The region stretching from the Strait of Hormuz to the Red Sea, particularly the Bab al-Mandeb, is undergoing a profound strategic transformation. These waterways are no longer merely routes for transporting energy but have become instruments of geopolitical pressure within a multi-layered conflict.
This shift is evident in the convergence between Iran’s direct role in the Gulf and its indirect role in the Red Sea through the Houthi group in Yemen. The geostrategic importance of these chokepoints is critical. The Strait of Hormuz carries approximately 20 percent of global oil trade, while Bab al-Mandeb connects the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean and directly impacts the Suez Canal. This interconnection means that tension in one strait can quickly extend to the other, forming what analysts describe as a “maritime choke chain” stretching from the Gulf to the Mediterranean.
The Iranian Dimension: Strategy of Indirect Control
Iran views these straits as a forward defensive line but has shifted toward a more complex doctrine based on asymmetric deterrence and multiplex pressure. This strategy relies heavily on regional proxies and multiple theatres of influence to compensate for conventional military limitations.
Hormuz as a Direct Threat Tool
In the Gulf, Iran maintains a direct naval presence supported by coastal missile systems and fast attack craft. These capabilities provide Tehran with the ability to threaten or potentially disrupt navigation in the Strait of Hormuz during periods of escalation.
The Red Sea as Strategic Extension
In the Red Sea, the Houthi role becomes central. Iranian support to the Houthis extends the conflict from the Gulf into Bab al-Mandeb, creating what can be described as a dual strategic depth. This serves Iran’s broader agenda in the Arab region while strengthening its negotiating leverage.
The Houthis are no longer merely a party in a civil conflict. They have evolved into a maritime actor with missile and drone capabilities, operating under the supervision of Iranian Revolutionary Guard experts stationed in areas under their control in Yemen. These capabilities have enabled them to target vessels in the Red Sea.
Bab al-Mandeb and the Global Pressure Point
These developments have allowed the Houthis to influence global trade flows. Bab al-Mandeb is widely regarded as a vulnerable flank within the international system. Western analysts note that it is less protected than Hormuz and that any disruption there directly impacts both Europe and Asia.
In this framework, the Houthis are not viewed solely as a tool, but as part of a distributed regional pressure network. This allows Iran to deny direct responsibility while achieving strategic outcomes.
Recent threatening statements attributed to the Houthis are widely understood by informed observers to originate from Tehran. The group functions as an extension of Iranian messaging and military capability, acting as a platform for launching missiles and drones established by Revolutionary Guard elements in Yemen.
These statements come within the broader context of escalating fronts and tools of conflict. They indicate a potential move toward closing Bab al-Mandeb and targeting global trade routes in the Red Sea if a US-Israeli coalition were to occupy Iran’s Khark Island and forcibly secure maritime passage through the Strait of Hormuz. In essence, this constitutes a warning issued via the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to both the region and the international community.
Threat as Strategy, Not Objective
According to Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Iran manages conflict largely through asymmetric warfare capabilities to offset its conventional weaknesses. This explains its reliance on fast boats, naval mines, and regional proxies.
Kenneth Pollack of the American Enterprise Institute argues that Iran does not aim to actually close the Strait of Hormuz, but rather to sustain a constant threat that raises the cost of confrontation. This reinforces the concept of threat as a negotiating tool rather than a final objective.
If the Strait Battle Erupts
Should conflict extend to the Gulf of Aden, it would represent an Iranian attempt to encircle the Gulf from the south and shift the confrontation from containing Iran to managing a multi-front defence. This has revived discussions around “Arab maritime security,” including calls for a unified Arab naval force to secure key waterways independently of Western reliance, and to integrate Gulf and Red Sea security frameworks.
At the same time, Western responses to threats against global trade routes appear selective, often mobilising only when direct interests are affected.
Iran’s Expansion Through Strategic Gaps
Iran continues to pursue regional expansion through what can be described as a strategy of exploiting geopolitical vacuums. This approach leverages existing instability within the Arab world to extend influence.
Former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki al-Faisal has emphasised that Gulf security cannot be separated from Red Sea security, as threats have become circular rather than linear. Kuwaiti thinker Abdullah al-Nafisi similarly notes that Iran has successfully built strategic arms that allow it to engage in prolonged conflict without direct confrontation, aligning with the broader concept of proxy warfare.
The Houthis do not operate independently, as their military capabilities are closely tied to Iranian support. Analyst Michael Knights identifies Tehran’s backing as the decisive factor behind their operational strength.
Vali Nasr, author of “Iran’s Grand Strategy: A Political History,” argues that Tehran uses maritime chokepoints as leverage rather than as a self-destructive weapon. However, some Gulf observers warn that escalation could transform these threats into reality, even if Iran does not seek full-scale war.
Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has long argued that control over energy routes remains a central pillar of global power. This helps explain why Hormuz and Bab al-Mandeb are no longer just geographic locations, but critical keys to the international system.
Hybrid Warfare and Multiple Chokepoints
Under the framework of “calculated escalation,” Iran does not seek to fully close the straits but instead uses the threat of closure as a bargaining chip. The current military activities can be understood as a form of hybrid warfare involving proxies, cyber operations, and limited maritime threats.
The real danger lies not in the closure of a single chokepoint, but in the simultaneous disruption of multiple maritime corridors. Linking Hormuz with Bab al-Mandeb expands the scope of Iranian pressure through Yemen.
Maritime security expert James Holmes highlights that non-state actors with relatively low-cost capabilities can significantly disrupt global shipping. This applies directly to the Houthis, who rely on drones and cost-effective missile systems.
A report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies notes that Houthi threats to navigation represent a qualitative shift in naval warfare, where states are no longer the sole dominant actors.
Limits of American Deterrence
Some Western decision-makers acknowledge a relative decline in US maritime dominance, particularly in managing multi-front conflicts. There is growing recognition of the risks associated with a straits-based confrontation, the centrality of Iran’s role, and the possibility of further actors entering the conflict with their own political and military agendas.
Iran’s role can be understood through three interconnected spheres:
- A geopolitical sphere involving competition for influence between Iran, the West, and the Arab Gulf
- A military sphere centred on indirect warfare through proxies and strategic waterways
- An economic sphere focused on controlling energy flows and global trade
A New Model of Conflict
The battle over the straits is no longer a conventional naval confrontation. It represents a complex model of conflict where geopolitical geography, economic interests, and military doctrine intersect.
The coordination between Iran and the Houthis stands as a clear manifestation of this complexity. Maritime chokepoints are transformed into tools of negotiation and arenas of deterrence at the same time, shaping not only regional dynamics but the stability of the global economy itself.
