China, Russia and the Iran War: How Hormuz Disruption Is Reshaping Global Energy

China, Russia and the Strait of Hormuz: How the Iran War Is Reshaping Global Energy and Power

The Strait of Hormuz has become one of the clearest indicators of how far the U.S.-Iran conflict has moved beyond a direct military confrontation. Iran says the waterway will remain closed until Washington meets conditions linked to the June interim agreement, including lifting the blockade of Iranian ports, removing oil sanctions, releasing frozen Iranian assets and ending military operations and threats.

The June 17 memorandum of understanding quickly unraveled over disagreements including control of the Strait. U.S. President Donald Trump declared the agreement over on July 7, while Iran's foreign ministry later announced that it had suspended the deal. By August 19, shipping data showed that only six commodity vessels had crossed Hormuz on Tuesday, compared with a 10-day average of 11. The sharp decline highlights the continuing uncertainty surrounding one of the world's most important energy routes.

Hormuz Has Become More Than a Shipping Chokepoint

The reduction in traffic is strategically important because the Strait of Hormuz previously carried about one-fifth of global crude oil and liquefied natural gas shipments. The latest shipping figures show that the disruption is not simply a political dispute but a practical constraint on international commerce.

The impact is particularly significant for China, the world's largest oil importer. Reuters reported that two major Chinese state-owned shipping companies, COSCO Shipping Energy Transportation and China Merchants Energy Shipping, have kept their tankers out of both the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab el-Mandeb since late July because of security concerns.

Instead, the companies have shifted toward alternative arrangements, including ship-to-ship oil transfers outside the Gulf near Fujairah in the UAE and Omani ports. The strategy allows Chinese energy supplies to continue moving while reducing exposure to the most dangerous maritime routes, although the longer and more complicated journeys are increasing transportation costs.

The change also demonstrates why the crisis cannot be measured only by the number of military attacks. Shipowners must consider war-risk insurance, crew safety, delays, freight rates and the reliability of cargo deliveries. Even when some vessels continue to cross the Strait, uncertainty itself can discourage normal commercial traffic.

Recent maritime incidents have added to those concerns. The UAE has accused Iran of attacking vessels operated by Abu Dhabi National Oil Company in the Strait, while the broader conflict has created additional risks for commercial shipping across the region.

China Is Protecting Its Energy Interests

China's position is especially important because of its dependence on Middle Eastern energy supplies. Beijing has a strong economic incentive to keep crude oil moving even while avoiding direct involvement in the military confrontation between Washington and Tehran.

The actions of Chinese state-owned shipping companies provide an important indication of that strategy. Rather than attempting to defend the Strait militarily, they have reduced exposure to the most dangerous routes and sought alternative ways to move energy cargoes.

That approach suggests that China's immediate priority is risk management rather than choosing sides in a formal military alliance. Beijing must protect its energy security while also avoiding unnecessary escalation with Washington.

The result could be a gradual adjustment in the way China obtains Middle Eastern energy. If the Strait remains unreliable for an extended period, Chinese companies may have stronger incentives to expand alternative shipping arrangements, diversify supply routes and increase the use of storage and offshore transfer networks.

Russia Has a Different Strategic Calculation

Russia's position is different from China's. As a major oil producer, Moscow can potentially gain greater commercial relevance when disruptions to Middle Eastern energy supplies increase uncertainty in global markets.

Higher oil prices can provide additional revenue opportunities for major producers, although Russia also faces its own export and infrastructure disruptions. This means Moscow's interests do not necessarily match those of either Beijing or Tehran.

The broader lesson is that cooperation among China, Russia and Iran should not automatically be described as a unified military bloc. Their interests overlap in some areas, particularly in challenging U.S. pressure, but their economic priorities and strategic calculations remain different.

The Hormuz crisis is therefore producing a more complicated geopolitical environment rather than a simple division between two opposing camps.

Washington's Pressure Campaign Meets a Wider Economic Contest

The United States is continuing to use sanctions and economic pressure to restrict Iran's ability to finance its military operations and maintain oil revenues.

Washington's approach creates a difficult calculation for China and other major energy consumers. Stronger sanctions may increase pressure on Tehran, but they can also raise the economic costs for companies that rely on Iranian or Middle Eastern energy supplies.

If the United States continues tightening restrictions while shipping through Hormuz remains severely disrupted, major energy importers will have stronger incentives to develop alternative supply routes and logistical arrangements.

That could gradually turn the current crisis into a broader competition over energy security, shipping networks and economic influence.

Oil Markets Are Pricing in a Longer Crisis

Energy markets are already reflecting the uncertainty. On August 19, Brent crude rose to around $91.20 a barrel while U.S. West Texas Intermediate reached about $85.10. Reuters reported that analysts see a possibility of Brent moving above $100 if disruptions continue and additional supply problems emerge.

The significance of higher oil prices goes beyond the headline figure. A prolonged disruption can also increase war-risk insurance, freight costs, delivery times and the expense of finding alternative supplies.

Those additional costs can eventually affect manufacturers, transport companies and consumers far beyond the Middle East.

Hormuz Could Reshape Global Trade Routes

The most important question is therefore not whether China or Russia will formally align themselves with Iran. The more significant issue is whether the conflict forces major economies to permanently redesign their energy and shipping strategies.

If reliable passage through Hormuz is restored relatively quickly, many of the current adjustments could remain temporary. But if uncertainty continues for months, companies may invest more heavily in alternative routes, offshore transfers, additional storage and diversified energy supplies.

That would give the Strait of Hormuz an importance that goes beyond its role as a shipping chokepoint. It could become a long-term test of how major powers respond when military conflict directly threatens global energy security.

For China, the priority will be protecting energy supplies without becoming directly involved in the war. For Russia, prolonged disruption could create both opportunities and risks in global energy markets. For the United States, maintaining pressure on Iran while limiting the wider economic consequences will remain a difficult balancing act.

The future of Hormuz will therefore be shaped not only by military developments but also by decisions made by governments, shipping companies, energy producers and financial markets. If diplomacy fails to restore reliable passage, the crisis could leave lasting changes in global energy trade and further reshape the balance of economic and strategic power.