Japan and South Korea’s Strategy for the Strait of Hormuz Energy Disruption

South Korea’s exposure is particularly acute: about 70% of its crude oil imports and a notable portion of its LNG imports transit the strait.

South Korea: crisis monitoring and maritime diplomacy

Seoul’s immediate response has focused on monitoring economic impacts and coordinating diplomacy to keep shipping lanes open.

South Korea’s Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy has convened emergency monitoring meetings to assess risks to energy supply, trade flows, and industrial activity in the event of a sustained blockade. Officials have emphasized continuous monitoring of Middle East developments and potential impacts on domestic supply chains.

Diplomatically, South Korea has also engaged with multiple partners—including Iran and other governments—to help ensure safe passage for vessels and stabilize shipping routes.

At the same time, Seoul has signaled support for multinational maritime security efforts. President Lee Jae Myung stated that the country would make “substantive contributions” to efforts to guarantee freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

South Korea is therefore balancing three immediate priorities:

• monitoring domestic energy supply and trade disruptions
• maintaining diplomatic channels with countries involved in the crisis
• considering participation in multinational maritime security missions

These measures reflect a broader strategy of managing near‑term supply risks rather than launching a major new domestic macro‑economic stabilization program tied specifically to the Hormuz crisis.

Japan: securing tanker transit while diversifying supply chains

Japan’s response combines operational efforts to maintain energy flows with a longer‑term push to diversify supply chains.

One visible step has been diplomatic coordination to ensure tanker passage. During the crisis, a Japan‑linked oil tanker managed by the energy company Eneos successfully transited the Strait of Hormuz—an event widely interpreted as evidence of Japan’s ongoing diplomatic efforts to maintain energy shipments despite regional tensions.

At the strategic level, Tokyo has also been expanding partnerships aimed at reducing dependence on vulnerable supply chains.

Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) has been promoting cooperation on critical minerals—materials such as lithium, copper, and rare earth elements that are essential for batteries, electric vehicles, and renewable energy technologies. Agreements and forums involving partners across the Indo‑Pacific and resource‑producing countries aim to strengthen and diversify these supply chains.

Japan has also deepened engagement with resource‑rich countries, including cooperation initiatives with Indonesia and outreach to mining sectors in African states, reflecting a broader strategy to secure alternative sources of critical materials and reduce long‑term strategic vulnerability.

Growing calls for a multinational maritime coalition

Because the Strait of Hormuz is central to global energy flows, protecting shipping routes has become a major international priority.

A joint statement by 26 countries—including Japan and South Korea—backed efforts to normalize traffic through the strait and signaled willingness to use diplomatic, economic, and military capabilities to support freedom of navigation.

International meetings involving dozens of countries have also discussed maritime security operations and potential defensive actions such as mine‑clearing or naval patrol coordination.

For energy‑import‑dependent economies, these multinational efforts are increasingly seen as essential. National policies alone cannot guarantee stable access to energy when a single chokepoint handles such a large share of global supply.

The broader lesson: energy security is now a supply‑chain problem

The Hormuz disruption has reinforced a major shift in energy strategy across Asia. Energy security is no longer just about securing fuel contracts—it also depends on shipping lanes, geopolitical stability, and diversified supply chains.

Japan’s focus on critical minerals and diversified partnerships, combined with South Korea’s emphasis on maritime security diplomacy and supply monitoring, reflects two complementary approaches to the same challenge.

As geopolitical risks around key maritime chokepoints persist, these strategies are likely to shape Northeast Asia’s energy policy for years to come.