Hormuz, Sanctions and the Depletion of the West’s Oil Defences

Posted on by Elijah J Magnier

By Elijah J. Magnier –

A prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz would confront the United States with a problem that military power and financial sanctions cannot solve. Washington can release emergency oil, redirect Venezuelan production, import more Canadian crude and encourage higher output across the Americas. It cannot sustainably replace the volume normally exported through the world’s most important energy passage.

The distinction between geological reserves and immediately available stocks is essential. A closure of Hormuz does not remove oil from beneath the ground. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Iran, the Emirates and Qatar retain their resources. What disappears is the ability to move much of that oil to international markets. Production must then be reduced because storage tanks fill, while importing states consume their emergency and commercial inventories.

The result is a transfer of pressure from the Strait of Hormuz to the strategic reserves of the United States and its allies. Those reserves can postpone the consequences of the blockade. They cannot eliminate them.

Since the war began, approximately 2.9 billion barrels of expected oil supply have been disrupted. Alternative routes, additional production and falling consumption offset approximately 2.2 billion barrels of that disruption. The remaining deficit—estimated at 650–700 million barrels—was covered by withdrawals from global commercial and strategic inventories.

Additional sanctions on Iran deepen the contradiction

Imposing further sanctions on Iran while demanding that Tehran facilitate the reopening of Hormuz is strategically contradictory. Additional sanctions could restrict Iranian oil sales, financial transactions, shipping, insurance and access to frozen assets. Secondary sanctions could threaten banks, traders and governments dealing with Iran. These measures might reduce Tehran’s revenue if maritime traffic resumed. They would not supply the market with a single replacement barrel. Instead, they would make any restoration of Iranian exports harder and remove an incentive for Iran to cooperate in reopening the passage.

Subscribe to get access

Read more of this content when you subscribe today.

Subscribe
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements

Published by Elijah J Magnier

Elijah J. Magnier is a veteran war correspondent and analyst specialising in military affairs, intelligence, strategic affairs and political risk. He has spent nearly four decades living and reporting inside countries at war, often from the front lines, while developing long-standing access to political leaders, military and intelligence officials, diplomats, armed non-state actors and communities directly affected by conflict. His field experience includes the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the Iran–Iraq War, the Lebanese Civil War, the 1991 Gulf War, the wars in the former Yugoslavia, conflict in Sudan, the war in Afghanistan and Yemen, the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq and its aftermath, the 2006 Lebanon War, and the wars in Libya and Syria. He has lived for extended periods in Lebanon, Bosnia, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria, allowing him to follow conflicts, political transformations and regional networks beyond the limitations of short-term war reporting. His work focuses on warfare and deterrence, terrorism and counterterrorism, intelligence, political violence, armed non-state actors, regional security and the relationship between military power and political outcomes. He has also served as an adviser to the European Parliament’s Rapporteur on Iraq and Lebanon. Magnier holds a PhD in Policing and Criminal Justice from Liverpool John Moores University and an MSc in Counterterrorism Studies from the University of London. He has undertaken advanced studies in terrorism—including terrorist ideologies, financing and counterterrorism—at the University of St Andrews; terrorism and counterterrorism at Leiden University; and negotiation, including international and cross-cultural negotiation, at ESSEC Business School in Paris. His work combines sustained field access with academic analysis of war, sovereignty, deterrence and political violence.