Hormuz Strait Tensions: Strategic Competition Over War

The tension between the United States and Iran over the Strait of Hormuz demonstrates that in an interdependent world, controlling a critical maritime corridor can have a greater global impact than winning a conventional battle. What we are witnessing in this region of the world is less an open war between powers and more a strategic competition where time, geography, and economic uncertainty are becoming instruments of power. The Strait of Hormuz, located in the Persian Gulf, is one of the planet's main maritime choke points. The sustained rise in energy prices, pressure from financial markets, and the internal debate over strategic objectives ultimately erode the political consensus needed to sustain a firm foreign policy. The strategic lesson this crisis is leaving is that in the 21st century, power is not exercised solely through territorial occupation or classical military superiority. In a globalized world, the ability to influence the critical nodes of international trade can be equally decisive. Its geopolitical importance lies not only in its location but also in its vulnerability: any disruption, even brief, has immediate repercussions on energy markets and the stability of international trade. In a deeply interconnected global economy, the perception of risk can be as powerful as material damage. In the protracted war strategy developed by Mao Zedong, a weaker adversary can compensate for its military inferiority if it manages to turn the conflict into a competition of endurance. The vulnerability of these nodes turns any regional crisis into a global economic problem. For a global power like the United States, prolonged crises often prove politically costly. Maritime choke points and 'global energy bottlenecks' have become spaces where geography, economy, and strategy converge decisively. For Latin America, this reality is not a distant affair. Six percent of world trade passes through the Panama Canal. And that is perhaps the most important lesson for the great powers: in an interdependent world, sometimes power does not lie in dominating the oceans, but in controlling the places where the ocean narrows. Time, in this case, becomes a strategic weapon. The recent history of U.S. foreign policy demonstrates how the temporal factor can alter the outcome of seemingly asymmetric conflicts. Something similar happened decades later in the War in Afghanistan, where the accumulated wear and tear over years ended up conditioning the decision to withdraw. When a critical point in the system is strained, the impact quickly spreads to other logistical nodes, affecting supply chains, transportation prices, and global economic stability. Places like the Strait of Hormuz, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, the Suez Canal, or the Panama Canal concentrate a considerable proportion of world trade in relatively narrow corridors. The disputed Strait of Hormuz. José de la Rosa Castillo, Professor of International Relations and analyst of international policy and the Maritime Industry. The tensions caused by the conflict between the United States and Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran seem to continue escalating with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which threatens to provoke a global energy crisis by blocking the transit of nearly 20-25% of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas. Instead of seeking a decisive victory on the battlefield, the objective is to prolong the tension until it generates political, economic, and psychological wear and tear on the adversary. In both cases, the political dimension of time ended up being as decisive as the military dimension. In the Persian Gulf, the strategic dynamic can follow a similar pattern. Strategic infrastructures such as the Panama Canal are part of the same network of maritime corridors that sustains world trade. During the Vietnam War, overwhelming military superiority was not enough to prevent the conflict from ending in a domestic political crisis. An isolated incident, a credible threat, or a sustained interruption for some time can cause increases in oil prices and alter market expectations. The price of crude is oscillating between $103 and $110 per barrel, according to Brent oil prices in real time. It is enough to maintain a constant level of uncertainty that forces markets, shipping companies, and insurance companies to react with caution. Iran does not need to defeat the U.S. Navy or permanently close the strait.