Economic chaos or a new normal? Three possible scenarios if Trump leaves Iran without reopening the Strait of Hormuz

On The Ground newsletter: Get a weekly dispatch from our international correspondents

Get a weekly dispatch from our international correspondents

Get a weekly international news dispatch

Donald Trump has reportedly told aides that he would be willing to end the war in Iran without securing the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

The Strait has become a central anxiety for Washington’s allies since Tehran forced its effective closure with strikes on commercial shipping.

In peacetime, the waterway facilitates the transit of around a fifth of the world’s oil and gas. Its closure has forced oil prices up to a nearly four-year high, hurting consumers and businesses worldwide.

The US and Israel have only intensified their strikes on Iran in a bid to bring the regime to the negotiating table. But after a month without achieving the stated aim of , patience in the US is wearing thin.

Trump reassured the markets, and voters, on Tuesday that US forces will “be leaving very soon”, giving a timeframe of two to three weeks. He said that Iran “doesn’t have to make a deal” for the US to bow out.

With the US now considering a ‘no deal’ exit strategy, focus turns to what would be the outcome of the US leaving the world with the Strait of Hormuz unresolved. Here are three ways it could play out:

1. The war ends and no deal is made

US media reported on Tuesday that America is increasingly doubtful that it will be able to promise to reopen the Strait as part of a deal with Iran to end the war.

Officials told the Wall Street Journal that Trump has told his aides he is willing to end the war without reopening Hormuz, and unnamed sources close to the discussions told CNN that top officials worry they will not be able to reopen the waterway within a previously set timeline of four to six weeks.

There is no precedent for a prolonged closure of the Strait, and Iran would struggle to justify and uphold one. But experts say the world can expect to pay more for energy if the war ends without a clear fix.

Cargo ships in the Gulf, near the Strait of Hormuz, as seen from northern Ras al-Khaimah (REUTERS)

Dan Brouillette, a former US energy secretary during Trump’s first term, told Fox Business that leaving without a deal would be “highly problematic”.

“If that were to happen, Iran gets exactly what it wants. It gets a ceasefire, it gets to keep this chokehold, and it looks more like a timeout than a deal. You’re simply going to push this issue into a future administration and into future economies.”

He said there would be no way around $4 per gallon gasoline and $100/barrel oil, and added that other vital products like urea for farming and helium for data centres also pass through the Strait.

2. Iran cashes in on the status quo

Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, told CNN that leaving without a deal “would basically be surrendering the strait to Iran and guaranteeing higher energy prices because Iran would be free to attack vessels and charge tolls”.

The Strait of Hormuz lies in Iran’s territorial waters, but is viewed as an international waterway and is normally open to all ships. Iran has imposed a selective blockade on the channel, making deals with some friendly nations to secure safe passage since the war erupted – a move it now hopes to enshrine in law.

The US claims to have destroyed more than 100 Iranian ships over the last month (US Centcom)

Lloyd’s List has reported that since the conflict erupted, a small number of ships have been able to transit through pre-approved routes under an IRGC ‘toll booth’ system.

Iranian lawmaker Alaeddin Boroujerdi claims that Iran was charging $2m for safe passage. A source told Bloomberg that Iran was considering formalising the fee as part of any peace deal with the US.

Such a move would probably be illegal under maritime law and draw round criticism. Either way, a reduced supply of oil and gas would likely see Asian powers swallow up what remains, leaving Europe priced out, even if it relies less directly on Gulf energy.

Matthew Oresman, geopolitical expert and partner at international law firm Pillsbury, told The Independent that if Trump does back out without ensuring free passage for all nations, European, Asian and Middle Eastern countries “would be left to negotiate transit agreements directly with Iran, securing safe passage by effectively paying ransom”.

He said “the long-term impact of leaving the Strait insecure is a recipe for long-term disruption, including higher energy and commodity prices and an ever-present casus belli for future conflict.”

3. Other countries open the Strait without US help

Governments from Europe and Asia are already looking at ways to avoid scenarios one and two.

Sir Keir Starmer said on Wednesday that the UK has brought together 35 nations aligned on a single push for “maritime security across the Gulf” and that the foreign secretary will host a meeting with them this week aimed at reopening the Strait.

Keir Starmer said 35 countries will work towards ensuring security in the region as Trump floats the possibility of a US exit (Getty)

The prime minister said the coalition would “assess all viable diplomatic and political measures we can take to restore freedom of navigation, guarantee the safety of trapped ships and seafarers and to resume the movement of vital commodities”.

Mr Oresman said: “The alternative of course would be for these countries to risk their own people and assets to destroy Iran’s military capabilities targeting the Strait of Hormuz.”

But there is no suggestion that any of the coalition members would seek out military confrontation with Iran if the US withdraws its navy, and recent polling shows the British public remains opposed to the idea of joining offensive strikes.

The Ministry of Defence has already sent military planners to US Central Command to review options for ensuring transit through the Strait. But tangible progress towards securing a deal without US help remains unclear.