Trump's deadline for the naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz expires

Washington/LondonPast 10 AM in Washington (4 PM Catalan time), the blockade in the Strait of Hormuz decreed by Donald Trump is supposed to have come into effect. With no significant changes in the first few minutes, the region and the markets are holding their breath in anticipation of a new escalation of the war. The US president ordered the naval blockade on Sunday, after negotiations in Islamabad stalled and as a measure of pressure against Iran. The action affects all ships heading to or departing from Iranian ports. For their part, the ayatollahs have already warned that no port in the Persian Gulf will be safe if an attempt is made to stop their ships.

According to sources from the North American administration cited by The Washington Postthese facilities in the Gulf countries, vital for their populationthese facilities in the Gulf countries, vital for their population.

The blockade – which in theory will affect any ship entering or leaving Iranian ports – places one of the planet's energy arteries in a risk territory and, in practice, totally closed. About a fifth of the world's oil passes through Hormuz, and markets have not been slow to react this Monday: crude oil has risen sharply after a week of relative calm thanks to a ceasefire that now seems like a wet paper. Brent crude is already above 103 dollars a barrel.

The uncertainty is not just economic. It is, above all, strategic. Intercepting vessels from third countries – Chinese, Indian, or Pakistani – could turn a pressure operation into a conflict of wider dimensions, various analysts believe. In strict terms of international law, boarding a vessel can be interpreted as an act of war. Iran, for its part, assures that any ship in Hormuz waters will in practice mean a breach of the ceasefire and will be treated accordingly. Tehran denounces the blockade as an act of "piracy". And it has warned that security in the Persian Gulf will be "for everyone or for no one." The warning, in an already extremely tense region, does not seem rhetorical.

European distance

Europe, for its part, is keeping its distance for the moment. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has described the situation as "profoundly damaging" this Monday, and has reiterated that the United Kingdom will not join the American operation: "We will not be dragged into a war that is not in our national interest," he declared on BBC Live 5 radio, upon returning from a brief tour of Gulf countries. London is pushing for a multinational mission to guarantee freedom of navigation through the strait, an initiative it is jointly promoting with Emmanuel Macron's France. The message is clear: de-escalate, or at least, do not contribute to escalation. For the moment, however, it is more a wish than a reality.

And amidst all this, the Trump factor adds an additional layer of uncertainty. A few hours before confirming the blockade, the president posted an artificially generated image on Truth Social in which he appeared in a scene of miraculous healing, surrounded by patriotic symbolism and almost angelic figures. A rather exemplary deific representation of his role in world affairs.

In parallel, the first data points to an even greater slowdown in maritime traffic and an alteration of routes. Some vessels avoid clearly identifying origin or destination, while others are directly reconsidering the route. The result is an increase in logistics and insurance costs that, as is often the case, ends up being passed on to the final price of energy.

The problem is not just oil. The passage through Hormuz is also vital for liquefied gas, especially from Qatar, and for the exports of several Gulf countries. At the moment, a good part of this flow is conditioned or directly reduced or stopped. According to industry estimates, the war has already cut global crude flow by about eight million barrels a day, a figure significant enough to strain the markets.

The case of Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Aramco) illustrates the situation well: planned shipments to China have been halved in a month, according to sources from the company itself. Other regional players have even less room to maneuver. Kuwait and Iraq are finding it difficult to export their production, while the United Arab Emirates can only partially divert the flow through alternative routes. Qatar, key in the global gas market, also sees its export capacities limited.

This compression of transit coexists with a market paradox: while the benchmark price of oil exceeds 100 dollars per barrel, physical crude in Asia is already trading much higher, around 150 dollars, reflecting the real cost – and the risk – of getting it to the committed destinations. It is the difference between a market that speculates and a logistics that gets stuck, according to sources from the City of London.

This balance reflects a broader reality: no one wants to bear the cost of a complete closure of Hormuz, but neither does anyone seem capable of guaranteeing its opening. The result is an intermediate, unstable situation, in which transit does not stop completely, although it is reduced to a minimum, and ceases to be reliable. Between credible threats, symbolic gestures, and global interests at play, Hormuz once again remains at the point where geopolitics ceases to be theory and transforms into a very high risk. And any error or accident can reignite the fuse of the missiles.