Securing Hormuz strait is a regional responsibility

Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz sent a clear political message: it retains the ability to disrupt one of the world’s most critical energy arteries whenever it faces what it considers unjust aggression. The move immediately unsettled global markets, drove up oil and gas prices and triggered sharp international reactions. Among them was a threat from Donald Trump, who warned of severe retaliation if the strait were not reopened.
Yet, as has often been the case, contradictory signals quickly followed. Reports indicated that Washington might tolerate a prolonged closure if reopening the strait risked extending the conflict. Such inconsistency reflects the broader uncertainty surrounding the crisis.
It is important to note that Iran has not historically disrupted maritime traffic in the strait, largely because its own oil exports pass through it. The closure, as framed by Iranian officials, is a defensive measure — a form of pressure in response to external aggression. Whether one agrees with this justification or not, the move underscores how strategic geography can be weaponised in times of conflict.
In response, proposals have emerged for an international coalition to secure the strait and guarantee freedom of navigation. While presented as a stabilising solution, such proposals carry significant risks. They could transform the strait into a zone of international oversight, effectively transferring control from regional states to external powers. This raises a fundamental question: should the region respond to a crisis by inviting foreign intervention, or by strengthening its own sovereignty through regional cooperation?
History offers a cautionary answer. The presence of foreign military bases in the region has not delivered the level of protection often assumed. Instead, recent events have shown that these installations themselves may require protection. Past alliances and coalitions — whether in Iraq, Syria, or Yemen — have left complex legacies, prompting reflection on whether similar approaches should be repeated.
A different perspective can be found in the vision articulated decades ago by the late His Majesty Sultan Qaboos, who emphasised that the Strait of Hormuz is part of the sovereign waters of the region and that safeguarding navigation is both a legal and humanitarian responsibility. He made clear that Oman did not seek foreign military intervention, but rather believed in the capacity of regional states to manage their own security if equipped with the necessary means.
This position remains highly relevant. It highlights that rejecting international control is not a rejection of cooperation, but a defence of sovereignty. Regional coordination, particularly among the coastal states bordering the strait, offers a more sustainable path to stability than reliance on external alliances.
Recent discussions — even on social media — have revealed attempts to promote international intervention under the banner of protection. Yet statements by Iranian officials, including Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, reinforce the principle that responsibility for the security of the strait lies primarily with Iran and Oman, as the two littoral states.
International maritime law guarantees freedom of navigation through strategic waterways. However, the implementation of this principle does not require external guardianship. On the contrary, introducing outside powers risks turning the strait into a flashpoint for great-power rivalry rather than a stable trade route.
Perhaps most striking is the contrast between public awareness and political decision-making. There is a growing sense among ordinary citizens that regional cooperation — rather than external dependency — offers the most viable path forward. The idea of Gulf states working alongside Iran to secure the strait may appear ambitious, yet it reflects a recognition that shared geography necessitates shared responsibility.
The Strait of Hormuz is more than a shipping lane; it is a symbol of sovereignty. Allowing external control, even under the pretext of protection, risks opening the door to long-term influence that may prove difficult to reverse.
Ultimately, the lesson is clear: securing the strait is a regional responsibility. Cooperation, not external intervention, offers the most credible guarantee of stability. In a region shaped by shifting power dynamics, preserving sovereignty today is an investment in long-term independence.
Translated by Badr al Dhafari
The original version of this article was published in Oman Arabic on April 6, 2026.