Why Attacks Near the Strait of Hormuz Can Rattle Global Trade

What reportedly happened

The central issue is that commercial ships were reported to have faced direct military pressure while trying to transit the Strait of Hormuz.

On April 18, reports said commercial ships came under fire and threats from Iran’s military as they attempted to cross the waterway, and that Iran had reclosed the strait after a brief reopening . On April 23, AP-cited reporting said Iran fired on three ships in or near the Strait of Hormuz and seized two of them .

Maritime risk advisers described a similar deterioration in the same period. One advisory cited reports of gunfire directed at merchant vessels, Iran’s seizure of two container ships and suspected naval mine activity, warning that commercial shipping was being affected by the wider confrontation .

The details differ from one account to another. But the direction of travel is clear: transit through the Strait of Hormuz is being treated less like a routine shipping passage and more like a contested strategic space .

Why this narrow waterway matters so much

The Strait of Hormuz is the narrow passage between Iran and Oman linking the Gulf to the wider Indian Ocean. It is repeatedly described as one of the world’s most important energy corridors . Some reports say it carries about one-fifth of global oil or petroleum-liquids flows .

That is why even limited attacks or seizures can have an outsized effect. Shipping companies and insurers do not wait for a full closure before reassessing risk. They price in the possibility of delays, attacks, detention, mines or a sudden escalation. Cargo owners then face the same question: is the route safe enough, and at what price?

The National reported that cargo transport through the Strait of Hormuz was expected to become costlier and riskier as insurers cancelled coverage and shipping companies introduced new surcharges . It also reported that Hapag-Lloyd planned to apply a War Risk Surcharge for cargo moving to and from the Arabian Gulf .

The first risk is to crews, not cargo

The most immediate danger is to seafarers. UN reporting said the blocking of ships in the Strait of Hormuz had shown how vessels and crews can become “leverage in geopolitical disputes,” citing the head of the International Maritime Organization . The same report said up to 20,000 seafarers had been stranded on about 2,000 vessels in the Persian Gulf as a result of the wider conflict and unsafe passage .

The risk is not only delay. Maritime advisories have pointed to gunfire at merchant vessels, ship seizures and suspected mine deployment . Mines are especially disruptive because they can make reopening a route much slower and more uncertain; the same advisory cited warnings that clearance operations could take months .

For shipping companies, that changes the calculation. A voyage that once looked like a normal transit may require delay, rerouting, extra security precautions, new insurance terms or a decision not to sail at all .

How it feeds into global trade costs

The first trade shock is usually financial. If insurers withdraw coverage or raise war-risk premiums, shipping gets more expensive. If shipping lines add surcharges, those costs move through contracts and supply chains. That is already part of the reported response to the Hormuz escalation .

The second shock is operational. Lloyd’s List reported that tankers were avoiding the Strait of Hormuz amid the worsening security situation, and that overall traffic across all sectors through the strait fell 38% at one point . Even when ships are not attacked, a perceived rise in risk can lead to queues, waiting offshore, postponed sailings or route changes .

The third shock is energy-market anxiety. Because the strait is tied to roughly one-fifth of global oil or petroleum-liquids flows in several reports, attacks on commercial shipping there quickly become a concern for energy traders and importers . A prolonged disruption could increase freight costs, war-risk insurance costs and the risk premium attached to moving energy and other cargo through the Gulf .

What remains uncertain

The exact damage picture is still hard to pin down from public reports. AP-cited reporting described three ships fired on and two seized . AFP-linked reports described commercial ships coming under fire and threats more broadly . Other reporting has referred to a larger number of vessels attacked in the Gulf and around the Strait of Hormuz since the conflict widened .

So the most important question is not only the final vessel count. It is whether merchant shipping can be treated as safe, predictable and insurable through the strait. If the answer becomes less certain, the commercial effects can spread quickly beyond the vessels directly involved .

Four signals to watch next

1. Actual vessel traffic. A short-term drop is one thing; a sustained fall would point to deeper disruption. Lloyd’s List reported a 38% decline in overall traffic through the strait at one point .
2. War-risk insurance and surcharges. More cancelled coverage, higher premiums or wider use of shipping surcharges would push up transport costs .
3. Seizures and mine reports. More ship detentions or credible mine warnings would make safe passage harder to restore .
4. Protection for seafarers. If thousands of crew members remain stranded or exposed, the crisis becomes not only a trade problem but also a humanitarian and diplomatic one .

The lesson is straightforward: in a chokepoint like the Strait of Hormuz, an attack on merchant shipping is rarely just a local maritime incident. It can quickly become a test of seafarer safety, shipping confidence, insurance markets and the cost of moving energy and goods around the world .