Stop Begging for a Strait of Hormuz Treaty Because Chaos is the Only Thing Keeping the Lights On

The foreign policy establishment is obsessed with a phantom. They call it "regional stability." They write endless white papers about multilateral agreements, maritime de-confliction zones, and shared security frameworks for the Strait of Hormuz. They act as if a signed piece of paper between Tehran, Riyadh, and Washington would suddenly turn the world’s most volatile choke point into a peaceful botanical garden.

It is a delusion. Worse, it is a dangerous misunderstanding of how global energy markets actually function.

The calls for a "regional agreement" to secure the Strait of Hormuz assume that every player at the table wants the same thing: a predictable, low-friction flow of oil. They don't. Friction is the product. Volatility is the leverage. If you actually "fixed" the Strait of Hormuz with a comprehensive treaty, you wouldn't just be signing a peace deal; you’d be destroying the primary geopolitical currency of the Middle East.

The Myth of the Rational Actor

The primary argument for a regional agreement is that "nobody wants a war that shuts down 20% of the world’s petroleum liquids consumption." This is the classic mistake of applying Western boardroom logic to a theater of existential survival.

For Iran, the ability to threaten the Strait is not a problem to be solved; it is their only credible deterrent against regime change. Why would they sign away their greatest tactical advantage for the sake of "regional harmony"? To an IRGC commander, a stable, regulated Strait is a Strait where Western carriers can park with impunity. Uncertainty is their shield.

On the flip side, look at the GCC states. While they publicly signal a desire for de-escalation, the looming threat of a Hormuz shutdown is exactly what keeps the United States tethered to the region. The moment the Strait becomes "safe" through a local treaty that excludes or minimizes external powers, the strategic impetus for the U.S. Fifth Fleet to remain in Manama evaporates.

You aren't asking for a treaty. You’re asking the players to set fire to their own influence.

Your Supply Chain Logic is Flawed

"Energy security" is the buzzword used to justify these diplomatic pipe dreams. But let’s look at the numbers. The Strait of Hormuz sees roughly 20 to 21 million barrels of oil pass through it daily. The consensus view is that a closure would lead to a global economic collapse.

Actually, the market has already priced in the "Hormuz Premium."

Traders aren't stupid. Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR) in the U.S., China, and India exist specifically because the world knows a regional agreement is a fantasy. If a miracle treaty were signed tomorrow, the price of Brent wouldn't just stabilize—it would likely crater as the risk premium vanished, potentially destabilizing the very economies the treaty was meant to protect.

The tension in the Strait is the floor for the global oil price. Take away the tension, and you might just pull the rug out from under the global energy transition by making fossil fuels artificially cheap again.

The Paper Tiger of International Law

Proponents of a regional pact often point to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). They argue that a new agreement could "clarify" the rights of innocent passage through the territorial waters of Oman and Iran.

This ignores a brutal reality I've seen play out in a dozen maritime disputes: international law is a suggestion until a destroyer shows up.

Iran is not a party to UNCLOS. They recognize "transit passage" only for states that have signed the treaty. A regional agreement would just be another layer of bureaucracy that gets ignored the moment a drone strikes a tanker. Adding more "rules" to a waterway where the existing rules are already being used as weapons is like trying to put out a grease fire with a silk blanket.

Why "Shared Security" is a Code for Surrender

The most common suggestion in these "let’s all get along" articles is a joint maritime task force. The idea is that Iran, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and others would patrol the waters together.

Imagine the command structure. Who decides when to board a vessel? Who handles the intelligence sharing when the parties involved are fighting proxy wars in Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon?

A joint task force in the Strait of Hormuz would be a nest of spies, not a security detail. It would lead to more "accidental" kinetic events, not fewer. In the real world, security is binary. Either one power controls the space and enforces the peace, or multiple powers compete for it. "Shared" control is just a polite word for a vacuum.

The Pivot to Nowhere

Every time a think-tank scholar suggests a regional agreement, they mention the "diminishing U.S. interest in the Middle East." They argue that because the U.S. is now a net exporter of energy, it’s time for the locals to take over.

This is the "lazy consensus" at its peak.

The U.S. cares about the Strait of Hormuz not because it needs the oil for its own cars, but because its allies—Japan, South Korea, and various European nations—depend on it. If the U.S. hands the keys to a "regional council," it hands the leash of the global economy to a group of states that have spent the last forty years trying to undermine each other.

The current standoff, as ugly and expensive as it is, provides a perverse form of balance. Each side knows exactly where the red lines are. A new treaty would move those lines, leading to a period of "testing" that would almost certainly result in the very conflict the diplomats are trying to avoid.

The Hard Truth About Tanker Wars

History is a better teacher than diplomacy. During the Tanker War of the 1980s, over 500 ships were attacked. Did a regional agreement stop it? No. It ended because the U.S. launched Operation Praying Mantis and reminded everyone that the cost of closing the Strait was the total destruction of a national navy.

Peace in the Strait of Hormuz isn't maintained by diplomacy. It is maintained by the credible threat of overwhelming force. Any agreement that attempts to replace that threat with "dialogue" is inviting a catastrophe.

We don't need a regional agreement. We need to stop pretending that every geopolitical tension is a "misunderstanding" that can be solved with a summit. Some tensions are structural. Some conflicts are necessary for balance.

If you want to protect the global economy, stop trying to fix the Strait. Start building the infrastructure to bypass it. The East-West Pipeline in Saudi Arabia and the Habshan–Fujairah pipeline in the UAE are the only "agreements" that matter. They are made of steel, not paper.

The push for a diplomatic solution is a sign of weakness that the regional powers smell from miles away. It signals that the West is tired of the burden of maritime security. And in the Strait of Hormuz, the moment you look tired, you’ve already lost.

Stop looking for a way out. This is the world we built. The tension is the only thing keeping the gears turning. If the Strait ever truly becomes "peaceful," it’s because the oil has run out or the world has moved on. Until then, keep your treaties; I’ll keep the carrier strike groups.