The Hormuz blockade is making the world pay for the war together German shipping giant Hapag Lloyd has just revealed that the Middle East conflict and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz have put approximately $600 million in additional cost pressure on the company in the second quarter alone, mainly from fuel, insurance, warehousing, route diversion, and inland transportation. This is actually more worth paying attention to than the rise in oil prices themselves. Once Hormuz is unable to operate normally for a long time, the global economy will not only face energy shortages, but also a decrease in the efficiency of the entire trade chain. Ship detours mean that the same ship can make fewer voyages in a year. An increase in insurance premiums means that the cost of capital for each batch of goods increases, and longer transportation times force companies to increase inventory and operating funds. This means that global trade requires more money and longer time to complete the same amount of transportation as before. And this loss will not only remain on the shipping company's account. Refining, chemical, manufacturing, and retail industries will gradually bear higher transportation and energy costs, which will eventually be transmitted to consumers. For Asia and Europe, which rely on imported energy, the impact is particularly evident. Energy and transportation costs will rise together, suppressing economic growth and making it more difficult for inflation to come down. The easing that central banks were originally prepared for will also become more challenging. So if Hormuz is locked down for a long time, it will no longer cause an ordinary oil price shock, but a global efficiency loss. Corporate profits are being squeezed, consumers are paying higher prices, governments around the world are facing greater inflation and fiscal pressure, and ultimately the whole world is paying for a regional war. There are conflicts between Iran and the United States that can be discussed, fought, or resolved through diplomatic and military means, but Hormuz is responsible for one of the world's most important energy and trade transportation. The large number of ships, goods, and energy passing through here have no direct relationship with the United States or even the war itself. Turning international shipping channels into bargaining chips essentially ties the economic interests of other countries and ordinary people to the negotiating table. Iran can certainly be said to be a countermeasure in war, but for a sovereign country, having the ability to influence global trade does not mean that it should use this ability to make the world bear its own war costs. Especially when the blockade of waterways is ultimately used to exchange for the lifting of sanctions, asset unfreezing, compensation, or other political conditions, the problem becomes even more serious. Because this would create a very dangerous demonstration, as long as one masters the throat of global trade and has the ability to make other countries bear sufficient economic losses, they can force other countries to make concessions by creating global costs. So to be honest, it's really hard for me to understand. Some countries usually emphasize that they won't back down in the face of coercion, but when faced with Iran's blockade of Hormuz and use global trade and energy supply as bargaining chips, they can only negotiate on how to meet the conditions and restore navigation in the end. Diplomatic negotiations are certainly not a problem, but what should be clearly condemned is using global shipping and the global economy as bargaining chips to increase one's negotiating price. If such behavior ultimately yields significant political benefits, then the impact of the Hormuz blockade may go far beyond just a few months of high oil prices and shipping costs. Can Malacca also 'negotiate' once next? @Gate Crypto、 US stocks, Hong Kong stocks, South Korean stocks, gold CFD、 Predicting one-stop trading in the market