Ship Universe is designed for maritime stakeholders: lower costs with data-backed decisions. Mobile-friendly but designed for desktop research. Data is fluid, verify critical details before acting.
Iran is considering the temporary closure of the strategic Strait of Hormuz, but the power to enact such a move lies not with parliament alone, but with the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) and, ultimately, the Supreme Leader. Here's how this decision process works and what is at stake.
Currently reviewing closure proposal submitted by parliament
Supreme Leader’s Office
Ultimate authority on national security directives
Very High (Has veto power over SNSC)
Has not issued directive; remains publicly silent
Note: Table reflects public decision-making hierarchy as of June 2025. Any closure of the strait would require alignment across these entities, with final authority residing in the Supreme Leader’s office.
Parliament Resolution: Symbolic but Limited
Iran’s Majlis (Parliament) approved a motion on June 22 urging consideration of closing the Strait in response to US airstrikes on Iranian facilities.
The resolution signals political unity but serves an advisory role only.
It reflects growing domestic pressure but does not grant legal authority to enact closure.
Supreme National Security Council (SNSC): Real Authority
The SNSC holds actual decision-making power, constitutionally empowered to impose emergency measures:
Members include the President, Parliament Speaker, Chief Justice, IRGC commander, and the SNSC Secretary.
The council convened shortly after the parliamentary vote to assess strategic, legal, and economic implications.
Any proposal from the SNSC must then be approved by Iran’s Supreme Leader.
Supreme Leader: Final Arbiter
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei retains ultimate authority over national security decisions.
SNSC recommendations are finalized only with his endorsement.
His decision will consider economic impact, diplomatic fallout, and potential military retaliation.
What’s Under Consideration by the SNSC
Strategic Signals and Retaliation Measures
The threat follows US airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan.
Lawmakers and IRGC officials view closure as a deterrent against further attacks.
Economic Costs
The strait accounts for roughly 20% of global oil and LNG trade daily. Closure would impact Iran’s own exports, too.
Global markets, notably Brent, are already pricing in disruption risk—risk premiums could surge if a formal closure is enacted.
Legal and Diplomatic Ramifications
Closure would breach UNCLOS provisions and risk international sanctions or military responses.
Major powers including China, the EU, and the US have publicly warned against disruption.
Strategic Alternatives
SNSC is evaluating asymmetric tactics—mines, missile deployments, or naval blockades—against a full shutdown.
Experts suggest limited skirmishes or mining operations may be more feasible deterrents than full closure.
Potential Global Fallout from Strait Closure Scenarios
Delays in tanker schedules, short-term insurance volatility
Emergency summits, diplomatic pressure on Iran to reopen strait
Extended Closure (1–2 weeks)
Brent and WTI may breach $100; refinery supply chains disrupted
Significant rerouting via Cape of Good Hope; spike in freight rates
Escalation of naval deployments; Gulf allies may intervene diplomatically or militarily
Prolonged Blockade (1+ month)
Global energy shock; strategic reserves tapped by IEA countries
Massive strain on container and tanker logistics; charter costs surge
Risk of regional conflict increases; potential for broader international sanctions or intervention
Note: Table reflects modeled projections based on past disruptions and current strategic vulnerabilities. Figures and impacts are illustrative of general outcomes under various closure durations.
Outlook
SNSC deliberations are ongoing with no set deadline.
The Supreme Leader’s green light is required before any measure can be executed.
Monitoring points include:
Official statements or heightened security activity from the SNSC
Movements of minesweepers, naval assets, or missile batteries
Shifts in global oil prices or insurance premiums
Public warnings or diplomatic interventions from other nations
As it stands, parliament’s vote is a strong message, but not action. The SNSC and Supreme Leader remain the decision-makers shaping Iran’s next move on this vital chokepoint. Global markets and navies are watching closely, with the potential for major disruption still on the table.
News Summary
Factor
Expanded Impact and Implications
Decision Flow
The legislative approval by Iran’s parliament is symbolic and non-binding. True authority lies with the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), which includes military and government leaders. Final action requires the explicit approval of the Supreme Leader, who holds the highest decision-making power under Iran’s constitution. This chain of authority slows immediate action but makes developments highly centralized and strategic.
Complexity of Closure
A full closure of the Strait would require coordination between naval command, legal advisors, and political leadership. The SNSC must weigh potential global backlash, loss of oil revenue, maritime safety concerns, and military readiness. Closure is not a switch that can be flipped easily—it involves cross-sector planning and layered consequences both inside and outside Iran.
Global Consequences
Disrupting the Strait of Hormuz would place 20 percent of global oil shipments at risk, sending shockwaves through energy markets. Insurance costs for tankers could skyrocket. Countries dependent on Gulf oil—including India, China, Japan, and South Korea—would feel the impact almost immediately. This raises the stakes for international diplomacy and possible naval intervention.
Strategic Messaging
Even without a full closure, the political signaling serves a purpose. Iran’s legislative and military gestures may aim to deter further attacks or pressure Western governments diplomatically. This creates uncertainty in maritime routes and introduces geopolitical risk into oil futures pricing, giving Iran leverage without direct confrontation.
Note: Summary of structural and geopolitical dynamics. Based on regional decision frameworks and current shipping vulnerabilities.
