Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Hans Boserup, Dr.jur. 🇩🇰's avatar

Fred, you are absolutely right about one thing: geography always has the final word.

When roughly **20% of global oil flows through a single maritime chokepoint**, markets cannot simply price their way around the problem. If the Strait of Hormuz is genuinely closed, no amount of financial engineering will reopen it. Tankers still have to sail through a very narrow piece of water. ([Wikipedia][1])

But the oil market is doing something slightly more subtle than “calling the bluff”.

Markets are not pricing today’s geography. They are pricing **tomorrow’s probability**. Traders are asking three questions simultaneously:

1. How long can the Strait actually stay closed?

2. How much supply can be rerouted through pipelines or alternative routes?

3. How quickly will naval power reopen the corridor?

That is why prices spike, but not infinitely. The market assumes that **a complete and prolonged closure is strategically unsustainable**.

And history tends to support that assumption.

The Strait of Hormuz is not just a geographic bottleneck for the West. It is equally a bottleneck for the Gulf producers — and for Iran itself. Shut it for too long and everyone’s revenue collapses, including Tehran’s.

So yes — geography matters.

But geopolitics determines **how long geography is allowed to dominate the market**.

No posts

Ready for more?