On April 25, 2026, Tehran did not launch missiles or announce a new round of negotiations, but instead pushed the Strait of Hormuz back into the global spotlight through a seemingly "procedural" statement. Iranian Islamic Parliament member Behnam Seyyedi publicly announced that Iran has developed a "comprehensive plan" for the Strait of Hormuz to implement "more systematic management" of this global oil transit chokepoint—covering everything from the name on paper to real-world transit permits, all included within Iranian rules.

According to Seyyedi, this comprehensive plan begins with the narrative control: in all correspondence and commercial documents related to the relevant waters, only the name "Persian Gulf" is recognized, while all other names are rejected; more critically, vessels and ships sailing in the waters related to the Strait of Hormuz must obtain Iranian permission in the future. Coupled with his repeated emphasis on "the sovereignty of the Strait of Hormuz will be fully in the hands of Iran and belongs solely to the Islamic Republic of Iran," this is no longer just a symbolic assertion of sovereignty, but a tightening of overall control from names to transit rights.

For a passage that carries about one-fifth of the world's oil transport, this shift from "verbal threats" to a "comprehensive plan" is sufficient in itself to rewrite the narrative foundation of risk pricing. Any uncertainty regarding the Strait of Hormuz will first be reflected through expected changes in oil prices, freight rates, and insurance costs, which in turn shift international perceptions of energy supply security. When investors reassess the safety of this chokepoint, typically not only is the risk premium for crude oil and shipping assets raised, but various risk assets, including stocks, credit assets, and even cryptocurrencies, often respond collectively with rising correlations and amplified volatility in these geopolitical events—if ripples appear on the surface of Hormuz, the mood of global asset markets is unlikely to remain calm.

20% of Oil Choked: The Chain Reactions of Strait Changes

The trouble with the Strait of Hormuz lies in its almost nonexistent "spare tire." This narrow waterway connects the Persian Gulf on one end and the Arabian Sea on the other, serving as the essential route for major oil-producing countries along the Persian Gulf to export crude oil and liquefied natural gas to global markets. On the map, it is just a thin line, but in reality, it is one of the main valves of the global energy system.

Estimates long cited by multiple institutions show that about one-fifth of global oil transport passes through here. This is not an abstract proportion, but represents a "rigid upper limit" drawn for the world energy system: any policy changes, military friction, or technical obstacles targeting this waterway are not merely local fluctuations but direct impacts on global supply-side expectations. The market is well aware that as long as that 20% appears "not so secure" even at a psychological level, the pricing system is likely to be disrupted.

The first link in the chain is the cost of navigation itself. Once Iran's push for "more systematic management" is seen as tightening transit rules—whether it involves permit approvals, vessel inspections, or additional scrutiny of the identities and destinations of naval vessels—tanker companies will preemptively add a "Hormuz premium" to their quotes. Alternatives to reroute exist technically, but this means longer journeys, higher fuel consumption, and time costs, all of which are factored into the price of each barrel of oil exported.

The second link is risk pricing. As the uncertainty of passage increases, shipping insurance companies will first raise the premiums for operations in the relevant waters—not because tankers have been hit or seized, but simply because the "possibility" itself incurs costs. Freight rates follow suit, while spot and futures markets add thicker geopolitical risk premiums in their quotes: buyers are willing to pay more for that barrel of oil "to arrive on time." Once oil prices increase with such structural risks, the transmission to energy costs and transportation costs in various countries will inevitably raise broader inflation expectations, prompting businesses and consumers to adjust their behavior even before receiving higher bills.

The third link is the psychological "re-pricing." Hormuz is seen as a strategic chokepoint for global energy security, in part because there is more than just Iran as a competing party. The United States and its allies have long maintained military presence in this region under the banner of "freedom of navigation," whereas Iran emphasizes that the sovereignty of the Strait "only belongs to the Islamic Republic of Iran." The confrontation between the two sides in legal narratives and military deployments means that every adjustment of rules or escalation in wording is perceived by the market as a prelude to misjudgment and escalation risks. This high sensitivity magnifies shocks that would otherwise be limited to the shipping and energy sectors into a re-evaluation of cross-asset risks.

For this reason, Iran's every maneuver regarding the "Hormuz card" sounds particularly jarring. Since the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Tehran has consistently claimed sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, frequently using threats to "block the Strait" as a deterrent and negotiation lever in the face of U.S. sanctions or military pressure. Historically, the waters have seen incidents of ships being attacked, seized, and military confrontations, leaving a clear memory in the market: verbal threats do not necessarily immediately translate into a real blockade, but prices will respond first.

This time, the difference lies in the transition from "threatened blockade" to a "comprehensive management plan." When lawmaker Behnam Seyyedi announced on April 25, 2026, that Iran had developed a comprehensive management plan for the Strait of Hormuz, emphasizing that vessels must obtain Iranian permission and that sovereignty "will be fully held by Iran," the market heard a warning of institutionalized, normalized management rather than an emotional outburst. For that 20% of oil trapped at the Strait's doorstep, this means that in future episodes of tension, Iran has more actionable "gray space" to exert pressure—while global energy prices and inflation expectations will inevitably have to account for this new tool in their cost calculations.

From Verbal Threats to Written Plans: Iran's Strengthened Control in the Strait

This time, Iran did not merely remain at the threat level of "blocking the Strait if the situation escalates." On April 25, 2026, Behnam Seyyedi announced a "comprehensive management plan" for the Strait of Hormuz that had already been "formed"—in both wording and content, it deliberately created distance from past scattered threats.

According to publicly available information, this "comprehensive plan" initially extends to the paper-based world. Seyyedi emphasized through the Iranian Mehr news agency that the plan makes "specific arrangements and stipulations" for all official correspondence and business documents related to the Strait of Hormuz: at the document level, relevant parties are required to only use the term "Persian Gulf," while any other appellations are not accepted. Iran has formalized its long-sensitive geopolitical nomenclature dispute within a management framework targeted at this key waterway, transforming the struggle for symbols into institutional clauses.

The more substantive aspect points to the navigation rights of ships and naval vessels. According to the same public source, this plan proposes that vessels and ships sailing in the waters related to the Strait of Hormuz must obtain Iranian permission. Even if details of execution are not immediately visible, the phrase "must obtain permission" has already drawn a new boundary in the existing narratives of international navigation—Iran is no longer just issuing threats to "block" in times of crisis but is beginning to illustrate a vision of an order in which "permission must be sought before passage."

Above this arrangement, Seyyedi offered the most signal-filled statement: the sovereignty of the Strait of Hormuz will be fully held in Iran's hands, belonging only to the Islamic Republic of Iran. In the past, Tehran has also claimed sovereignty over the Strait, but mostly in conjunction with U.S. sanctions and regional conflicts, serving as a bargaining chip in temporary geopolitical crises. This time, "sovereignty completely in Iran’s hands" is positioned alongside "more systematic management" and "comprehensive plans" in the same sentence, shifting discourse from a declaration of symbolic sovereignty towards depicting specific governance boundaries.

This shift also hints at the institutional implications behind it. The Iranian Islamic Parliament possesses legislative and supervisory authority over major national security and foreign policy matters, meaning such comprehensive management plans are not merely the personal proposals of individual lawmakers but exist within a space to be continued and encapsulated within legal and policy processes. The external community can hardly determine how far this plan will go, but it at least provides Iran with a pre-established "rule-based" shell for any future hardline actions in Hormuz.

If the previous Hormuz resembled a "blockade button" pressed only during rounds of heightened U.S.-Iran confrontation, this time, Iran attempts to tell a different story: the Strait is not threatened with closure only during crises but is daily under a management narrative defined by Iran that includes naming, granting permissions, and asserting absolute sovereignty. For the outside world, the difference lies in facing storms that come and go, while now needing to adapt to a system of rules that could be activated at any time.

Freedom of Navigation Collides with Sovereignty Assertion: The New Focus of U.S.-Iran Games

When Iran rewrites the Strait of Hormuz from a "chip that can overturn the board at any moment" to a "territorial sea that must be approved by Iran for access," the first structural contradiction it touches upon is one that already exists: on one side is the sovereignty of the Strait as declared by Iran—"fully in the hands of Iran, solely belongs to the Islamic Republic of Iran"—while on the other side is the long-enshrined principle of "freedom of navigation" upheld by the United States and its allies in critical waters such as the Persian Gulf—opposing any coastal nation from overly restricting international passage through domestic laws or unilateral declarations. These two logics previously avoided confrontation in gray areas, but Seyyedi’s assertion that "vessels and ships must obtain Iranian permission" has physically pushed them onto a collision course.

This collision is not only a legal textual dispute but also a clash in methods of power projection. U.S. and allied military presence in the Persian Gulf essentially maintains a form of routine patrol that does not require approval from coastal countries for individual cases; Iran now attempts to declare that even in one of the most important oil transit passages globally, through which around one-fifth of global oil transportation occurs, the questions of who can enter and exit and in what capacity must fall under its "more systematic management." The narrative shift from "international waterways, free passage" to "Iranian permission, Iranian naming" will be viewed by the U.S. as a challenge to existing operational paradigms.

Caught between these two logics are all the oil-producing countries along the Persian Gulf. Their crude oil and natural gas exports are highly dependent on Hormuz as the only maritime outlet; if the passage is blocked, both financial and social stability will be rapidly jeopardized. At the same time, in terms of security, they heavily rely on the military presence of the United States and Western nations, hoping that the latter will provide "last insurance" during regional tensions. The result is that the Strait of Hormuz is tightly woven into a web of dual realities for these nations: their economic lifeline depends on this waterway, while their security structure is determined by the trajectory of U.S.-Iran confrontations.

In this structure, the phrase "must obtain Iranian permission" no longer merely represents Tehran's stance on public sovereignty but targets the nerve center of U.S. and ally naval operations. Especially when this statement extends to warships and intelligence vessels, the question becomes sharp: will the U.S. accept submitting navigation requests to Iran? If not, will it continue to navigate under the name of "freedom of navigation"? And will Iran perceive this "passing without requesting" as a denial of its sovereignty or temporarily tolerate it on a tactical level? Each option sets the stage for possible friction paths.

What complicates matters further is that Seyyedi’s mention of "vessels and ships" lacks detailed distinctions in public statements, while in actual maritime contexts, grey areas abound between warships, intelligence vessels, and commercial ships. Does a vessel flying a commercial flag but carrying electronic reconnaissance equipment count as an "intelligence vessel"? Does an auxiliary vessel nominally on a supply mission require separate permission if it is actually providing support to a warship? Is a commercial tanker engaged in a temporary course change, coming close to an Iranian patrol boat, in "normal maneuver" or "suspicious approach"? The lack of clearly defined rules often marks the starting point for misjudgments to occur.

Historical experiences have already shown that this body of water is not easily tamed by written terms. The Strait of Hormuz and its surrounding areas have seen numerous close encounters and seizure events between warships, patrol boats, and commercial vessels, illustrating that in an environment of dense navigation, confrontational mentalities, and asymmetric tactics, even the tone of a radio call or the accelerated approach of a escort vessel can be magnified into "provocation" or "reconnaissance." When Iran attempts to cover this area with "comprehensive sovereignty + permission systems," while the U.S. insists on its existing position of "not recognizing excessive restrictions by coastal countries," any technical operational slip-up can quickly become embedded in a narrative framework of great power confrontation.

For Gulf coastal states, this amplified risk is equally difficult to sidestep. They hope Iran will not create a real "closure" scenario in Hormuz while also hoping the U.S. will not turn "freedom of navigation operations" into an actual military confrontation; but they cannot change the reality that once U.S.-Iran tensions escalate over the "permission" issue, it will be their energy fleets that first face interruptions or rerouting. Thus, the Strait of Hormuz becomes not only a nerve ending for the U.S. and Iran but also a minefield that the regional countries must tread cautiously.

When the Iranian Islamic Parliament, an institution with legislative and supervisory powers over crucial national security and foreign policy matters, is drawn into the narrative of the Hormuz management plan, this game is endowed with a longer time dimension. It is no longer merely a temporary threat of blockade during a crisis but a set of rules that may be repeatedly cited, revised, or even upgraded in the future. For the U.S. camp insisting on freedom of navigation and for Gulf oil-producing countries sensitive to export channels, this means that the struggle between the U.S. and Iran over "sovereignty" and "passage" has transitioned from ad hoc events to deeper institutional and normative waters.

Oil Prices Fluctuate: How Risk Aversion Transmits to Crypto Markets

When Iran alters the verbal threat of "blocking the Strait" into a "comprehensive plan" that can be repeatedly cited in parliamentary and diplomatic arenas, what comes to traders' minds is not legal text but oil price trends.

The market has a well-tested instinctive response to geopolitical tensions in the Middle East: before boats are actually stopped or oil flows diminish, it starts pricing in supply risks on the futures market. Historically, whenever tensions around Hormuz escalate, oil prices often rise in advance, accompanied by increased freight and insurance costs, while volatility spikes— even if there is no immediate significant change in the actual flow of goods, prices begin to pay premiums for the "possibility of future issues."

Once oil prices are no longer short-term spikes but show more sustained upward trends, it becomes not just an issue of energy companies' profits but directly raises global inflation expectations. For major central banks, higher and more persistent inflation expectations imply that monetary policy paths may be forced to adjust: a stance that could previously be cautious or even relaxed now shifts to be more vigilant or even tight. This change effectively represents a repricing of the global liquidity environment—costs of funds, risk compensation requirements, and asset valuation frameworks will be rewritten accordingly.

In such a macro repricing cycle, the collective sentiment of traditional risk assets often moves in high synchrony. Global equities, credit markets, and foreign exchange markets repeatedly follow the same script during similar geopolitical risk events: assets seen as safe havens rise, while risk assets either fall under pressure or see amplified volatility in the short term, which leads to back-and-forth pricing. Risk appetite does not merely change on a single asset line but spreads throughout the market in the form of "rearranging of asset portfolios."

Cryptocurrency assets rarely manage to "insulate" during these times. Across multiple historical phases, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin have shown high correlation with risk assets like U.S. stocks, especially during macro shock events, acting more like leveraged emotional amplifiers: when risk appetite is hit, they drop more sharply; when risk aversion narratives rise, rebounds are also more fierce. For many funds, crypto markets are just one segment of the "global risk asset basket," and reductions or increases in holdings are inherently difficult to decouple from equity markets and credit markets.

Thus, every whisper of "wind and cry" above Hormuz can potentially be amplified into a long shadow in the crypto market—not because something happened on-chain, but because global capital is reassessing oil prices and inflation expectations. At the level of investment portfolios, when energy risks and geopolitical uncertainties come into view, most institutions prefer to first shrink their total risk exposure before discussing how much to allocate to cryptocurrencies, rather than doubling down on a high volatility item within macro uncertainty.

What must temper emotions is that, to date, the "Hormuz comprehensive plan" put forth by Iran remains primarily at the level of sovereignty assertion and management frameworks—emphasizing that sovereignty fully belongs to Iran, only recognizing the name "Persian Gulf," and asserting that vessels and ships require permission, without reliable tariff standards or blockade timelines among the details. In other words, this round of market tension is more an anticipation of "possible future escalation paths" being priced in, rather than a response to specific restrictions that have already been implemented.

For participants in the cryptocurrency market, such anticipation-driven impacts are precisely what can easily be over-emotionally interpreted: every spike in oil prices or every piece of news about Hormuz might be seen as a signal of trend reversal. However, based on current information, a more rational response is to view it as a test of macro sentiment and liquidity expectations—crypto markets are still treated as part of risk assets, and whether they can endure this round of "energy panic" depends not on a single narrative but on how the entire global asset portfolio queues up between fear and greed.

What Signals to Watch Next: Plan Implementation, Military Actions, and Market Pricing

The "comprehensive management plan" proposed by Seyyedi currently resembles a blank check being held high. Research briefs have pointed out: the specific legal document names and formal implementation pathways for this plan have yet to be publicly disclosed; it is unclear whether it will be an executive order, departmental regulation, or if it needs to ascend to the level of law. There is no authoritative information indicating whether this plan requires a full parliamentary vote or is to be decided by the Supreme National Security Council. The lack of verifiable supplemental statements from the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs implies that certain military execution aspects—such as who will enforce the permits and how violations will be defined—remain unresolved questions. Even the most sensitive pricing issues do not currently have reliable public information indicating that Iran has begun collecting tolls, let alone any details about differentiated charges by country.

In this information vacuum, the first layer to monitor is the "procedural signals" within Iran:
● Whether there are officially labeled documents specifying name and power levels, rather than just statements from individual lawmakers;
● Whether the Iranian Islamic Parliament intervenes through special committees, inquiries, or additional statements—its supervisory and legislative powers over national security and foreign policy will determine whether this plan remains a political posture or moves towards codified rules;
● Whether the highest levels of national security are publicly mentioned, once linked, the market tends to view it as part of the overall national strategy rather than merely a speech from individual politicians.

The second layer involves "physical signals" in the Strait. The real risk in Hormuz has never lay in the words themselves, but rather in how close ships are to one another:
● Whether Iran significantly strengthens the frequency and scope of inspections of transiting vessels, even if just routine "identity verification," as it becomes the norm, friction of passage shifts from expectation to reality;
● Whether naval, coast guard, or other law enforcement forces increase military exercises, patrols, or escort activities near Hormuz, especially visible actions close to main shipping lanes would be regarded by opponents as "testing boundaries";
● Whether the interaction methods with ships from other countries change—more aggressive radio calls, demands to slow down, change course, or temporarily anchor, all of which might be interpreted by the market as Iran reshaping the order in the Strait through "procedures."

Even without formally announcing new restrictions, changes in behavior patterns at sea will start to substantiate the risk premium for Hormuz.

The third layer is the "pricing signals" given by asset prices themselves. For investors and traders, news is merely the opening act; what needs watching are several hard indicators:
● Oil price term structure: whether near-month contracts maintain rising premiums over later months reflects if short-term supply concerns have been written into prices, rather than just emotional fluctuations;
● Shipping and insurance costs: if the freight and premiums for relevant Middle Eastern shipping routes show sustained increases, it indicates that carriers are beginning to price in Hormuz risks, rather than treating it as a temporary media event;
● Global risks asset links: whether correlations and volatility levels between stocks, credit assets, and crypto assets are synchronously amplified—the research and historical experiences point to global risk assets often being "dumped" together during significant geopolitical risks and macro uncertainty events, with crypto markets being treated as the high volatility portion to be cut first in a portfolio.

Based on this, several scenarios can be roughly sketched to help frame your positions, rather than simply following market pushes:

● Scenario One: Tense but Controllable
The plan progresses slowly on the legal level, remaining more in language and symbolic actions; Iran strengthens sovereign rhetoric but maintains a controllable pace of inspections and military exercises, without creating a new normal. Oil price risk premiums are limited in elevation, term structures occasionally tighten but quickly retreat, and shipping and insurance quotes see only minor adjustments. For the crypto market, this resembles a round of "emotional testing"—as part of risk assets, its volatility may be amplified temporarily, but overall, it still fits into the larger framework of global liquidity and risk preferences, unlikely to independently change the medium to long-term trajectory based on Hormuz narratives.

● Scenario Two: Normalized Passage Frictions
Iran's requirements for permits and inspections gradually "land," frequency of vessel checks and short stops become regular occurrences, yet without systemic blockages. The energy market begins to price for "chronic resistance": oil price centers and freight and premium levels stay elevated, term structures long remain tight, and companies' and countries' expectations for energy costs are re-benchmarking. For crypto assets, this translates to higher macro uncertainty: on one hand, risk appetite is under pressure, correlations rise, and drawdowns amplify; on the other hand, the convergence of geopolitical conflicts with inflation and supply concerns might attract part of the funds to consider crypto as a hedging tool—resulting neither in straightforward positive nor negative impacts but rather more intense bidirectional volatility.

● Scenario Three: Misjudgment Escalation
If a serious misjudgment occurs near Hormuz, provoking high-intensity confrontations or even local conflicts, energy risk premiums will leap instantly: oil prices, freight, and insurance costs will spike simultaneously, and global risk assets will enter a typical "de-leveraging mode." In this scenario, crypto assets will almost inevitably be treated as high β risk assets facing swift sell-offs, with correlations with stocks and credit products sharply rising. Only after the first wave of liquidity squeeze concludes might there be a chance for some assets to be repackaged as "long-term hedging vehicles" in secondary narratives, but that would be a farther chapter.

Returning to the present, whether Iran's "comprehensive management plan" is a bargaining chip or a blueprint for the new order in Hormuz over the next few years is not found in the emotions of social media, but in how the aforementioned three sets of signals evolve. For traders, a more pragmatic strategy is to position themselves as observers in this geopolitical pricing experiment: monitoring whether the system takes shape, observing if behavior changes in the Strait, and measuring the extent to which the market has paid the "Hormuz premium." The crypto market is merely one high-volatility unit on this global asset table, and its capacity to navigate through this energy and security narrative shock will ultimately depend on these specific signals, rather than some sensationalist headline.

Join our community to discuss and get stronger together!
Official Telegram group: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。