The Strait of Hormuz is no longer just a waterway threatened by conflict. It has become the core of the confrontation itself: who has the ability to keep it closed, and who can bear the cost of reopening it.
In two analyses published by The Telegraph and The Guardian, two main pathways emerge for restoring operations in the world’s most critical oil artery. The first centres on mine clearance and securing navigation through an international naval coalition. The second raises the possibility of forcing the strait open through American military power, either via a large scale naval build up or by seizing Iranian positions overlooking the passage.
Mine Clearance and Controlled Reopening
According to The Telegraph, the United Kingdom is placing its bet on specialised unmanned vessels designed for mine hunting, including the vessel Ariadne, as part of any effort to reopen the strait. These systems, supported by artificial intelligence, are designed to detect, classify and neutralise mines on the seabed. They would operate from a mothership, being prepared to serve as a floating operational base in the Gulf.
Under this approach, reopening the strait begins from below the surface: clearing mines from the seabed, then securing the passage of commercial vessels under military protection. However, despite its cautious nature, this pathway would only deliver a fragile reopening. Removing mines does not eliminate Iran’s ability to threaten navigation through missiles, drones and fast attack boats.
Even this scenario does not appear imminent. The Telegraph notes that the mothership is not expected to deploy to the Gulf in the near term. Its use is more likely in the context of a ceasefire between the United States, Israel and Iran, a process that could take weeks to materialise.
Naval Escalation and the Use of Force
The Guardian outlines a more escalatory scenario. The issue, in this view, is not limited to protecting shipping. It extends to the possibility that Washington may attempt to break Iran’s grip over the strait by force.
Two options are highlighted. The first is to impose passage through a heavy and sustained naval presence. The second is to seize Iranian islands and positions that directly oversee the waterway.
However, this pathway carries far greater risk. The Iranian islands located around the strait are not isolated outposts. They are forward positions that provide Tehran with direct control over the passage. While capturing them might be achievable in an initial strike, holding them is an entirely different challenge. Iran could respond with missile and drone attacks, or treat any American ground presence on its territory as a red line requiring a harsher response.
Strategic Targets and Operational Risks
The Guardian points to Kharg Island, Iran’s main oil export terminal, as a likely focal point in any American attempt to force the strait open. Yet experts warn that while seizing one or more islands may be feasible, maintaining control would expose US forces to sustained Iranian attacks using missiles and drones.
The paper also stresses that reopening the strait, under either scenario, does not end with clearing mines or breaking a blockade. Navigation cannot simply be restored by decision. It requires a continuous protection system that includes naval escorts, air cover, sustained deterrence, and the ability to conduct ongoing clearance and rapid response operations.
In this sense, reopening the strait is not a one time operation. It becomes a prolonged military management of a waterway that remains under constant threat.
A Strategic Divide Between London and Washington
The British proposal suggests a gradual reopening starting from the sea, focused on technical clearance and controlled navigation. By contrast, the American discussion, as reflected in The Guardian, indicates that the issue in Washington extends beyond maritime security. It touches on the possibility of imposing new realities on the ground inside Iranian geography itself.
At this point, the cost of “reopening the strait” rises from a complex naval mission to a high risk strategic gamble, one that could push the region towards a broader confrontation.
