Not sure if mods will allow this, since it is speculative and arguably borders on conspiracy theory, even though it references some real policy moves and market facts. But I thought it was interesting enough to share. It comes from a YouTube interview with Dr. Anas Alhajji, an energy economist and managing partner of Energy Outlook Advisors, whose public bio also describes him as a former chief economist at NGP Energy Capital Management with a PhD in economics and a long publication record on oil, gas, LNG, energy security, and energy geopolitics.
Video interview here: https://www.youtube.com/live/jtTQr5-k9C4?si=BVi6FW2VvH9tQDcx
Alhajji is basically arguing that the real choke point is not whether Iran can literally “close” the Strait of Hormuz like a door, but whether enough disruption, risk, and especially insurance withdrawal can make shipping through the Gulf commercially unworkable. In his view, once insurers stop covering ships, the Strait is effectively closed regardless of the formal military situation. He also argues that this “insurance issue” does not fully add up on its own and may be part of a larger geopolitical strategy rather than just a straightforward reaction to Iranian threats.
From there, his more speculative claim is that the US may have an incentive to keep Hormuz unstable or “effectively closed” because that would reduce other countries’ dependence on Gulf energy and increase dependence on US energy exports. He points to things like the SPR releases, the temporary relaxation of the Jones Act, sanctions waivers, US discussion of replacing European maritime insurance, and repeated media narratives about Hormuz closure as signs that the conflict is being managed with a longer time horizon in mind rather than treated as a short war.
He then connects this to Asia, especially China. His claim is that after the June war and the flood of discussion about a possible Hormuz shutdown, the implicit message to Asian buyers was: if the Strait becomes unreliable, where will you get your gas from? He says this happened at a moment when some Asian firms had been expected to sign long term LNG deals with the US, but tariffs and trade war tensions pushed some of them toward Qatar and the UAE instead. In his telling, China read the broader risk differently: rather than becoming more dependent on US LNG, it moved to reduce vulnerability by reviving pipeline plans with Russia through Mongolia as a backup to any Hormuz disruption.
So the core thesis is not simply “Iran is shutting Hormuz.” It is more like: the US may be benefiting from, shaping, or at least tolerating prolonged disruption around Hormuz and related shipping/insurance bottlenecks in order to redirect global energy dependence, especially in ways that pressure Asia and affect China’s energy security. He also argues that dismissing this as “conspiracy theory” overlooks how strange some of the insurance behavior and policy choices look when taken together.
Is Hormuz being kept unstable to redirect global energy dependence?
byu/oxtQ inoil
Posted by oxtQ
11 Comments
The answer is yes, but the conclusion is not what you think it is.
You are assuming this administration can plan more than one week in advance.
*From there, his more speculative claim is that the US may have an incentive to keep Hormuz unstable or “effectively closed” because that would reduce other countries’ dependence on Gulf energy and increase dependence on US energy exports.*
The US will pay a heavy price as well if this is the scenario that winds up playing out. That being said, they will certainly take advantage of it if possible.
I’ve actually thought about stuff like this. Maybe not to this exact effect but the U.S. is the number one oil producing country in the world and this undoubtedly benefits domestic U.S. oil producers. I’ve actually theorized that oil and gas companies will keep the prices high until they start getting government handouts.
I saw this interesting podcast by abc (australian) where they set out the 40 years of policy failures that lead to this crisis.
Unfinished pipelines, terminals with low capacity. Obstructionist countries. It was all very interesting
And will China just sit by while this happens?
Oh man, am i allowed to publish my thesis now?
soon
This thought process does have merit but in addition the companies building the large LNG terminal have still been having difficulty from locals in LA and environmental concerns and the buildout has been delayed with also major cost over runs and this process has become uneconomical at current natural gas prices. Saudi Arabia has similar economic constraints favoring high gas prices.
In addition the re-insurance industry cannot tolerate further losses in any portion of their industry because of past escalating environmental losses from climate change and so their cumulative massive inhibitory reaction is justified.
The largesse of the US and Trump could not overcome that reticence and I don’t think this was considered in the equation of the gulf or Hormuz. Neither was Iran’s reaction to use the closure to its advantage. So the entire plan has been check mated.
us destroyed nordstream 2 so it can sell overpriced lng to europe..
Global recession and demand destruction will be the result. Reeks of incompetence and thinking two steps behind.
I don’t get the logic of insurers not insuring ships through the Strait is not logical or suspicious. Why is that not a normal response? Why would an insurer want to insure something with an extraordinarily high chance of being destroyed and them having to pay out? That seems like such a really odd take to me.
I thought everyone already knew the real chokepoint was not them literally closing it but effectively closing it. So this doesn’t seem enlightening or to lend any credibility to the argument. And why would Lloyds of London refuse to insure oil tankers to benefit the US when it will absolutely destroy the British economy far more than ours? And Maersk is one of the biggest owners of the cargo containers and they also chose to not allow what they own through the Strait almost right away. So how would this benefit them either to do this for the US? Does Trump have some major stock in these companies or the Kushners or Barron?