The Strait of Hormuz is a strait between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. It provides the only sea passage from the Persian Gulf to the open ocean and is one of the world's most strategically important choke points. It has been so for centuries, with vast hinterlands rich in luxury trade goods, but no easy access to lucrative trading ports. In his memoirs, Babur, the first padishah of the Mughal Empire, recounted how almonds had to be carried from the distant Ferghana region in Central Asia to Hormuz to reach markets.
During 2023–2025, 20% of the world's liquefied natural gas (LNG) and 25% of seaborne oil trade passed through the strait annually. The strait had never been closed for extended time during Middle East conflicts (until this month) (unlike the Straits of Tiran/Bab-el-Mandeb) though Iran occasionally had threatened to close the strait (and they did), and preparations to mine it have been undertaken.
Etymology
Persian etymology derives "Hormuz" from the Middle Persian pronunciation of the name of the Zoroastrian god Ahura Mazda. Alternatively, it has been suggested that the name derives from the local Persian word Hur-Mogh 'Place of Dates'. A theory claims that the strait of Hormuz may have been named after Ifra Hormizd, the mother of King Shapur II of Persia, who ruled between 309 and 379 AD.
In the 10th–17th centuries AD, the Kingdom of Ormus was located here. Scholars, historians and linguists derive the name "Ormuz" from the local Persian word هورمغ Hur-mogh meaning date palm.
From the 15th century onward, from a strategic point of view, the geography of the strait maintained and expanded its importance with the arrival of foreign powers such as Portugal, which maintained its presence between the 16th and 18th centuries, also provoking disputes with other emerging powers such as England when it arrived in the region in the 17th century.
Navigation
To reduce the risk of collision, ships moving through the strait follow a traffic separation scheme (TSS): inbound ships use one lane, outbound ships another, each lane being two miles wide. The lanes are separated by a two-mile-wide "median"
In 1959, Iran altered the legal status of the strait by expanding its territorial sea to 12 nmi (22 km) and declaring it would recognize only transit by innocent passage through the newly expanded area.[16] In 1972, Oman also expanded its territorial sea to 12 nmi (22 km) by decree.[16] Thus, by 1972, the Strait of Hormuz was completely "closed" by the combined territorial waters of Iran and Oman. During the 1970s, neither Iran or Oman attempted to impede the passage of warships, but in the 1980s, both countries asserted claims that were different from customary (old) law.
Oil trade flow
During 2023–2025, 20% of the world's liquefied natural gas and 25% of seaborne oil trade passes through the Strait, illustrating its important location for trade.

More than 85% of these crude oil exports went to Asian markets on a daily basis, with Japan, India, South Korea and China the largest destinations. If shipping through the Strait of Hormuz were significantly disrupted for an extended period, it could lead to a major oil supply crisis for major Asian importers such as India and China.
Megathreads and spaces to hang out:
reminders:
- 💚 You nerds can join specific comms to see posts about all sorts of topics
- 💙 Hexbear’s algorithm prioritizes comments over upbears
- 💜 Sorting by new you nerd
- 🐶 Join the unofficial Hexbear-adjacent Mastodon instance toots.matapacos.dog
Links To Resources (Aid and Theory):
Aid:
Theory:
Financial Support to the Bearsite
reconsidering some "common sense" i've held for a long time recently: through the war on Iran it actually seems like Iran is easier for westerners to sympathise with/support than Russia. i'm kind of gob-smacked by this
Iran has non-whiteness, anti-islam racism, 'feminist' and 'lgbt' critiques, very recent tinyman square consent manufacturing against it yet...
I'm still hearing libs/progressives defending Iran in the same breath as fearmongering about Russia. it's kind of breaking my brain. the push for Anti-Russian racism actually worked, i guess i thought it couldn't actually be that effective when you can't pick a grain of russian from a heap of europeans. i thought the world was too cosmopolitan for racism between whites to work anymore. wack
The most childish answer is most likely the correct one:
The Iraq war was a disaster and Iran is jusr one letter different.
i hate that you're a bit right. yankkkees don't know a heap from a grain
Guess no consent manufacturing leads to this, wheras as Russia has had 80+ years of demonization in the US. Handed dowm from parent to child to grand child.
there still has been a lot of consent manufactured against the islamic revolution, and post 9/11 tropes are seamlessly applied to Iran (i've seen people calling them arabs!)
this is part of why i'm so fucking confused. is Iran's diaspora just better placed and has better PR in the west because it's a national construction whereas anti-arab racism is not delimited to specific countries? is the US/israel facing disproportiate casualties part of it? is it literally just because a tomahawk in the first salvo of the war murdered a heap of children?
Another part of the dynamic is that the US and Isreal are the clear aggressors, in the same way that Russia has been made out to be.
I think a missing piece of the puzzle is that Russia did in fact invade Ukraine. Iran is very clearly defending itself, but from a naive perspective it looks like Russia is just making a territorial grab.
i guess, but from the layman's view shouldn't they consider Hezbollah, Ansar Allah, and Hamas as Iran "invading" other countries?
i'm not arguing with you, the Artesh clearly haven't invaded Iraq or Syria, but it's difficult to square such uniform condemnation of Russia (which long preceded the SMO) with Iran's heap of operations and support of allies and 'puppets' not provoking a similar low-information lib response. nobody is talking about Yemen in this war, everyone was talking about the Donbass on the eve of the SMO