troops to take Ali Taher. But he, and others, downplayed the significance of the site should Israel take it.

“Ali Taher is important, but if it is lost it does not mean the end of Hezbollah,” Qamati said.

In mid-August, Israel carried out a series of airstrikes on southern Lebanon that it described as retaliation for a Hezbollah drone attack on Ali Taher that seriously wounded three soldiers. The Israeli strikes, which killed 11 people, including women and children, were the deadliest since the US-brokered ceasefire went into effect in late June.

On Aug. 27, Israel carried out a series of airstrikes, killing one person and wounding six, after the military said Hezbollah fired two explosive drones at Israeli troops in the area. Hezbollah did not claim responsibility for any of the attacks.

Lebanon says Israel is hindering its army

Lebanon’s Deputy Prime Minister Tarek Mitri told an Arab TV station in late August that the Lebanese army was ready to take over Ali Taher.

He accused Israel of blocking the army due to its own political considerations ahead of Israeli national elections on Oct. 27.

“The problem is not in the Lebanese army’s readiness but in Israel’s stance,” he said.

Lebanese and Israeli officials are set to meet for negotiations in Rome later this month. Meanwhile, Hezbollah, which has always refused to speak directly to the US, appears to be changing its policy after the major setbacks it has suffered during its wars with Israel since 2024.

A Lebanese official told The Associated Press that indirect contacts are going on between the US and Hezbollah, but refused to give any details. He spoke on condition of anonymity in line with regulations.

The US ambassador to Lebanon, Michel Issa, said recently that Washington is ready to speak with Hezbollah if the group agrees to disarm.

Still, Hezbollah is not likely to take any move forward regarding talks with the US without a green light from its main backer, Iran. While talks with the US over their war have stalled, Iran has sought guarantees that Israel will halt its attacks on Hezbollah as part of any permanent deal.

Capture of Ali Taher could lead Israel to other Hezbollah strongholds

The capture of Ali Taher would open the way to Nabatiyeh and also lead to the nearby Apple Province and Rihan Mountain, where Hezbollah has been building up its presence since the late 1990s.

Israeli leaders have repeatedly pledged to leave troops in Lebanon and threatened to escalate military pressure until Hezbollah disarms.

“Israeli control of the area is an operational and military setback for Hezbollah,” said Khdour of ACLED. He said clearing these sites helps Israel protect towns in the northern part of its country, and increases pressure on Hezbollah.

“This will strengthen Israel’s position in any future negotiations over its withdrawal,” said Khdour.