Strait Tensions: Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab Become Leverage Points, U.S. Faces Economic Fallout
According to the International Desk of Webangah News Agency, recent developments in the Strait of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab indicate that the ongoing conflict is no longer confined to regional security equations. It is now directly influencing global energy markets, trade routes, and political maneuvers. One of the most significant political consequences of this crisis is anticipated in the upcoming U.S. elections, as rising oil and fuel prices, and the resulting economic pressure on the American populace, could pose a serious and unwelcome challenge for the current administration.
From this perspective, the influence of the Iran-Yemen axis on energy transit routes and the potential repercussions of this continued conflict for the global economy have gained paramount importance. In this context, Mehr News Agency conducted an interview with Dr. Marva Suna, Professor of International Relations at Kirikkale University in Turkey.
During the interview, Dr. Suna discussed the potential impact of the simultaneous closure of the Strait of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab, particularly for vessels belonging to Saudi Arabia, on global energy markets. She elaborated on whether sustained closures could transform the crisis from a regional conflict into a persistent global economic crisis, marked by increased transportation, insurance, and oil costs.
Dr. Suna emphasized that the conflict between Iran, the United States, and Israel is creating deeper global fissures and divisions. Therefore, these developments must be examined within a broader framework encompassing trade routes, energy crises, and the dynamics of conflicts extending to the Red Sea. A simultaneous pressure on both straits would likely lead to a significant intensification of the global energy crisis. Since February 28, 2026, energy markets have already experienced considerable instability and volatility.
Consequently, if Bab al-Mandab were also closed in addition to the Strait of Hormuz, causing new market disruptions, a substantial increase in oil and gasoline prices should be expected. The effects would be keenly felt in Europe and Asia, as a considerable volume of energy transits through Bab al-Mandab to these regions. If safe passage through Bab al-Mandab is entirely compromised, pricing, especially in the insurance industry, will undergo significant changes, elevating the insurance market to a crucial player.
The ongoing conflict, which intensified again in July, has seen a approximately 10% increase in the value of vessels and the associated costs for passage due to added risks and new challenges arising from the hostilities. Another critical aspect is the developments in the Red Sea, including the Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia. This highlights that the issue extends beyond mere transit routes, with energy infrastructure within the global system also becoming targets. Such actions disrupt the supply and transfer of energy into the global market.
While the straits may appear militarily open, they could be commercially closed. Routes that are legally open might become operationally and systemically unusable. This would exert upward pressure on Brent crude prices, potentially pushing them above $120 per barrel. Therefore, the energy market in the coming period should not be viewed solely through the lens of oil supply; the security of the straits, insurance costs, and global trade routes must be considered concurrently.
Regarding the impact of rising oil and fuel prices in the United States on the Trump administration and Republicans in the midterm congressional elections, Dr. Suna noted the significant influence on voters. With elections scheduled for November, the economic well-being of American voters, often termed “pocketbook politics,” is a paramount issue. Voters are primarily concerned with how much money remains in their pockets.
Since February 28, 2026, a major challenge for the U.S. has been the widening gap between governmental promises and performance, leading to increased distrust. Donald Trump had made significant promises regarding the improvement of the U.S. economy prior to assuming the presidency. However, the current situation suggests a trajectory contrary to these pledges. The Trump administration has not only failed to restore peace and stability to the global system but has also been unable to stabilize domestic energy markets or resolve economic issues.
Consequently, the prevailing conditions could influence the choices of American voters in the elections. Increased gasoline prices represent a significant political vulnerability for the Trump administration. On one hand, Trump and his government bear responsibility for the conflict, and on the other, rising prices and economic hardships persist. If American casualties are added to this scenario, the continuation of the war ceases to be merely a geopolitical calculation for the Trump administration; it becomes an issue directly linked to the future and living conditions of American voters.
Furthermore, the escalating civilian casualties and the targeting of civilian infrastructure have generated severe regional and global pressures and problems. It must be stated frankly that no war involving civilian deaths has a winner, a reality borne out by history. Any war that does not conclude with a diplomatic solution will inevitably lead to greater human losses. This situation has become evident following the cessation of negotiations between the United States and Iran. Instead of a de-escalation and a move toward a diplomatic resolution, energy sanctions and military pressure have unfortunately exacerbated larger problems. Concurrently, the issue of U.S. foreign aid and its military presence in the region has once again come under scrutiny.
A key aspect of U.S. foreign aid is related to Israel. Israel’s destabilizing actions in the region and the continuation or cessation of U.S. aid to Israel have become subjects of increasing debate within American society. Particularly over the past two years, a notable shift has occurred in the attitude of American voters towards the Israeli-Palestinian issue. A more powerful segment of American public opinion now supports the Palestinian people and explicitly deems the events in Gaza as incorrect. This development is highly significant because various segments of American society are now discussing the extent to which Israeli policies and the activities of the Zionist movement can ultimately harm the United States and the global system. These protests and ethical demands are being witnessed in universities, public spaces, and among diverse societal groups.
From this perspective, the question of how flexibly American voters will approach geopolitical crises in the future is crucial and, in my belief, will be a subject of greater discussion. Therefore, in addition to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, if Saudi Arabia becomes more deeply involved in this conflict, we might face much larger economic, political, and security consequences in the future.
If Iran can maintain control over the Strait of Hormuz, and the forces in Yemen can control Bab al-Mandab for an extended period, limiting passage, will we witness a shift in the regional economic balance of power? Can the U.S. and its allies maintain military pressure on Iran and Yemen to prevent a sharp rise in global energy prices before these two routes are reopened?
Whether Iran has transformed the Strait of Hormuz and the Yemeni axis into a platform for economic leverage and resistance against sanctions is a significant question. The core issue is observing how regional and global power rivalries are evolving. Iran has clearly utilized energy as a vital tool and continues to do so. However, with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the Persian Gulf countries face serious limitations in both selling energy and importing it into the global supply and demand system.
Initially, Iran announced it would attack areas hosting U.S. bases. However, the course of events extended beyond attacks on American bases, with energy infrastructure in the region also being targeted simultaneously. The primary vulnerability has been revealed precisely at this juncture. The U.S.’s initial approach was to achieve a result similar to what occurred in Venezuela, but this scenario did not materialize here. On the contrary, Iran’s position relative to the U.S. in regional equations has substantially shifted. Over more than 150 days of conflict since February 2026, Iran has not retreated, a highly significant development.
Consequently, we are facing a fundamental change in regional equations and geopolitical power dynamics. Nevertheless, careful consideration is needed regarding how long the U.S. and Israel can sustain military pressure and the extent to which this pressure can escalate. The U.S. faces substantial costs in this region, which involves naval forces and a significant military presence, estimated at around 50,000 American troops. An effort exists to create a power imbalance. However, when examining Iran’s impact on the region, particularly on global energy markets, we encounter a completely different scenario.
In essence, what we are currently confronting is not merely a war between three actors in the region. Lebanon and Gaza must also be considered alongside these developments. Simultaneously, there is a need to return to the mediation table. Furthermore, the pressure and impact this war has exerted on 8 billion people worldwide cannot be ignored. And, of course, one of the most critical issues is civilian casualties, as no war involving the loss of civilian lives can be deemed victorious.
Regrettably, we continue to witness a trend where mediation efforts have been sidelined, a development we observe with dismay. Therefore, while the energy market and electoral developments are undoubtedly critical issues, the primary priority must be preventing civilian casualties and ending this war through diplomatic means.
