U.S. President Donald Trump continues to criticize Iran, calling it "scum," while Tehran has responded with increasingly hostile rhetoric. Even if an agreement is eventually reached after painstaking negotiations, peace may not follow immediately.
Washington said over the weekend that it had launched additional strikes against Iran after accusing Tehran of threatening commercial vessels passing through the strait. Iran, in turn, has warned of retaliation and raised the possibility of restricting passage through Hormuz. Each side insists it is acting defensively.
Repeated threats to close the Strait of Hormuz have added to uncertainty, with potential consequences for global energy markets and the broader economy. For much of the world, the strait is simply a narrow waterway on a map. But for the global economy, it is one of the most important arteries on Earth. Roughly a fifth of the world’s oil supply passes through the waterway between Iran and Oman. Any serious threat to its security immediately raises concerns far beyond the Middle East from higher fuel prices and inflation to disrupted supply chains and renewed volatility in financial markets.
The latest escalation around Hormuz is a reminder that even when diplomacy appears close to a breakthrough, the deeper forces driving the conflict remain unresolved. A temporary ceasefire or interim agreement may pause the fighting, but it cannot erase decades of hostility and ideological rivalry that have made the region one of the world's most volatile. Disputes over nuclear capabilities, missile programs and maritime security, though important, are ultimately symptoms of a much deeper confrontation.
The danger is not only escalation, but uncertainty itself. Markets can absorb disruptions when they are predictable. What really worries governments and businesses is the possibility of a sudden shock such as the closure of shipping routes, a spike in energy prices or attacks that force commercial vessels to avoid the region.
For Asia, the stakes are especially high. Unlike the U.S., which has become a major energy producer, many Asian economies remain heavily dependent on imported energy. South Korea, Japan and other manufacturing powers rely on stable energy supplies from the Middle East to keep factories running and transportation systems moving.
A prolonged crisis involving Hormuz would not simply affect oil prices at gas stations. It could raise production costs, weaken consumer confidence and add pressure to economies already facing slower growth and geopolitical uncertainty.
South Korea faces a particularly delicate challenge. As one of the world’s largest energy importers, it has long relied on Middle Eastern crude oil. Although Seoul has diversified its energy sources and maintained strategic reserves, no country can fully shield itself from turmoil in a region that remains central to global energy flows.
But the Hormuz crisis is about more than oil. At its core, the conflict reflects a struggle over the future balance of power in the Middle East. Iran's revolutionary government has for decades sought to expand its influence beyond its borders by supporting allied groups across the region.
Israel sees that as a threat to its survival and has sought to weaken Iran's regional position. The U.S. has become deeply involved because of its alliance with Israel, its military presence in the Gulf, and its broader interest in keeping shipping routes open.
This cycle has been hard to break because the conflict is not just about individual disputes. It is rather rooted in competing visions of regional order. Iran sees itself as a defender of resistance against outside influence and Israeli power. Its opponents see Tehran’s regional activities as efforts to expand its revolutionary ideology and destabilize neighboring countries Israel argues that Iran's military capabilities and allied groups pose an unacceptable security threat. Critics, however, argue that Israel's military responses have often fueled regional anger and made long-term peace more difficult.
The tragedy is that both sides have reasons to keep fighting, while ordinary people and distant economies bear much of the cost.
A lasting settlement will require more than deals on nuclear programs, missile development and shipping rules. Those issues matter, but the deeper problems must also be addressed. Iran would need to reduce its support for regional armed groups, while Israel would need to tackle the unresolved Palestinian issue that remains a major source of anger across the region.
That may seem unrealistic in the current climate. Years of mistrust have hardened positions on all sides. But history shows that even conflicts once considered permanent can change when political leaders decide that the cost of confrontation has become greater than the benefits.
The world should hope for such a shift, because Hormuz showed that regional conflicts rarely remain regional anymore. A crisis thousands of kilometers away can hit countries like South Korea and others across Asia, driving up inflation, disrupting industries, and affecting national security and everyday life.
The strait may be narrow, but its consequences stretch across the globe. The future of that waterway will depend not only on military power, but also on whether diplomacy can finally address the deeper conflicts that continue to push the region toward the brink.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.