Global energy markets have been thrown into turmoil after Iran announced the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important oil shipping routes, following aerial attacks against the country by the United States and Israel.
The narrow passage between Iran and Oman is responsible for roughly one-fifth of global oil trade, as well as a significant share of liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipments. It also plays a key role in transporting other raw materials.
Iranian attacks on ships in the region have already been reported, while major maritime insurers have reportedly refused to cover vessels travelling through the area. As a result, commercial shipping has slowed dramatically and oil prices have begun to surge amid fears of a prolonged disruption.
Experts warn that if the strait remains closed, the world could face an unprecedented oil crisis.
Donald Trump calls on allies to protect the Strait of Hormuz
In a post on his Truth Social platform, Donald Trump, the President of the United States, claimed that Washington had already dealt a decisive blow to Iran and argued that other major economies should now help secure the strategic waterway.
“The United States of America has beaten and completely decimated Iran, both militarily, economically, and in every other way, but the countries of the world that receive oil through the Strait of Hormuz must take care of that passage, and we will help — A LOT!”
Trump suggested that a joint international effort to secure the passage could even bring the world closer to “harmony, security and everlasting peace”.
Allies respond cautiously
However, the countries mentioned by Trump have so far reacted cautiously or declined to commit to sending naval forces, according to the BBC’s report.
- The United Kingdom said it was discussing options with allies to ensure safe navigation in the region.
- China called for an immediate end to hostilities and stressed that all parties must ensure stable energy supplies.
- Japan has not issued a formal response but indicated it would make its own independent decision rather than automatically follow Washington’s request.
- France denied reports that it would send warships, saying its aircraft carrier group would remain in the eastern Mediterranean.
- South Korea has not yet commented publicly.
What the crisis could mean for Hungary
Although Hungary does not import oil directly through the Strait of Hormuz, the country could still feel the effects of the disruption.
Oil prices are set on global markets, meaning any significant supply shock can quickly translate into higher fuel costs across Europe. This could increase transport costs, raise inflation and put additional pressure on household budgets.
Hungary is particularly sensitive to global energy price swings due to its reliance on imported fuels and the importance of road transport in the economy.
If the crisis persists and oil prices continue to climb, Hungarian motorists and businesses may soon see the consequences at petrol stations and in rising logistics costs.
Uncertain outlook for global energy supply
Right now, the situation is highly volatile. With shipping disrupted, insurance withdrawn and diplomatic responses still unfolding, markets are closely watching whether the strait will reopen or whether the confrontation could escalate further. If the blockage continues, analysts warn that the world may face one of the most severe energy shocks in decades.
This is surely the moment for the European warmongers that Orbán is so fond of talking about. But the whole thing about the warmongers, like much of what Orbán proclaims, is proving to be a real dud.
Many countries have already expressed themselves very cautiously, meaning that they reject intervention but don’t want to offend Trump.
Two countries are mentioned here as examples.
1. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer does not see securing the Strait of Hormuz as a NATO responsibility, contrary to the demands of US President Donald Trump.
2. Germany rejects Trump’s demand for NATO support in the Strait of Hormuz.
Trump’s request for NATO assistance shows how desperate the US apparently is, that it has to ask NATO for support in a war that actually has nothing to do with NATO.
But all is not lost yet, because, according to his own statements, Orbán remains loyal and steadfast to his friend and peacemaker, Trump. I’m curious to see if we’ll hear anything from him, and if so, how he’ll wriggle out of this.
Background:
In the Iran war, US President Donald Trump is using confrontational language to urge NATO allies to support securing oil shipments in the vital Strait of Hormuz. NATO faces a bleak future if its partners do not assist, Trump said in a brief interview with the Financial Times. “If there is no response, or if the response is negative, I think it will be very bad for the future of NATO,” Trump was quoted as saying. The US president also made it clear that he expects support in securing oil shipments in the Strait of Hormuz in return for US assistance in the Ukraine war. “We are always there for NATO. We are helping them with Ukraine,” Trump told reporters on his return flight from Florida to Washington.
Source: Focus.de
The proper description is that Trump is trying to “blackmail” NATO into assisting him. He has also shown the Iranians he means business with the US announcing that they will allow Iran to ship all the oil it wants out of the Strait of Hormuz while Iran shuts down all traffic from the Gulf states. This is in addition to giving wanted war criminal Putin a free pass to ship his oil for one month. The hilarious request by Trump was for China to help him protect shipping in the Strait. You won’t hear a peep from Orban about Trump’s war and I think Orban’s association with Trump is starting to turn into a political liability for him with this war.
News about Trump and the European warmongers:
Donald Trump gave a press statement before the board meeting at the Kennedy Center.
Here are two short excerpts:
“After a reporter asked about US partners in war situations, Trump suddenly launched a scathing attack on NATO countries. ‘Why do we protect countries that don’t protect us? That has always been a weakness of NATO. We always support them. But when we’re in need, they don’t help us,’ said the US president.
Then Trump claimed that the US has the strongest military in the world and is not dependent on partners.
What are we to make of such statements from what should be an adult? Does he even understand what he’s talking about?”
This comes after Trump batted away suggestions that British aircraft carriers could be moved to the region: “we don’t need them”.
Reuters reports the president twice on Monday said that Iran’s retaliatory strikes against Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait were a surprise, the first time at a Kennedy Center board meeting in the White House.
“They (Iran) weren’t supposed to go after all these other countries in the Middle East,” he said. “Nobody expected that. We were shocked.”
Trump’s assertion followed other administration claims that have not been backed by U.S. intelligence reporting, such as that Iran would soon have a missile capable of hitting the U.S. homeland and that it would need two to four weeks to make a nuclear bomb and would then use it.
President Donald Trump was warned that attacking Iran could trigger retaliation against U.S. Gulf allies despite his claims on Monday that Tehran’s reaction came as a surprise, said a U.S. official and two sources familiar with U.S. intelligence reports.
Trump was also briefed ahead of the operation that Tehran would likely seek to close the economically vital Strait of Hormuz, according to two other sources familiar with the matter.
Trump repeated his claim later on Monday during a signing event in the Oval Office. He was asked if he was surprised that nobody had briefed him about that risk that Iran would strike back at the Gulf states.
“Nobody, nobody, no, no, no. The greatest experts, nobody thought they were going to hit,” replied Trump.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment.
Al-Jazeera TV’s website publishes an article by Muhammad Selum, a doctoral candidate in the Department of Politics and Strategy at the Doha Institute of Higher Education. The expert declares the success of the American-Israeli strategy toward Iran, writes newsru.co.il.
“If we focus on what is happening with the instruments of Iranian force: the ballistic arsenal, nuclear infrastructure, air defense, navy and satellites, we get a picture of the systematic destruction of a threat that previous US administrations turned a blind eye to for decades,” he emphasizes.
According to the expert, Iran’s decades-old weapons arsenal has been destroyed in a matter of days, and the intensity of shelling has been significantly reduced. Iran’s military-industrial complex, including design bureaus, is being destroyed.
Iran is facing a dilemma – to continue shelling and lose what is left, or to keep missiles and UAVs, but thereby reduce the price of war, giving up the main lever of pressure. This is a sign of weakness, not strength.
Selum said that on the eve of the 12-day war, Iran was two weeks away from getting uranium enriched to the level needed to make a nuclear weapon. The regime tried to undo the damage done in June by using negotiations to buy time, showing an ostensible willingness to dialog.
The closing of the Strait of Hormuz has always been Iran’s main threat, but now, despite rising energy prices, there is a systematic destruction of all the infrastructure needed to close it. In addition, it is Iran that is most vulnerable to the blockade and is actually cutting off its own breathing room. Opening the strait is a matter of time, but it is not certain that Iran itself will be able to use it.
“Critics believe that the cost of inaction would be zero. But it isn’t. Inaction would lead to the emergence of a nuclear Iran that could close the strait and, along with its satellites, take the entire region hostage – forever. A strategy that is measured by the deprivation of capabilities, not by publications in the news, works,” the expert believes.
Focus reports that after NATO states declined to support the US in the Iran war, US President Donald Trump threatened to withdraw the US from NATO. “If they don’t help us, it’s certainly something we’ll have to think about,” Trump said at a press conference in the Oval Office with Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin.
He added: “I don’t need Congress for this, as you may know. I can make this decision on my own.” However, Congress effectively blocked this in 2023. The relevant legislation prohibits the president from “suspending, terminating, condemning, or withdrawing the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty—which created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)” without Senate approval or a congressional act.
Trump doubled down on his earlier statements. He said he was disappointed in the allies, speaking at the White House. He believed they were making a “foolish mistake.”
Perhaps it’s because Trump still hasn’t grasped that he’s just as dependent on Europe as vice versa.
To paraphrase Agatha Christie, I ask: why didn’t he ask Orbán? If the US were to withdraw from NATO, Orbán should immediately switch sides and seek an alliance with Russia, since, as he has repeatedly stated, he will not wage war against Russia. This would mean that the warmongers in Europe, who didn’t want to go to war with the US, now have free rein to launch a military attack on Russia. 😄
Israel’s liquidation of one of Iran’s key officials, the head of the Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani, has raised concerns among Iranian officials about their personal safety.
The NYT reports.
In addition to worries about his own life and safety, Larijani’s death has also raised concerns about Iran’s future. After all, Islamic State officials considered the liquidated official as one of those who could have negotiated a settlement to the conflict.
The publication notes that the already liquidated head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council was indeed considered one of the most influential figures in the country, especially after the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in late February. He played a key role in military decisions, internal security and suppressing protests.
It should be noted that Larijani’s elimination was part of Israel’s strategy to “decapitate” the Iranian leadership – a series of pinpoint strikes against the country’s top political and military commanders.
In the background, Iran has already responded with missile strikes against Israel and facilities in the region, which has sharply escalated the conflict and increased the risk of a large-scale war in the Middle East.
Opinions about the impact of the official’s death on the country’s future differ, however. In addition to those who consider Larijani’s elimination a negative factor for Iran’s future, there are those who do not attach such importance to it and are convinced that the regime will stand.
As proof that Larijani’s death will not affect the future course of events, representatives of the second theory cite the elimination of Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei. They say that the Iranian regime survived even after his death.
Reminder, the day before Israel launched an airstrike on Iran and eliminated Ali Larijani – the right hand of the assassinated Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei, who was also the head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council.
The liquidation of Iranian top official Ali Larijani was subsequently confirmed by Tehran.
The US has ordered diplomatic missions around the world to “immediately” assess security measures, due to the worsening situation in the Middle East. According to The Washington Post, the relevant State Department cable, signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, arrived Tuesday.
Focus magazine writes about Trump’s threat to withdraw from NATO:
Geopolitics expert Alexander Görlach assesses this statement as part of a familiar strategy.
“It’s simply his attempt to get his way, as he always does,” says Görlach, a professor at New York University. The NATO withdrawal was already a topic of discussion during Trump’s first term. To this day, he “still hasn’t grasped the mechanisms, the necessity, or the ‘why’ of NATO.”
At the same time, there is a lack of clear objectives in US foreign policy. “Where you have no objectives, you also have no plan,” says Görlach. The fact that allies are refusing support in the Iran conflict is therefore consistent: from their perspective, it is a “kamikaze undertaking.”
Domestically, Trump is also treading on thin ice with his attempt to withdraw from NATO, as he needs congressional approval. Nevertheless, according to Görlach, Trump has repeatedly bypassed institutions: “Congress has been sidelined more than once.” It would therefore “not at all be surprising” if he were to act again without approval.
The repeated threats, however, are leaving their mark on partners. “If you treat your friends like this, you don’t really need any enemies,” warns Görlach. This lack of reliability will “continue to plague the US long after Donald Trump.”
The expert sees clear consequences for Europe and Germany: NATO partners should become more independent. Because: “The US is no longer a reliable ally.”
@Mouton and @michaelsteiner oddly missing in this comments section?