Dr. Mohamed Shareef Asees – PhD in Global Studies; MA in International Relations; BA in Political Science; Researcher and Lecturer in International Relations, Geopolitics, and Peace building based in Berlin, Germany
Introduction:
The Strait of Hormuz is one of the most important maritime passages in the world. Around one-fifth of global oil trade passes through this narrow waterway every day, linking energy producers in the Gulf with markets in Asia and Europe. Because of this, it has long been at the center of global attention, especially in discussions about energy security, military planning, and international diplomacy.
Yet the Strait is more than just a shipping route. It is also a politically sensitive space where different countries interpret its role in very different ways. For some, it represents a global waterway where ships should move freely under international rules. For others, including regional coastal states like Iran, it is a highly sensitive security zone where regional realities and responsibilities must also be taken into account.
This article explores how Iran views and communicates its approach to maritime security in the Strait of Hormuz. It shows that Iran does not rely on a single fixed message. Instead, it uses a flexible diplomatic approach that combines legal interpretation, regional cooperation especially with Oman and strategic deterrence.
Rethinking the Strait: Freedom of Passage or Shared Responsibility?
A key feature of Iran’s position is how it understands maritime governance. Although Iran has not joined the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), it still uses international legal language when explaining its views.
However, Iran does not fully accept the Western idea that the Strait should operate only under unrestricted freedom of navigation. Instead, it emphasizes something different: shared regional responsibility for maritime security.
From this perspective, the Strait of Hormuz is not just an open highway for global trade. It is also a sensitive region where coastal states carry real responsibilities for maintaining safety and stability.
This changes the focus of the debate. Instead of asking only who has the right to pass through the Strait, Iran shifts attention to another question: who helps pay for and maintain maritime security in such a critical zone?
In this context, Iranian officials have rejected ideas such as a formal “toll system” for ships. However, they have suggested that states benefiting from safe passage could contribute in some form to the costs of maintaining security. This is not presented as a restriction on trade, but rather as a practical approach to sustaining stability in a high-risk maritime area.
Iran often points to other global chokepoints, such as the Strait of Malacca, where security and trade coexist under shared regional arrangements. The message is simple: maritime security is not free, and those who benefit from it also share responsibility for it.
Oman: A Model of Regional Cooperation
One of the most consistent elements of Iran’s approach is its close cooperation with Oman. In a region often marked by political tensions, this relationship stands out as a stable and functional channel of communication.
Iran highlights Oman as an example of how regional cooperation can work without external intervention. For Tehran, this partnership supports three important ideas.
First, it strengthens the argument that Gulf security should be managed by regional states themselves, rather than external powers.
Second, it shows that dialogue and cooperation in the Strait of Hormuz are not just theoretical ideas, but already happening in practice.
Third, it helps present Iran’s approach as practical and diplomatic, rather than ideological or confrontational. Iran also contrasts this model with the presence of foreign military forces in the Gulf. From its point of view, external military involvement often increases tension rather than reducing it, while regional cooperation creates more stable long-term conditions.
Security and Deterrence: Two Messages at Once
Iran’s maritime policy cannot be understood without its broader security strategy. Alongside its emphasis on dialogue and cooperation, Iran also highlights the importance of strong defensive capabilities.
This creates a dual message:
On one hand, Iran stresses that it wants stability in the Strait of Hormuz and keeps the waterway open for international shipping. This is important because global energy markets depend on uninterrupted flow through the Strait.
On the other hand, Iran also makes clear that it will maintain strong military capabilities to defend its sovereignty and respond to threats if necessary.
This combination of openness and deterrence is a key part of Iran’s strategy. It aims to reassure the international community while also signaling that Iran will not accept pressure or coercion in security matters.
The Strait of Hormuz therefore becomes both a practical trade route and a symbolic space where broader questions of power, sovereignty, and security are played out.
Europe’s Stake in Regional Stability
Although Iran’s messaging is often focused on regional rivals and the United States, Europe also appears as an indirect but important audience.
Iran frequently highlights the global consequences of instability in the Strait of Hormuz. Any disruption in this waterway would not remain local it would quickly affect global energy prices and supply chains, including in Europe.
From this perspective, countries such as Germany are not direct actors in Gulf security, but they are still affected by its outcomes. This creates a potential space for diplomatic engagement, where European states can support dialogue and de-escalation efforts.
Iran’s broader message is that regional stability is not only a Middle Eastern concern it is a global economic necessity.
Conclusion
The Strait of Hormuz is often described in terms of military strategy, energy flows, and geopolitical rivalry. While these factors are important, they do not tell the full story. It is also a space where different political narratives compete especially about law, sovereignty, and security. Iran’s approach reflects this complexity. Instead of relying on a single rigid position, it presents a flexible narrative that combines legal interpretation, regional cooperation, and strategic deterrence. Its partnership with Oman highlights the possibility of regional solutions, while its broader security posture emphasizes the need for sovereignty and self-defense.
In the end, the Strait of Hormuz is not only a physical chokepoint for global trade. It is also a space where competing visions of maritime order are continuously negotiated.
Understanding these narratives is essential for making sense of how security in the region is shaped not only by military power, but also by diplomacy, perception, and political interpretation.
