By Rear Adm. Roberto Domini, Italian Navy, (Ret.)
Introduction
The Strait of Hormuz is arguably the most consequential chokepoint in the global economy. Barely thirty kilometers wide at its narrowest point, it connects the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and to the Indian Ocean, channeling about one-fifth of the world’s oil and one-quarter of its liquefied natural gas through two shipping lanes, each no wider than three kilometers.1 For decades, this slender corridor has served as the vital artery of international energy trade, and treated as a given of the global order.
That assumption ended on February 28, 2026, when the joint US–Israeli operation Epic Fury was launched against Iranian territory. What had been conceived as a surgical strike to decapitate the regime and neutralize Iran’s nuclear program rapidly deteriorated into a high-intensity conflict without clearly defined political objectives or a credible exit strategy. As one analyst observed, the operation represents “a paradigmatic case of strategic overextension” in which initial tactical enthusiasm has collided with the ruthless logic of long-term strategy, producing repercussions for the Gulf’s security architecture and for the balance of power among great powers.2
For Italy, the crisis is anything but a distant emergency. A nation historically bound to the sea and dependent on imports for more than 75 percent of its energy needs, Italy faces in Hormuz a direct challenge to its energy security, economic resilience, and strategic credibility. These stakes are best understood through the lens of the wider Mediterranean — defined as the Italian M.O.T. (Maritime Operational Theatre) of primary national interest, encompassing all countries towards which Italy pursues a unified and independent security strategy, as well as areas of concern to NATO and the European Union.3 This concept has evolved over time from a strictly geographic definition into a broader geostrategic vision that accounts for Italy’s interactions with Europe, Asia, and Africa. At its core lies the notion of strategic depth – the capacity to project influence beyond maritime borders as a precondition for national security and prosperity.4
The closure of Hormuz must be read through this framework — not as a regional crisis to be observed from a safe distance, but as a challenge that “cannot be delegated to others.”5 This analysis traces the evolution of the conflict, assesses its geopolitical and operational consequences, and highlights Italy’s maritime vulnerabilities, which if left unaddressed, could lead to the loss of its relevance in the Mediterranean.
Asymmetric Warfare in the Strait of Hormuz
The conflict unleashed a systemic crisis whose epicenter was the Strait of Hormuz — the narrow waterway through which one-fifth of the world’s oil and nearly a third of its liquefied natural gas flow daily.6 Tehran’s response was not conventional. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy quickly activated a well-rehearsed interdiction system: fast attack craft of the so-called Mosquito Fleet, swarms of aerial and surface drones, and a mine arsenal estimated at between 2,000 and 6,000 warheads, including Chinese-origin rocket-propelled devices with acoustic and magnetic triggers. Systematic GPS jamming erased AIS tracking signals across the Strait, creating a blind theatre in which nearly one million interferences were recorded in the first quarter of 2026 alone. Even before the first clashes erupted, insurance markets and logistical calculations were already heavily affected.7
The escalation unfolded rapidly. A U.S. destroyer intercepted an Iranian cargo vessel, opening fire after hours of unanswered warnings, with Marines eventually boarding and seizing it.8 Tehran labelled the action armed piracy, negotiations in Islamabad collapsed, and Brent crude surged to nearly $97 a barrel. The IMO estimated that 800 ships were soon trapped in the Gulf, with over 20,000 seafarers stranded aboard. Pasdaran gunboats fired on transiting merchant vessels, and two container ships — operated by an Italian–Swiss group with a turnover close to €90 billion — were seized outright. 9
Washington then attempted to force the passage with Operation Project Freedom, deploying destroyers, aircraft, and thousands of personnel to escort commercial shipping through the Strait. Only two US-flagged vessels completed the transit before Iran retaliated with missiles against a South Korean ship and drone strikes on the Emirati port of Fujairah.10 Within two days the operation was suspended, its failure acknowledged. Iran’s parliament president declared that Tehran had not even begun to fight; the foreign minister dismissed the entire American effort as Project Deadlock. Negotiations mediated by Pakistan, Oman, and Russia remained deadlocked, though Iran had earlier put forward a 14-point roadmap offering a gradual reopening of the Strait in exchange for a fifteen-year freeze on uranium enrichment — a proposal Washington received with caution.11
By early May the toll was stark: 32 verified incidents, at least ten sailors dead, over 500 million barrels withheld from global markets, and an estimated cost of $72 billion in the first sixty days. IEA strategic reserves covered barely 21 percent of the physical deficit and risked technical depletion by June. Europe alone absorbed losses exceeding €27 billion — roughly €500 million per day — as gas prices doubled and Brent reached $112 a barrel. The Suez Canal registered a 48 percent collapse in traffic, and war risk insurance premiums tripled, adding $250,000 to every supertanker voyage.12
After 38 days of operations, the CENTCOM commander testified before the US Senate that Epic Fury had destroyed or severely degraded more than 85 percent of Iran’s military-industrial base for missiles, drones, and naval defense, eliminating 161 naval units. Yet Iran retained what he termed a disruption capability — fast boats, drones, mines and proxy networks — sufficient to keep risk levels in the Strait dangerously elevated. A forty-nation coalition led by the United Kingdom maintained patrols under Operation Sentinel, while the Trump–Xi summit in Beijing produced agreement on keeping Hormuz open but no structural breakthrough, with China preserving its characteristic pragmatic neutrality.13
Looking ahead, analysts caution that Iran’s leverage may prove less decisive than it appears. A prolonged blockade ultimately damages Tehran as well as its adversaries, creating space for negotiation. Even so, any physical normalization of energy markets would require six to twelve months after an agreement. The broader risk is systemic — the Iranian precedent may embolden other coastal states to impose control over strategic waterways, steadily eroding the freedom of navigation on which the global economy depends.14
Geopolitical and Strategic Consequences
Hormuz is not a regional crisis theatre, but the laboratory where the grammar of maritime power is being rewritten. The Iranian doctrine of sea denial, perfected over 40 years of A2/AD (Anti-Access/Area Denial) planning, has demonstrated an uncomfortable truth: in such a narrow corridor, a mid-tier actor can deny freedom of maneuver to the world’s most powerful navy, not by achieving physical control of the waters, but by making transit economically unsustainable. The keystone is the asymmetric cost ratio. Each Shahed drone, valued at between $20,000 and $50,000, can invite the use of a PAC-3 missile interceptor costing approximately four million dollars: an exchange ratio of 130 to 1 that has bled American stockpiles dry. In forty days, the Pentagon has expended 1,100 JASSM missiles, 1,000 Tomahawks, 1,200 Patriots and 1,000 ATACMS, incurring an expenditure of between $28 and $35 billion. Replenishing these arsenals will take at least six years at current production rates.15 Beyond the cost ratios, the mere threat of sea denial capability is enough to heavily shape the behavior of shipping companies and influence their risk calculus.
On a geopolitical level, the conflict has accelerated the transition from a unipolar order to a conflictual and fragmented multipolarity. Washington has discovered the limits of its own power projection. The naval blockade against Iranian ports has strangled global energy trade without breaking Tehran, while Russia has exploited the American distraction to grow its influence in Europe, blocking the transit of Kazakh oil to Germany via the Druzhba pipeline since May 1 and positioning itself as an indispensable mediator.16 China, which purchases 80–90 percent of Iranian oil exports, has practiced a calculated ambiguity. Without openly violating the blockade, China has contested its legitimacy and pressed for the reopening of the Strait.17 The Gulf monarchies, led by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, have denied the use of their bases for “Project Freedom,” fearing retaliation against their energy infrastructure. On April 28, the United Arab Emirates announced its withdrawal from OPEC after 58 years. The post-war alliance architecture is showing structural cracks that no tactical move will be able to heal in the short term.18
Europe, for its part, has launched strategic initiatives but has clashed with its own operational fragmentation. The Franco-British proposal for a multinational mission with alternating command, discussed at Northwood on April 27 with over thirty countries, has remained devoid of concrete commitments. RUSI has calculated that a close blockade of Iranian ports would require approximately one hundred naval vessels to maintain twenty-two on station, a critical mass that European navies, taken individually, do not possess.19, 20
Furthermore, the crisis has unveiled a hybrid dimension that transcends the strictly maritime domain. Italy has already experienced an event of this kind in one of its ports. The explosion of the oil tanker Seajewel in the port of Vado Ligure during the night between February 14-15 2025, attributed to TNT devices equipped with magnets and timers of probable Ukrainian origin (an act of hybrid warfare linked to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict), has demonstrated that European energy terminals are already the target of clandestine operations tied to hybrid warfare and the interdiction of the pro-Russian shadow fleet. The event highlights the vulnerability of Italian energy terminals, which now simultaneously face local physical threats and the blockade of global routes due to U.S.-Iran tensions.21
Italy’s Mediterranean strategy: Imperatives for a Maritime Nation
The Hormuz crisis has forced Italy to confront a structural truth long obscured by institutional inertia: a nation surrounded by the sea on three sides, importing more than 75 percent of its energy, and whose prosperity depends on the free flow of global trade, cannot afford a passive maritime posture. The closure of the Strait has been, in this sense, the most severe stress test of Italy’s energy and maritime model since 1973.
The immediate consequences were stark. The blockade severed supplies of Qatari LNG — accounting for 10 to 12% of national imports, approximately 6.4 billion cubic meters annually — after QatarEnergy declared force majeure.22 The IMF revised Italy’s growth forecast down to 0.4%, the worst figure in Europe, while energy surcharges have already cost households roughly 1,000 Euros each. Alternative routes have struggled to absorb the shock: urgent transit auctions at the Panama Canal surged by 185%, and only the TAP corridor from Azerbaijan — covering 16% of national gas supply — provided a degree of structural resilience. New pipelines towards the Red Sea and the IMEC corridor are being planned to bypass the bottleneck permanently, but their realization lies years away.23
Yet the crisis has also revealed an unexpected competitive advantage. Italy’s Marina Militare possesses some of the most advanced Mine Countermeasures capabilities within NATO. Its fleet of eight Gaeta-class minehunters — built from non-magnetic fiberglass and equipped with multi-frequency VDS sonars, ROVs and autonomous marine drone integration — clears approximately 14,000 explosive devices annually.24 This expertise is grounded in an operational pedigree stretching back to the Gulf 1 mission of 1987–1988, the first international minesweeping campaign ever conducted in the Strait of Hormuz. No European ally combines equivalent technical proficiency with Italy’s historical neutrality in the Gulf and its open diplomatic channels with Tehran, Moscow, Beijing, New Delhi and Tokyo. Washington has explicitly recognized this, urging Rome to join clearance operations as a perhaps irreplaceable contributor. The operational plan foresees the deployment of four vessels — minehunters Crotone and Rimini, a Bergamini-class frigate and a logistics support ship — deployable within four weeks from La Spezia. The €1.6 billion CNG program will guarantee twelve next-generation platforms and sustain this primacy beyond 2035.25
The legal dimension reinforces Italy’s claim to lead or co-lead the mission. As legal scholar Fabio Caffio has clarified, a bilateral US–Iran agreement is insufficient for a strait classified as common waters under UNCLOS. Any minesweeping operation requires either Omani authorization or a UN Security Council mandate.26 A mission commanded by Italy — a nation that has conducted no offensive operations against Iran — is structurally more acceptable to Tehran than any US-led alternative.27
The deeper lesson, however, is doctrinal. Post-Hormuz, strategic influence no longer derives from controlling vast oceanic expanses but from governing the nodes through which global flows converge: chokepoints, LNG terminals, and the subsea data cables carrying 95% of world internet traffic. Italy must therefore update its national maritime doctrine, closing critical gaps in drone countermeasures, undersea warfare, and the cyber-physical protection of offshore infrastructure. The concept of the Wider Mediterranean — Italy’s primary maritime operational theatre, spanning the interactions between Europe, Africa and Asia — demands precisely this kind of strategic depth.28
Investing in MCM platforms, counter-drone architectures, and persistent subsea surveillance is not a budget choice. It is the precondition for Italy’s autonomy, resilience, and credibility as a Mediterranean power in the twenty-first century. Hormuz has made that imperative impossible to defer.
Conclusion
The Strait of Hormuz crisis, triggered by Operation Epic Fury in February 2026, is not a mere cyclical episode destined to fade away. It is an indicator of structural transformations in the global maritime order that are redefining the strategic priorities of Italy and Europe as a whole.
On an operational level, the Iranian doctrine of sea denial has demonstrated an uncomfortable truth: a mid-tier actor, armed with low-cost drones, mines, and electronic warfare, can render transit through the planet’s most strategic strait economically unsustainable. Freedom of navigation is no longer a given, but a hard-won achievement requiring specialized capabilities, diplomatic credibility, and a constant presence.
On a geopolitical level, the crisis has accelerated the transition towards a conflict-prone and fragmented multipolarity. Washington has discovered the limits of its power projection, Europe has displayed strategic ambitions devoid of critical mass, whilst Russia and China have successfully exploited the vacuum to their advantage.
Italy finds itself at a crossroads. It can passively endure the effects of the crisis—with costs already estimated in the billions of euros and a downward revision of economic growth—or assert an active role, founded upon concrete capabilities and a diplomatic credibility that no other Western actor can boast in equal measure.
The answer can only be the latter. Italy possesses the most advanced MCM capabilities within NATO, a history of neutrality in the Gulf dating back to the 1987–1988 mission, and open diplomatic channels with all key actors: Tehran, Moscow, Beijing, and New Delhi. This unique combination of technical excellence, legal legitimacy, and political credibility places Rome in a position not merely to participate, but to lead or co-lead the clearance mission in the Strait.
The most profound lesson of this crisis, however, is systemic in nature: energy security, digital sovereignty, and economic prosperity now converge within a single domain—the sea—and the Navy (Marina Militare) is its indispensable custodian. Investing in a modern naval force, equipped with specialized personnel and advanced platforms, is not merely a defense budget choice, it is a strategic imperative for the survival and prosperity of the nation in the 21st century. Hormuz has made this an issue that can no longer be deferred.
Rear Adm. Roberto Domini (Ret.) served 41 years as an Italian Navy Staff Officer, commanding ships and naval bases. A Royal Naval College graduate, he chaired Maritime Strategy and Naval History at the Naval Staff College in Livorno and Venezia. He worked as defense diplomat in Egypt and Croatia. Currently, he directs the CESMAR research center, lectures globally on geopolitics, and publishes widely on maritime strategy and geopolitics.
Citations
[1] Oliva P.B., “Perché si parla dello Stretto di Hormuz,” DiRE, National News Agency, 15 June 2025, https://www.dire.it/15-06-2025/1159292-perche-tutti-parlano-dello-stretto-di-hormuz-cosa-succede-davvero-e-cosa-rischia-il-mondo/.
[2] Evangelisti A., “Operation Epic Fury e l’overstretch americano: quando la guerra lampo diventa palude strategica,” Geopolitica.info, 13 March 2026, https://geopolitica.info/operation-epic-fury-e-loverstretch-americano-quando-la-guerra-lampo-diventa-palude-strategica/.
[3] Various Authors, CESMAR 004, L’Italia e la marittimità: evoluzione strategico-dottrinaria, Pathos Ed, Turin, 2023, p. 316.
[4] CESMAR Editorial Staff, “Il Mediterraneo allargato: una visione strategica per l’Italia,” Cesmar.it, Bussola no. 43, February 2025, https://cesmar.it/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/BUSSOLA-NR-43-MEDITERRANEO-ALLARGATO.pdf.
[5] Domini R., “L’ammiraglio Roberto Domini: per l’Italia intervenire a Hormuz è questione di interesse nazionale,” InsideOver, 28 April 2026, https://it.insideover.com/guerra/lammiraglio-roberto-domini-per-litalia-intervenire-a-hormuz-e-questione-di-interesse-nazionale.html.
[6] OHIMag Editorial Staff, “OHiMag daily global maritime geopolitical forecast,” 5 May 2026, https://www.ohimag.com/sintesi-giornaliera-di-geopolitica-e-relazioni-internazionali/sintesi-giornaliera-del-5-maggio-2026.
[7] Molteni M., “Hormuz: tempesta sullo stretto,” AnalisiDifesa, 14 March 2026, https://www.analisidifesa.it/2026/03/hormuz-tempesta-sullo-stretto/.
[8] Fabey M., “Iran conflict 2026: US destroyer disables Iranian cargo ship to enforce blockade,” Janes, 20 April 2026, https://www.janes.com/defence-intelligence-insights/defence-news/weapons/iran-conflict-2026-us-destroyer-disables-iranian-cargo-ship-to-enforce-blockade.
[9] Boccellato P., “Stretto di Hormuz, l’Iran sequestra due navi MSC. C’entra lo spoofing?,” CyberSecurity Italia, 26 April 2026, https://www.cybersecitalia.it/stretto-di-hormuz-liran-sequestra-due-navi-msc-centra-lo-spoofing/63478/.
[10] OHIMag Editorial Staff, “OHiMag daily global maritime geopolitical forecast,” ohimag.com, 7 May 2026, https://www.ohimag.com/sintesi-giornaliera-di-geopolitica-e-relazioni-internazionali/sintesi-giornaliera-del-7-maggio-2026.
[11] Ibidem.
[12] OHIMag Editorial Staff, “OHiMag daily global maritime geopolitical forecast,” ohimag.com, 12 May 2026, https://www.ohimag.com/sintesi-giornaliera-di-geopolitica-e-relazioni-internazionali/sintesi-giornaliera-del-12-maggio-2026.
[13] HIMag Editorial Staff, “OHiMag daily global maritime geopolitical forecast,” ohimag.com, 15 May 2026, https://www.ohimag.com/sintesi-giornaliera-di-geopolitica-e-relazioni-internazionali/sintesi-giornaliera-del-15-maggio-2026.
[14] OHIMag Editorial Staff, “OHiMag daily global maritime geopolitical forecast,” ohimag.com, 18 May 2026, https://www.ohimag.com/sintesi-giornaliera-di-geopolitica-e-relazioni-internazionali/sintesi-giornaliera-del-18-maggio-2026.
[15] Scott O., “US has ‘burned through’ billions of dollars’ worth of critical weapons supplies in the Iran war, report claims,” Independent, 24 April 2026, https://ca.news.yahoo.com/us-burned-billions-dollars-worth-084420530.html.
[16] Bryanski G., “Exclusive-Russia to halt Kazakhstan’s oil flows to Germany via Druzhba, sources say,” Internazionale, 21 April 2026, https://www.internazionale.it/ultime-notizie-reuters/2026/04/21/exclusive-russia-to-halt-kazakhstan-s-oil-flows-to-germany-via-druzhba-sources-say-2.
[17] Rampini F., “La Cina e il grande trucco delle «raffinerie indipendenti» con cui sfida gli Usa: «Sul petrolio iraniano sanzioni senza valore»,” Corriere della Sera, 4 May 2026, https://www.corriere.it/oriente-occidente-federico-rampini/26_maggio_04/gioco-cina-petrolio-iraniano-113275f8-fe6d-4c5f-8302-a8dd59bddxlk.shtml.
[18] Schneider F., “The UAE’s OPEC Exit Leaves the Gulf Further Adrift,” Middle East Council on Global Affairs, 5 May 2026, https://mecouncil.org/blog_posts/the-uaes-opec-exit-leaves-the-gulf-further-adrift/.
[19] idharth Kaushal and Dan Marks, “The US Blockade of Hormuz: Who Holds the Advantage?,” RUSI, 5 May 2026, https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/us-blockade-hormuz-who-holds-advantage.
[20] Kyriakidis E., “Naval blockade vs. maritime interdiction operation,” Strategy International, 8 May 2026, https://strategyinternational.org/2026/05/08/publication265/.
[21] Del Frate C., “Seajewel, per l’esplosione sulla petroliera aperta a Genova inchiesta per terrorismo. Cosa sappiamo,” Corriere della Sera, 19 February 2025, https://www.corriere.it/cronache/25_febbraio_19/seajewel-per-l-esplosione-sulla-petroliera-aperta-a-genova-inchiesta-per-terrorismo-3ceee634-327d-43fc-9539-5fa800899xlk.shtml.
[22]Various Authors, “QatarEnergy extends force majeure until mid-June 2026,” Edison, 27 March 2026, https://www.edison.it/en/qatarenergy-extends-force-majeure-until-mid-june-2026.
[23] Various Authors, “Scenari geopolitici Ohimag,” cesmar.it, 20 April 2026, https://cesmar.it/scenari-geopolitici-26/.
[24] Vianello M., “L’ammiraglio Vianello: così i cacciamine italiani possono liberare lo Stretto di Hormuz,” InsideOver, 2 May 2026, https://it.insideover.com/guerra/lammiraglio-vianello-cosi-i-cacciamine-italiani-possono-liberare-lo-stretto-di-hormuz.html.
[25] Domini R., Op. cit.
[26] Caffio F., “Quale accordo per riaprire Hormuz. L’analisi di Caffio,” formiche.net, 7 May 2026.
[27] Domini R., “Sminamento dello Stretto di Hormuz: perché l’Italia ha diritto al comando della missione,” InsideOver, 5 May 2026, https://it.insideover.com/guerra/sminamento-dello-stretto-di-hormuz-perche-litalia-ha-diritto-al-comando-della-missione.html.
[28] CESMAR Editorial Staff, Il Mediterraneo allargato: una visione strategica per l’Italia, Bussola no. 43, February 2025, https://cesmar.it/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/BUSSOLA-NR-43-MEDITERRANEO-ALLARGATO.pdf.
Featured Image: SOUTH CHINA SEA (June 28, 2024) – The Independence-variant littoral combat ship USS Mobile (LCS 26), transits the South China Sea with the Italian Carrier Strike Group consisting of the aircraft carrier ITS Cavour (CVH 550), flagship of the Italian Navy’s Fleet, center, and the Carlo Bergamini-class FREMM Frigate ITS Alpino (F 594), front, while conducting bilateral operations in the South China Sea. (U.S. Navy photo by Lt. j.g. Akari Yarrell)
Discover more from Center for International Maritime Security
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
