The struggle for control of the Strait of Hormuz has rapidly escalated from economic brinkmanship into open military confrontation, with U.S. forces and Iran trading strikes around one of the world’s most critical oil chokepoints.

Early escalation: fees and first strikes

Tensions intensified as Iran began targeting commercial shipping, with reports that Tehran used cruise missiles against tankers transiting the Strait of Hormuz.¹ In response, the U.S. launched air strikes while President Donald Trump sought to leverage the crisis economically, demanding a 20% fee on all cargo passing through the narrow waterway.¹

The proposed levy underscored Washington’s attempt to turn security dominance in the Gulf into direct revenue from global trade flows, highlighting how control of the strait had become both a military and financial contest.

Blockade and tanker confrontation

As the standoff deepened, Iran moved to tighten what was described as a renewed blockade around its Kharg Island export terminal. In that context, U.S. forces hit a tanker heading for Kharg Island, further militarising the struggle over shipping lanes and raising fresh alarms about threats to global oil supplies.² Analysts warned that any sustained disruption in the strait, through which a significant share of the world’s seaborne crude passes, could send energy prices sharply higher.

Deadly attacks and broader regional clash

The conflict spilled beyond the waterway when two American troops were killed in Jordan, prompting U.S. strikes on Iran itself.³ The action followed what was described as an attack launched by Tehran on Gulf states, turning the battle for the strait into a wider regional showdown.³

Trump’s policy pivot amid ongoing waves of strikes

Facing international concern and regional backlash, Trump signaled a shift, declaring that the U.S. would abandon the proposed Strait of Hormuz cargo fee and instead seek Gulf investment as an alternative funding mechanism.⁴ Yet by the time of this policy reversal, the U.S. military had already carried out a seventh wave of strikes, indicating that the security logic of escalation had overtaken the initial economic gambit.⁴

From Washington’s perspective, the operations are framed as defensive moves to protect shipping and avenge attacks on U.S. forces. Tehran casts its actions as resistance to U.S. pressure and control over its own export routes. Caught between these narratives, global markets and regional states face mounting risks from a confrontation that began with a fee proposal and now centers on missiles, blockades and the future stability of a vital oil lifeline.