Strait of Hormuz Crisis — US-Iran
The Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately 20% of the world's oil shipments pass, is on the brink of closure, and a 48-hour ultimatum represents a historic turning point that could trigger a cascading crisis in energy markets, Middle East security, and the global economy.
── Understand in 3 points ─────────
- • President Trump warned Iran that if it did not open the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours, the US would attack Iranian power plants.
- • Iran stated that if attacked, it would retaliate against power plants across the Middle East that supply electricity to US military bases.
- • Iran has not backed down from its hardline stance, and US-Iran tensions have further escalated.
── NOW PATTERN ─────────
The US-Iran "spiral of conflict" has reached the stage of a military ultimatum, creating the risk that a chain of retaliation could "contagiously" spread into an infrastructure war across the entire Persian Gulf. The structure where neither side can back down is accelerating "overreach of power."
── Probabilities and Responses ──────
• Base case 50% — Whether US military attacks remain "limited," Iranian retaliation is suppressed to a symbolic level, or signs of the existence of diplomatic channels below the surface (movements of the Omani Foreign Minister or Qatari Emir) emerge.
• Bull case 20% — Softening statements from Iran before the deadline, emergency diplomatic visits by Omani and Qatari leaders, an active mediation stance by China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or leaks from the US Department of Defense prioritizing "diplomatic solutions."
• Bear case 30% — Commencement of large-scale US airstrikes, Iran's laying of mines in the Strait of Hormuz, infrastructure attacks in multiple Gulf states, a crude oil price surge of over $20 per day, or the simultaneous launch of attacks by Hezbollah and Houthi forces.
📡 THE SIGNAL — What Happened
Why it matters: The Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately 20% of the world's oil shipments pass, is on the brink of closure, and a 48-hour ultimatum represents a historic turning point that could trigger a cascading crisis in energy markets, Middle East security, and the global economy.
- Military & Diplomacy — President Trump warned Iran that if it did not open the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours, the US would attack Iranian power plants.
- Military & Diplomacy — Iran stated that if attacked, it would retaliate against power plants across the Middle East that supply electricity to US military bases.
- Military & Diplomacy — Iran has not backed down from its hardline stance, and US-Iran tensions have further escalated.
- Energy — The Strait of Hormuz is the most critical choke point, through which approximately 20-21% of the world's seaborne oil shipments pass.
- Energy — Approximately 17-21 million barrels per day of crude oil and petroleum products pass through the Strait of Hormuz.
- Economy — If the Strait closure materializes, crude oil prices could surge to over $150 per barrel.
- Regional Security — US military bases across the Middle East (e.g., Qatar, Bahrain, UAE) depend on the host nations' infrastructure for electricity supply.
- Diplomacy — Iran's targets for retaliation include the infrastructure of Gulf states, which are supposed to be allies, raising the risk of region-wide collateral damage.
- Military — The US Fifth Fleet is headquartered in Bahrain and is reportedly deploying a carrier strike group in the Persian Gulf.
- International — Japan relies on the Middle East for approximately 90% of its crude oil imports, and the stability of the Strait of Hormuz is fundamental to Japan's energy security.
- Finance — In response to signs of crisis, volatility in the crude oil futures market has surged, and risk premiums have expanded.
- Politics — The Trump administration has pursued a "maximum pressure 2.0" policy against Iran since his re-inauguration in 2025.
To understand the current Strait of Hormuz crisis, it is necessary to grasp the structural context of US-Iran conflict that has accumulated over nearly half a century since the 1979 Iranian Revolution.
In 1979, the Islamic Revolution and the subsequent hostage crisis at the US Embassy in Tehran severed US-Iran relations. Since then, the two countries have repeatedly cycled through fundamental distrust and hostility, interspersed with superficial de-escalation (the 2015 JCPOA, or Iran nuclear deal). Of particular importance was the Trump administration's unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018 and the activation of its "maximum pressure" policy. While this policy squeezed the Iranian economy, it also had the counterproductive effect of accelerating Iran's nuclear development. Iran's uranium enrichment level reached 60%, approaching the weapons-grade level of 90%.
When Trump was re-inaugurated as president in 2025, the informal balance of restraint during the Biden administration collapsed, and "maximum pressure 2.0" was initiated. This involved strengthened sanctions to effectively halt Iranian crude oil exports, hints of targeted attacks on organizations linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and a re-strengthening of the US military presence in the Middle East. Iran, in response, has countered by dangling the "final card" of obstructing navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.
Let's confirm with numbers why the Strait of Hormuz is so important. Through this strait, just 33 km wide, passes oil and natural gas from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, UAE, Kuwait, and Qatar. This amounts to approximately 20 million barrels per day, or about 21% of the world's seaborne oil transport. In addition, most LNG exports from Qatar also pass through this strait. In other words, a closure of the strait is a "global choke point" that would immediately ripple through not only energy markets but also global supply chains and financial markets.
Why "now"? Multiple structural factors are converging. First, the Trump administration's hardline policy against Iran has failed to achieve its objectives through sanctions alone and is escalating towards military pressure. Second, economic crisis and social unrest within Iran are threatening the regime's legitimacy, making a hardline foreign policy a means of domestic governance. Third, the overall situation in the Middle East is destabilizing. The aftermath of the Israel-Hamas conflict, Houthi attacks on ships in the Red Sea, and increased activity by Iran-backed militias in Syria and Iraq are all pushing up the overall level of regional tension.
Even more importantly, both the US and Iran are engaged in a game of chicken, drawing "red lines" while assuming the other will not cross them. Trump's 48-hour ultimatum and Iran's declaration of region-wide retaliation precisely indicate the risk of this game spiraling out of control. The risk of accidental escalation materialized during the 1988 downing of Iran Air Flight 655 and the 2020 assassination of General Soleimani. The current crisis carries an even higher level of tension than these historical precedents.
The implications for Japan are also extremely significant. Japan relies on the Middle East for approximately 88% of its crude oil imports, almost all of which pass through the Strait of Hormuz. The shock of the attack on Japan-related tankers near the Strait of Hormuz in 2019 is still fresh in memory. This crisis once again exposes the fundamental vulnerability of Japan's energy security policy.
The delta: By naming power plants as specific military targets and setting a 48-hour deadline, Trump qualitatively transformed the US-Iran conflict from a "war of words" to a "concrete countdown to military confrontation." With Iran's declaration of retaliation against power supply infrastructure for US military bases, the risk of the conflict expanding beyond bilateral borders into an infrastructure war across the entire Middle East has explicitly emerged for the first time.
🔍 BETWEEN THE LINES — What the News Isn't Saying
Trump's 48-hour ultimatum is not actually aimed at destroying Iranian power plants themselves. The true objective is to force Iran back to the negotiating table by playing the military intimidation card, as the limits of "maximum pressure 2.0" become apparent. However, having made such a public declaration, if Iran does not yield, Trump risks being labeled a "president who doesn't follow through," effectively cornering himself. Iran, by declaring "region-wide retaliation," is employing a strategy to make Gulf states re-recognize the "cost of hosting US military bases," thereby shaking the foundation of US presence in the Middle East. Both sides are playing a game centered on the "credibility of their threats" rather than actual military action, but the greatest concern is the risk of this game spiraling out of control.
NOW PATTERN
Spiral of Conflict × Overreach of Power × Chain of Contagion
The US-Iran "spiral of conflict" has reached the stage of a military ultimatum, creating the risk that a chain of retaliation could "contagiously" spread into an infrastructure war across the entire Persian Gulf. The structure where neither side can back down is accelerating "overreach of power."
Intersection of Dynamics
The three dynamics of "spiral of conflict," "overreach of power," and "chain of contagion" form a dangerous complex that mutually reinforces itself. The spiral of conflict pushes both the US and Iran to the next escalation step, and in the process, both fall into "overreach of power" by overestimating their own capabilities and intentions. The extreme threats issued as a result of overreach (power plant attacks, region-wide retaliation) unleash the conflict from a bilateral framework, activating the "chain of contagion." The expanding damage caused by this contagion further stimulates nationalism and fear on both sides, accelerating the "spiral of conflict." What is particularly dangerous about this triple self-reinforcing mechanism is its effect of blocking "exits." The more the spiral turns, the higher the cost of concession for both sides (loss of face, domestic political repercussions); the deeper the overreach, the harder it is to retreat; and the wider the contagion spreads, the more parties become involved, complicating negotiations. Historically, escaping such a triple trap requires either the provision of a "ladder" by external mediators (in this case, China, Turkey, Oman, etc.) or the creation of a "face-saving compromise" acceptable to both sides. However, neither of these is easy in the current international environment. The only hope is the possibility that Gulf states, who would be most directly affected by the chain of contagion, might undertake mediation for their own survival, but this also presupposes that both the US and Iran are willing to accept mediation.
📚 PATTERN HISTORY
1987-1988: The Tanker War (Late Iran-Iraq War)
The exchange of attacks on merchant vessels in the Persian Gulf escalated, leading the US to provide escort to Kuwaiti-flagged tankers. This developed into a direct confrontation between the US Navy and the Iranian Navy (Operation Praying Mantis).
Structural similarities with the current situation: The use of force around the Strait is prone to accidental escalation, carrying the risk that what is intended as a limited military operation could develop into a full-scale conflict. Furthermore, the involvement of third-country vessels could expand international repercussions.
1990-1991: The Gulf War (Iraq's Invasion of Kuwait)
Iraq's military action caused crude oil prices to surge (over $40 per barrel), putting recessionary pressure on the global economy. A US-led multinational force intervened militarily and achieved victory in a short period, but the destabilization of the Middle East persisted long-term.
Structural similarities with the current situation: Military conflicts in the Middle East immediately ripple through the global economy via energy markets. While military victory may be possible in the short term, long-term commitment is required for regional stabilization.
2019: Tanker Attacks and Damage to Japan-related Vessels near the Strait of Hormuz
As the US withdrew from the JCPOA and intensified its maximum pressure policy, multiple tankers were attacked near the Strait of Hormuz. A shocking incident occurred when a Japan-related tanker was hit during Prime Minister Abe's visit to Iran.
Structural similarities with the current situation: Intensified pressure through economic sanctions induces asymmetric retaliation from the cornered party. Furthermore, there is a risk that third countries attempting to remain neutral may also be drawn into the conflict.
2020: Assassination of General Soleimani and Exchange of Retaliation
The US killed Iran's General Soleimani in a drone strike. Iran retaliated with missile attacks on US military bases in Iraq. Both sides stated they "did not desire further escalation," and the crisis temporarily subsided.
Structural similarities with the current situation: Attacks on specific targets trigger a chain of retaliation, but restraint works if there is room for both sides to leave an "exit." However, if the targets of attack expand to infrastructure (civilian facilities), the mechanism of restraint weakens.
1962: Cuban Missile Crisis
The US and Soviet Union confronted each other on the brink of nuclear war, with an ultimatum and a naval blockade (quarantine) imposed. The crisis was averted through compromise via secret diplomatic channels.
Structural similarities with the current situation: In ultimatum-style confrontations, negotiations through "back channels" separate from official channels are key to crisis avoidance. Establishing a mechanism for both sides to retreat while saving face is essential.
Patterns Revealed by History
The consistent patterns revealed by historical precedents are as follows. First, military tensions in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz immediately spread to global economic crises via energy markets. This contagion mechanism has been confirmed in the 1987-88 Tanker War, the 1990 Gulf War, and the 2019 tanker attacks. Second, ultimatums and exchanges of retaliation dramatically increase the risk of accidental escalation. The possibility of unintended clashes (e.g., downing of civilian aircraft, damage to neutral vessels) spiraling out of control always exists. Third, in past crises, secret diplomatic channels and mediation by third countries held the key to averting catastrophe. The back channel during the Cuban Missile Crisis and the mutual restraint after the 2020 Soleimani crisis are examples. However, the current crisis also possesses elements that differ from the past. The explicit expansion of attack targets to civilian infrastructure such as power plants, the declared scope of retaliation extending across the entire Middle East, and the weakening of international mediation mechanisms are new factors that make applying past lessons difficult.
🔮 WHAT'S NEXT
After the 48-hour ultimatum expires, the US conducts limited military demonstrations (precision strikes on military facilities along the Iranian coast, or cyberattacks) but avoids a full-scale attack on power plants. Iran retaliates with symbolic missile attacks near US military-related facilities in the Middle East (intentionally avoiding direct hits) but refrains from attacking civilian infrastructure. Both sides temporarily enter a lull in the crisis, having "saved face." During this time, unofficial talks mediated by Oman and Qatar proceed beneath the surface. Crude oil prices temporarily rise to $100-120/barrel but settle back into the $90s within a few weeks due to the release of strategic petroleum reserves and increased production from oil-producing nations. The Strait of Hormuz does not face a complete closure, but transportation costs significantly increase due to surging insurance premiums and the use of alternative routes. The key to this base case scenario lies in whether both sides can maintain the fundamental incentive structure of "not desiring full-scale war."
Implications for Investment/Action: Whether US military attacks remain "limited," Iranian retaliation is suppressed to a symbolic level, or signs of the existence of diplomatic channels below the surface (movements of the Omani Foreign Minister or Qatari Emir) emerge.
Before the 48-hour deadline arrives, diplomatic negotiations beneath the surface bear fruit, and the crisis resolves without military conflict. Specifically, through mediation by Oman or Qatar, Iran promises a "gradual restoration of freedom of navigation," and the US offers "temporary suspension of additional sanctions" as a condition. China also exerts pressure on Iran to exercise restraint (through hints of temporarily halting illicit purchases of Iranian crude oil). In this scenario, crude oil prices temporarily rise to the $90s before returning to the $80s. Financial market disruption also remains limited. In an even more optimistic case, this crisis could serve as an opportunity to begin discussions for a new US-Iran negotiating framework (what could be called a "Hormuz Agreement"). Iranian President Pezeshkian is a relatively moderate figure, and if he can control domestic hardliners (especially the IRGC), a window for dialogue exists. However, the Trump administration has low incentive to engage in negotiations, and is more likely to continue its hardline stance, claiming "pressure worked," thus limiting the probability of an optimistic scenario.
Implications for Investment/Action: Softening statements from Iran before the deadline, emergency diplomatic visits by Omani and Qatari leaders, an active mediation stance by China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or leaks from the US Department of Defense prioritizing "diplomatic solutions."
After the 48-hour deadline, the US actually attacks Iranian power plants, and Iran retaliates as declared against US military-related infrastructure across the Middle East, leading to a full-scale escalation. Iran lays mines in the Strait of Hormuz and attacks tankers attempting to pass through the Strait with anti-ship missiles. The US Navy directly engages the Iranian Navy, with both sides sustaining damage. Hezbollah launches missile attacks on Israel, and Houthi forces further intensify attacks in the Red Sea, expanding the conflict across the entire Middle East. Crude oil prices surge to $150-200 per barrel, and the global economy faces a stagflation crisis. Energy-importing nations, including Japan, fall into a severe supply crisis, and emergency energy rationing measures are considered. Financial markets decline significantly, and flight to safe-haven assets accelerates. The probability of this scenario is set at a high 30%. This is because both sides have already named specific military targets (power plants, US military base infrastructure), and the justification for attack has been made in advance. Furthermore, the risk of accidental incidents (misfire, misidentification) triggering escalation cannot be ruled out.
Implications for Investment/Action: Commencement of large-scale US airstrikes, Iran's laying of mines in the Strait of Hormuz, infrastructure attacks in multiple Gulf states, a crude oil price surge of over $20 per day, or the simultaneous launch of attacks by Hezbollah and Houthi forces.
Key Triggers to Watch
- Expiration of the 48-hour ultimatum (around March 25, 2026): Within 24-48 hours
- Whether the US military conducts attacks within Iranian territory: Within 1-3 days after the deadline
- Crude oil price breaking $100/barrel: Within 1-2 weeks
- Convening of an emergency UN Security Council meeting and its outcome: Within 1 week
- Moves in mediation diplomacy by China, Oman, Qatar, etc.: Within 48 hours to 1 week
🔄 TRACKING LOOP
Next Trigger: Expiration of the 48-hour ultimatum (around March 25, 2026) — The US's actions after the deadline (whether to attack, extend the deadline, or shift diplomatically) will be the turning point determining all future developments.
Continuation of this pattern: Tracking: Evolution of the US-Iran Strait of Hormuz Crisis — The next milestones are the ultimatum deadline (around March 25), the presence or absence of subsequent US military action, and the success or failure of mediation diplomacy.
>How do you read it? Participate in Prediction →
