Iran Temporarily Closes the Strait of Hormuz

Date of announcement: 20 February 2026
Action: Temporary closure of parts of the Strait of Hormuz for live‑fire naval drills (codenamed "Smart Control of the Strait of Hormuz").
Geographical width: 55–95 km; the only sea route from the Persian Gulf to the open ocean.
Global energy flow: ~20% of the world’s oil and gas transits the strait.
India’s dependence: ~50% of crude oil and 60% of natural gas imports pass through the strait.
Historical precedents: Iran threatened closure during the 1980s Iran‑Iraq "Tanker War" and after the 2012 sanctions, but a full closure has never been executed.

The closure coincides with the second round of indirect nuclear negotiations between Iran and the United States in Geneva.
Iran uses the strait as a geopolitical lever to signal its strategic intentions and to gain bargaining power in negotiations.
Major oil exporters (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar) rely on this route; over 80% of the oil headed to Asian markets, especially India, China, Japan, and South Korea.

Energy security: Disruption could spike global oil prices, affect India’s trade balance, and strain foreign exchange reserves.
Strategic response: India may need to diversify import routes, increase strategic petroleum reserves, and engage diplomatically with Gulf states.
Alternative routes: Bypass pipelines (e.g., Saudi Arabia’s East‑West Pipeline) exist but can handle only a fraction of normal transit volumes.
Policy implication: Highlights the need for a robust maritime security strategy and active participation in multilateral forums on freedom of navigation.

UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea): Guarantees freedom of navigation through international straits used for navigation.
International Maritime Organization (IMO): Provides guidelines for safe passage and conflict de‑escalation in such chokepoints.
Any unilateral closure challenges these norms and may invite diplomatic protests or collective security responses.

Geopolitical leverage: Iran’s ability to disrupt a vital energy corridor gives it bargaining power in nuclear talks and regional politics.
Regional stability: Closure risks escalation with Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states and could involve external powers (USA, EU, China) concerned about energy supplies.
India’s diplomatic stance: Balancing relations with Iran (energy partner) and Gulf states (oil suppliers) while safeguarding its own energy interests.

Prepared for UPSC Civil Services Examination – Current Affairs