By Simpson Global Media News Desk
About 80 countries have called for the urgent reopening of the Strait of Hormuz as diplomatic efforts intensify around the conflict involving Iran, the United States and their regional allies, placing one of the world’s most important energy and shipping corridors at the centre of international negotiations.
The joint statement was delivered at the United Nations on Thursday, September 24, by Bahrain’s Foreign Minister Abdullatif bin Rashid Al Zayani.
The countries supporting the statement said disruption in the Strait of Hormuz was affecting international navigation, maritime security, global trade and energy security.
They also condemned attacks attributed to Iran and the Houthi movement in Yemen, while warning that further instability around the Bab el-Mandeb Strait could create additional risks for international shipping.
Iran and the Houthis have described their actions as defensive. The latest diplomatic pressure therefore comes amid competing claims over responsibility for the maritime disruption and negotiations aimed at reducing the wider conflict.
The development coincides with reports that US and Iranian representatives are exploring a possible phased arrangement under which Tehran could reopen the Strait of Hormuz while Washington eases or lifts its economic blockade of Iran.
The proposal, reported by Reuters on Friday, September 25, remains under discussion, with sources saying neither side has yet committed to a final agreement.
The diplomatic activity gives the Strait a significance that extends far beyond the countries immediately involved in the conflict.
For governments in Asia, Europe, Africa and the Americas, the waterway is a major artery for energy supplies.
For shipping companies, the issue is whether vessels can move through the waterway safely and predictably.
For consumers, prolonged disruption can feed into fuel, transportation and food costs.
And for governments already dealing with inflation and energy-security concerns, uncertainty around the Strait adds another layer of economic risk.
Why the Strait of Hormuz matters
The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow maritime passage linking the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the wider Arabian Sea.
Its geography makes it one of the world's most strategically important waterways.
Oil-producing states including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Iran depend on routes through the Gulf for international energy trade.
Large quantities of crude oil, petroleum products and liquefied natural gas normally move through the region.
That means a sustained disruption does not affect only the countries bordering the Gulf.
It can influence global energy markets because alternative routes are more limited, more expensive or unable to handle the same volumes.
The current crisis has therefore turned the Strait into a subject of concern at the United Nations, in financial markets, among shipping companies and in national energy ministries.
The 80-country statement reflects that international dimension.
Its supporters included Gulf Arab countries and major Western powers, according to Reuters.
What the 80 countries demanded
The joint statement called for the urgent restoration of normal navigation through the Strait.
The signatories said Iran's actions were threatening international security and freedom of navigation.
They also condemned the Houthis' renewed conflict in Yemen, their attacks on Saudi Arabia and attacks in the Red Sea.
The statement warned that Houthi movement toward the Bab el-Mandeb Strait could further increase risks to international shipping, maritime security and global trade.
The significance of the statement lies partly in its breadth.
The Strait is not simply a bilateral issue between Iran and the United States.
A prolonged interruption affects countries that may have no direct role in the conflict but depend on maritime energy supplies or international shipping routes.
The statement therefore places the issue within the wider framework of international navigation and economic security.
Iran's position is different.
Tehran has linked the reopening of the Strait to changes in the military and economic pressure being applied against it.
On September 22, a senior Iranian official told Reuters that Iran was prepared to reopen the waterway within a week if Washington reduced military pressure and lifted its blockade of Iranian ports.
That position means the Strait has become part of the bargaining process rather than merely an independent maritime-security question.
US and Iran consider a phased arrangement
Diplomatic contacts have increased during the United Nations General Assembly in New York.
Reuters reported on September 25 that US and Iranian negotiators were discussing a phased agreement that could involve Iran reopening the Strait and the United States lifting its economic blockade.
Sources familiar with the discussions said the arrangement was still being considered and that neither government had yet made a final commitment.
The reported proposal illustrates the interconnected nature of the conflict.
The United States wants changes in Iran's conduct and has imposed military and economic pressure.
Iran wants relief from those measures and has used control over access to the Strait as part of its negotiating position.
Regional countries want shipping restored because prolonged disruption affects their economies and security.
International shipping companies want predictable passage and clear rules.
These interests overlap in some areas but remain sharply different in others.
Shipping has already fallen dramatically
Available shipping data shows the extent of the disruption.
Reuters reported on September 22 that only two commodity vessels had crossed the Strait on the previous Monday, compared with a pre-conflict average of about 125 large commercial ships a day.
The vessels identified in the data were a Panama-flagged bulk carrier and a Liberia-flagged bulk carrier.
Reuters also cautioned that shipping data may not capture vessels whose automatic identification system transponders are switched off.
The difference between normal traffic and current traffic illustrates why governments are pressing for a reopening.
The issue is not simply whether one ship can pass.
The global trading system depends on predictable and repeated movements of large numbers of vessels.
Oil tankers, liquefied-gas carriers, bulk carriers and container ships need reliable schedules.
When vessels cannot move normally, delays can spread backward through ports and forward into markets.
Cargoes may remain at terminals.
Ships can be held at anchor.
Companies may have to seek longer routes.
Insurance costs can rise.
Charter rates can increase.
Importers can face delays.
The economic effects can therefore continue even when no new attack occurs.
Two vessels were also reported attacked
The September 22 Reuters report said two separate attacks on vessels had been reported in the Strait.
The Isle of Man-flagged crude-oil tanker LR Stephanie was struck by an unidentified projectile, causing minor injuries to two crew members.
The Liberia-flagged LPG tanker Al Maryah was also hit while leaving the Strait.
Both vessels were able to continue their journeys, according to the report.
Responsibility for the attacks had not been established, and Reuters reported that neither vessel was listed by the Iranian Persian Gulf Strait Authority as non-compliant.
The incidents add to concerns among shipping companies.
Even when a waterway is technically open, commercial operators may decide not to use it if the perceived risk is too high.
That distinction is important.
A government can announce that ships are permitted to transit.
A shipping company still has to consider crew safety, insurance, contractual obligations, cargo value, route alternatives and the probability of attack.
Insurance and shipping costs
The disruption has also affected the economics of maritime transportation.
When the perceived risk of sailing through a conflict zone rises, insurers can increase war-risk premiums.
Shipowners and charterers may also demand higher rates to compensate for the additional risk.
Those costs eventually influence the price of transporting commodities.
If a tanker operator has to take a longer route or wait for safer conditions, the cost of moving the cargo increases.
Oil markets can respond even before a physical shortage develops because traders price in the possibility of future disruption.
This is one reason the Strait of Hormuz is closely watched by financial markets.
The concern is not simply the volume of oil moving today.
It is the uncertainty surrounding future supply.
Saudi Arabia seeks alternative routes
Gulf producers have been attempting to reduce their dependence on the Strait where possible.
Reuters reported on September 22 that Saudi Arabia had restarted operations at its East-West Pipeline and could resume exports from the Red Sea port of Yanbu.
The pipeline allows Saudi crude to move from the eastern oil-producing region toward the Red Sea, providing an alternative route that bypasses the Strait for some exports.
The development demonstrates why alternative infrastructure matters during a maritime crisis.
However, alternative routes cannot necessarily replace the Strait's full capacity.
Pipelines have physical limits.
Other ports have limited capacity.
Some commodities, particularly liquefied natural gas, cannot simply be redirected through a pipeline in the same way as crude oil.
The Strait therefore remains central to the international energy system even when alternative routes are available.
Qatar and liquefied natural gas
The Strait is particularly important for liquefied natural gas.
Qatar is one of the world's major LNG exporters, and its gas shipments normally move through the Gulf and out via the Strait.
Any prolonged disruption can therefore affect countries that depend heavily on LNG imports.
Asian economies are particularly important in this context because several are major LNG consumers.
European countries have also increased their reliance on LNG in recent years as they have sought to diversify energy supplies.
That means a prolonged Hormuz crisis could have consequences far beyond the Middle East.
The effects could be felt through electricity markets, industrial production and household energy costs.
The Red Sea creates a second maritime pressure point
The international concern is not limited to Hormuz.
The 80-country statement also highlighted the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and the Red Sea.
The Bab el-Mandeb connects the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden and is a major route between Europe and Asia.
Ships using the Suez Canal normally pass through the Red Sea and Bab el-Mandeb.
Security problems in that corridor have already encouraged some shipping companies to take longer routes around the Cape of Good Hope.
The result is additional sailing time and fuel consumption.
The UN statement warned that Houthi activity near the Bab el-Mandeb could increase risks to international shipping and global trade.
The combination of Hormuz disruption and Red Sea insecurity is therefore particularly significant.
Two major maritime corridors connecting energy-producing regions to global markets are simultaneously facing security concerns.
A conflict with wider economic consequences
The current Middle East conflict has become a global economic issue because of the region's role in energy production and shipping.
Oil prices have responded repeatedly to developments surrounding the Strait.
Reuters reported earlier in September that crude prices reached six-week highs as the conflict intensified and Iran threatened to strike energy infrastructure.
Markets can move rapidly because energy traders anticipate future disruptions.
If investors believe supplies will be constrained, prices can rise.
If they believe diplomatic progress is likely to restore shipping, prices can fall.
The result is volatility even before physical supplies change substantially.
For importing countries, higher energy prices can increase transportation and manufacturing costs.
That can eventually affect food prices and other consumer goods.
For oil-producing countries, higher prices can increase export revenue but can also create pressure on domestic fuel markets and international relations.
Africa is not insulated
The international implications also extend to Africa.
Many African countries import refined petroleum products and other commodities.
Higher global shipping and energy costs can therefore affect African economies even when the countries are far from the Gulf.
Countries with limited foreign-exchange reserves may be especially exposed to increases in import costs.
Nigeria, Africa's largest crude-oil producer, is also connected to the global energy market.
Although Nigeria does not depend on the Strait of Hormuz for its own crude exports in the same way Gulf producers do, global oil prices influence government revenues, fuel economics, shipping costs and broader inflationary pressures.
For African economies that import refined petroleum products, global freight and energy-market movements can feed into domestic prices.
The wider the disruption, the greater the possibility of secondary economic effects.
The UN becomes the diplomatic stage
The latest developments are unfolding during the 81st United Nations General Assembly.
World leaders have gathered in New York at a time when multiple conflicts are competing for diplomatic attention.
The UN General Assembly has become a platform for governments to outline their positions on the Middle East crisis and the international system.
The Hormuz statement demonstrates how maritime security has become part of those discussions.
The issue also intersects with broader debates about the effectiveness of international institutions.
Countries have different views about how conflicts should be resolved, how sanctions should be used and what role international organisations should play.
The Strait provides a practical example of those disagreements because freedom of navigation involves both international law and the immediate security decisions of states.
Iran's argument
Iran has not accepted the characterization of its actions contained in the joint statement.
Iran and the Houthis describe their actions as defensive, according to Reuters.
Tehran has also linked the future of the Strait to the military and economic pressure being imposed by Washington.
On September 22, the Iranian position was that the Strait could be reopened if the United States reduced military pressure and lifted its blockade of Iranian ports.
That position is central to understanding why reopening the Strait has proved difficult.
Iran does not appear to regard unrestricted reopening as a separate technical decision.
Instead, it is connected to the larger political and military dispute.
The United States and its partners, meanwhile, have called for restoration of maritime navigation while maintaining pressure on Iran.
The gap between those positions is one of the issues diplomats are attempting to bridge.
The possibility of a phased reopening
A phased reopening could provide one possible route forward.
Under the proposal reported by Reuters, Iran could progressively restore passage while the United States reduces economic pressure.
Such an arrangement could potentially allow both sides to take steps without requiring a complete settlement of every disagreement at the beginning.
But the details would be critical.
Questions would include who verifies compliance, how vessels are cleared to transit, what restrictions remain, whether military ships are treated differently from commercial vessels and what happens if either side believes the other has violated the arrangement.
Shipping companies would also need evidence that the route is sufficiently safe before returning to normal operations.
That means a diplomatic announcement alone may not immediately restore pre-conflict traffic.
The role of maritime authorities
A functioning reopening would require coordination among several authorities.
Iranian maritime and security bodies would need to provide navigational information and establish procedures for vessels.
Neighbouring Gulf states would need to coordinate their own maritime-security operations.
International shipping companies would need updated guidance.
Insurance companies would have to assess the risk.
Ports would need to manage the arrival of vessels that have been waiting offshore.
Energy producers and buyers would need to adjust schedules.
The process could therefore take time even if a political agreement is reached quickly.
Ships waiting to move
The low traffic figures demonstrate the practical consequences of uncertainty.
When vessels cannot safely transit, they may remain in holding areas.
Cargoes can be delayed.
Terminals can become congested.
Ships waiting to load may be unable to obtain fresh cargoes.
When the route eventually reopens, there could be a surge of vessels attempting to move through at the same time.
That could create its own logistical challenge.
Port operators and shipping companies would need to coordinate carefully to avoid congestion.
The reopening process could therefore be gradual even if political conditions change rapidly.
Energy security becomes a strategic priority
The crisis is also accelerating discussion about energy diversification.
Countries that depend heavily on one maritime corridor face greater exposure to geopolitical disruption.
Governments may respond by increasing strategic petroleum reserves, expanding alternative pipelines, diversifying suppliers or investing in renewable energy.
Energy companies may also review shipping routes and insurance arrangements.
The immediate crisis therefore has potential long-term consequences for how governments think about energy security.
The United States administration has reportedly been considering a $5 billion investment fund aimed at rebuilding Gulf energy infrastructure and reducing dependence on the Strait, although Reuters said it could not independently verify the Wall Street Journal report on the proposal.
Even the discussion of such measures shows how the conflict is influencing strategic planning beyond the immediate fighting.
The wider security picture
The Strait crisis is occurring alongside continued fighting and instability elsewhere in the region.
The Red Sea remains affected by Houthi activity.
Saudi Arabia has reported intercepting missiles launched by the Houthis, while the group has claimed attacks against Saudi targets, according to reports published Friday.
The combination of missile attacks, maritime incidents and threats to energy infrastructure creates a security environment in which commercial operators have to consider several risks simultaneously.
That makes a diplomatic solution more complicated.
Restoring shipping through Hormuz does not automatically resolve risks in the Red Sea.
Likewise, reducing fighting in Yemen does not automatically settle the dispute between Washington and Tehran.
Multiple security problems therefore have to be addressed.
What shipping companies are watching
Commercial operators will be looking for several signs before restoring normal operations.
First is physical safety.
Second is clarity about passage rules.
Third is the availability of insurance at commercially sustainable rates.
Fourth is the reliability of port operations.
Fifth is the likelihood that an agreement will hold.
Shipping companies cannot easily plan long-distance voyages if conditions can change within hours.
A tanker leaving a Gulf port may spend days at sea.
Operators therefore need confidence that the security environment will remain stable throughout the journey.
What happens if the Strait remains restricted
If restrictions continue, several effects could develop simultaneously.
Oil and gas prices could remain volatile.
Shipping costs could stay elevated.
Alternative routes could face additional pressure.
Gulf exporters could redirect some cargoes through pipelines and other ports where possible.
Importing countries could seek alternative suppliers.
Strategic reserves could be drawn down.
Industries that rely heavily on energy could face higher costs.
The longer the disruption continues, the greater the possibility that temporary logistical problems become structural economic pressures.
But the scale of the impact will depend on how much energy continues to move through alternative routes and how quickly diplomatic efforts progress.
What happens if the Strait reopens
A reopening would not necessarily return global markets immediately to normal.
Shipping companies would first have to assess the security conditions.
Vessels currently waiting could begin moving.
Ports could experience a sudden increase in traffic.
Insurance rates might take time to adjust.
Oil prices could respond to expectations of increased supply.
Energy companies would revise schedules.
The psychological effect on markets could nevertheless be significant.
A credible and sustained reopening would reduce one of the major sources of uncertainty surrounding global energy supplies.
The diplomatic clock
The latest UN statement and the reported US-Iran discussions indicate that diplomacy is moving alongside military pressure.
The two tracks are interconnected.
As long as the Strait remains restricted, economic and political pressure on all sides increases.
That can create incentives for negotiation.
At the same time, continued attacks or military escalation can make an agreement harder to achieve.
The coming days could therefore be important for determining whether the current contacts produce a practical arrangement.
The reported phased proposal remains only a proposal at this stage.
No final agreement has been announced.
A global issue centred on a narrow waterway
The Strait of Hormuz is geographically narrow, but its importance is global.
The latest developments demonstrate how a maritime passage between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman can affect international diplomacy, energy prices, shipping costs and economic planning on several continents.
About 80 countries have now publicly called for its urgent reopening.
Iran has indicated that reopening could be linked to reduced US military pressure and the lifting of its blockade.
US and Iranian representatives are reportedly exploring a phased arrangement.
Shipping traffic remains dramatically below normal levels.
Alternative energy routes are being used where possible.
And governments are increasingly concerned about the possibility that disruption in Hormuz could combine with instability around the Red Sea and Bab el-Mandeb.
The central issue now is whether diplomacy can produce conditions under which commercial shipping can resume at scale.
What comes next
The immediate focus will be on the reported US-Iran discussions in New York and whether they can produce a framework for restoring navigation.
The second issue will be the practical implementation of any agreement.
If Iran agrees to reopen the Strait, shipping companies will need clear procedures and security assurances.
If Washington agrees to ease economic pressure, the timing and scope of those measures will matter.
Regional governments will also be watching developments closely because their economies and security are directly connected to the waterways.
International energy markets will continue to respond to new information about shipping.
The United Nations will remain an important forum for governments seeking to coordinate their positions and press for maritime security.
The stakes extend beyond the Middle East
The current crisis demonstrates why international shipping routes have become a central component of global security.
Modern economies depend on the movement of energy, food, raw materials and manufactured goods across oceans.
When a major route becomes unreliable, the effects can spread quickly through supply chains.
The Strait of Hormuz is particularly important because of the concentration of energy exports that pass through the region.
The current disruption has therefore transformed a regional military confrontation into an issue with worldwide economic implications.
The 80-country call at the United Nations is the latest expression of that concern.
Whether it leads to an immediate reopening remains uncertain.
But the diplomatic pressure is increasing.
The United States and Iran are discussing a possible path that could connect reopening the Strait with changes in the wider economic and military confrontation.
For shipping companies, the key question is whether words will translate into sustained safe passage.
For energy markets, it is whether additional supplies can return to normal routes.
For governments, it is whether the conflict can be contained before disruption becomes more deeply embedded in the global economy.
And for the international community, the challenge is whether diplomatic engagement can produce a durable arrangement in a conflict that has already affected one of the world's most important maritime corridors.
For now, the Strait of Hormuz remains at the centre of that effort.
The call from roughly 80 countries has made clear that the consequences of the crisis are no longer confined to the Gulf.
The next stage will depend on what happens in the negotiating rooms in New York, what happens at sea, and whether the parties can establish enough confidence for commercial vessels to begin moving through the Strait at anything approaching normal levels.
Comments
Post a Comment