The draft UN resolution circulated by Bahrain, calling for "all necessary means" to secure the Strait of Hormuz, is not a strategy. It is a scream into a vacuum.
For decades, the global consensus has been built on a single, fragile premise: that international law and naval presence can "guarantee" the flow of 21 million barrels of oil per day through a 21-mile-wide choke point. The Bahraini proposal suggests that more ink on a UN document or more gray hulls in the water will solve the structural vulnerability of the global energy market.
It won't.
If you believe a resolution can stop a non-state actor with a $500 drone or a regional power with a stockpile of asymmetrical mines, you aren't paying attention to the last three years of maritime warfare. The Strait of Hormuz is not a "security challenge" to be solved; it is a permanent geographic tax on a world too slow to diversify its transit routes.
The Myth of the Necessary Means
The phrase "all necessary means" is diplomatic code for military intervention. It sounds decisive. It feels like leadership. In reality, it is the most expensive and least effective way to manage a maritime bottleneck.
I have spent years analyzing the logistics of the Persian Gulf. I have seen insurers hike premiums by 400% in a single week because of a single "suspicious incident" that no amount of naval patrolling could prevent. When a VLCC (Very Large Crude Carrier) is sitting in the water, it is a 300,000-ton target. You cannot "secure" it against a swarm of fast-attack craft or shore-based missiles unless you are willing to turn the entire Gulf into a permanent, active war zone.
The "lazy consensus" argues that internationalizing the security of the Strait will deter aggression. This ignores the basic math of modern conflict.
- Cost of Offense: A few thousand dollars for a sea-based IED or a guided drone.
- Cost of Defense: Billions for carrier strike groups and Aegis-equipped destroyers.
The Bahraini resolution is effectively asking the world to subsidize a defensive shield that can be bypassed by anyone with a laptop and a grudge. We are trying to apply a 20th-century solution—large-scale naval coalitions—to a 21st-century problem of precision-guided, low-cost disruption.
International Law is a Paper Shield
The competitor article suggests that a UN mandate provides the legal "teeth" needed to act. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how power works in the Gulf.
The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) already grants ships the right of "transit passage" through international straits. Adding another resolution doesn't change the physical reality that the shipping lanes are narrow and hugged by territorial waters. When tensions spike, the "law" is the first thing to sink.
If a regional power decides to "inspect" a tanker for environmental violations—a common tactic—no UN resolution prevents the resulting two-week delay that sends Brent Crude spiking. The disruption is the point. The resolution assumes the "enemy" wants a conventional naval battle. They don't. They want a slow-motion economic strangulation that makes the cost of doing business unbearable for Western markets.
The Pipe Dream of Total Security
People often ask: "Can't we just convoy the tankers?"
This is the wrong question. The right question is: "Why are we still pretending the Strait is the only way out?"
While Bahrain pushes for UN resolutions, they are ignoring the only move that actually matters: redundancy.
- The East-West Pipeline: Saudi Arabia has the capacity to move millions of barrels to the Red Sea, bypassing Hormuz entirely.
- The Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline: This moves 1.5 million barrels per day directly to the port of Fujairah on the Indian Ocean.
True security isn't found in a UN Security Council vote. It is found in the dirt—laying more steel in the ground so that the Strait of Hormuz becomes an inconvenience rather than an existential threat. The Bahraini resolution is a distraction from the fact that regional infrastructure is still dangerously centralized.
The Brutal Truth of Insurance and Risk
Let's talk about the money, because that’s where the "security" of the Strait actually lives.
When a resolution like this is circulated, it doesn't lower risk. It signals to the market that the risk is so high it requires UN intervention. This triggers a "War Risk" surcharge from Lloyd’s of London syndicates.
I’ve watched as shipping companies realize that even with a naval escort, their hull insurance is void if they enter a designated conflict zone without paying a massive premium. The presence of more warships often increases the perceived risk for commercial operators. It creates a feedback loop of volatility.
If the goal is to stabilize energy prices, "all necessary means" is the fastest way to ensure they stay high. You don't stabilize a market by announcing you're ready to start a shooting war in the middle of its most vital artery.
Dismantling the UN Premise
The Bahraini draft hinges on the idea of collective responsibility. It sounds noble. In practice, it’s a recipe for paralysis.
Imagine a scenario where a tanker is seized. Under a UN-mandated coalition, who gives the order to fire? If the coalition includes nations with competing interests in the Gulf, the decision-making process will be slower than the speed of a torpedo. We saw this with the various task forces in the Red Sea. Some nations want to intercept missiles; others only want to provide "situational awareness."
A multi-national naval force under a vague UN banner is a paper tiger. It offers the illusion of safety without the tactical unity required to actually enforce it. It is a geopolitical theater designed to make domestic audiences feel like "something is being done."
Stop Fixing the Strait, Start Abandoning It
The unconventional advice that no one in Manama or New York wants to hear is this: Stop trying to make the Strait of Hormuz safe. It is geographically impossible to secure a waterway that narrow against modern, asymmetrical threats.
Instead of lobbying for resolutions, the focus should be on:
- Rapid-Build Pipelines: Expedited permits for bypass routes that render the Strait irrelevant.
- Strategic Reserve Decentralization: Moving storage facilities outside the Gulf, to places like Oman or the African coast.
- Digital Maritime Sovereignty: Using AI-driven, autonomous monitoring that identifies threats before they reach the choke point, rather than trying to blast them out of the water once they're there.
The Bahraini resolution is a relic of a time when naval dominance was absolute and international law meant something to the people holding the triggers. That era is over.
The Strait of Hormuz is a trap. Every billion dollars spent on naval patrols and every hour spent debating resolutions at the UN is a resource that could have been used to build the infrastructure that makes the Strait unnecessary.
Security isn't an act of force. It is an act of obsolescence.
Move the oil elsewhere, or accept that you are operating in a shooting gallery where the house always wins. The UN cannot vote away the reality of geography and the cheapness of modern explosives.
Stop looking for a resolution. Look for a bypass.
