Strait of Hormuz: Katzman Says Ground Forces Needed
March 29, 20268m read1Deep Dive
Fazen Markets Research
AI-Enhanced Analysis
Strait of HormuzIranUS militaryenergy securityGulf geopolitics
The Strait of Hormuz returned to the centre of strategic debate on 29 March 2026 when Middle East analyst Kenneth Katzman told Al Jazeera that any US objective to "open the Strait of Hormuz" could not be achieved by air power alone but would require ground forces. Katzman’s comment crystallises a wider policy dilemma for Washington: whether to accept continued disruption to commercial shipping or to contemplate a land-based military campaign that would carry significant regional and economic consequences. The strait’s strategic weight is quantifiable—roughly 20% of global seaborne oil flows through the chokepoint, a figure repeatedly cited by the International Energy Agency (IEA). For institutional investors, the combination of military rhetoric and the strait’s economic role creates transmission channels to energy markets, shipping insurance costs, and regional sovereign risk.
Katzman made his remarks on 29 March 2026 in an Al Jazeera interview discussing US policy options toward Iran; the clip is available on the Al Jazeera platform and was published the same day. The statement is notable because it frames the operational limits of air campaigns versus the capabilities required to control maritime chokepoints, echoing historical precedents where territorial control, not aerial interdiction, determined secure passage for merchant shipping. Since the 1980s, when tanker routes through the Persian Gulf were disrupted during the Tanker War, and again during the 2019 tanker incidents, the linkage between regional military activity and spikes in shipping costs and oil-forward prices has been observable.
Ground-control of a strait is a qualitatively different military objective than strikes on infrastructure. Securing the Strait of Hormuz would imply control of coastal batteries, littoral maneuver, and potentially the occupation of islands or coastal ports—tasks that require sustained presence and logistics, not episodic air sorties. In practical terms, such an operation would force Washington to reckon with rules of engagement, persistent force posture, and allied participation; absent a UN mandate, the legal and diplomatic underpinnings would be contested. The contrast between air campaigns and ground occupations also matters for duration: air campaigns can be short and punitive, while occupation missions tend to become protracted.
For capital markets, the context is clear: energy and shipping markets price in the risk of sustained disruption. The strait’s role as a transshipment funnel for crude and LNG, combined with the high density of tanker traffic, means volatility in geopolitical risk perceptions quickly translates to higher freight rates and wider premium spreads in marine insurance syllabuses such as Hull & Machinery and Protection & Indemnity (P&I). Investors tracking Gulf exposure should weigh both the strategic calculus and the historical precedents when modelling tail-risk scenarios.
Three specific datapoints anchor the assessment. First, Katzman’s remarks were broadcast on 29 March 2026 (Al Jazeera video interview). Second, the International Energy Agency reports that approximately 20% of global seaborne oil trade passes through the Strait of Hormuz; this is the single most frequently cited statistic linking the strait to global energy security (IEA). Third, historical operational scale provides a reference: the 2003 US-led Iraq invasion initially deployed roughly 150,000 US troops in the early phases of the campaign (U.S. Department of Defense historical data), illustrating the order of magnitude associated with major ground operations in the Gulf theatre.
Translating the 20% statistic into flows: if global seaborne crude and petroleum products are understood at a notional 100 million barrels per day of traded seaborne flows, 20% would imply ~20 million barrels per day (mb/d) transiting the strait—an order-of-magnitude figure that clarifies why market participants react to threats to passage. Even modest disruptions that divert 2–3 mb/d onto longer routes or into storage can have outsized effects on prompt month Brent forwards. Sensitivity analysis should therefore use scenarios such as a short-duration ‘‘transit disruption’’ (1–4 weeks), a medium-duration disruption (1–3 months), and a sustained closure (>3 months), with corresponding impacts to freight rates, insurance premia and prompt crude spreads.
Comparative data points sharpen risk calibration. A single Nimitz- or Ford-class carrier strike group typically comprises roughly 5,000–7,000 personnel and an embarked air wing of 60–90 aircraft; by contrast, a major land occupation measured in the tens of thousands of troops implies a sustained logistics footprint and base infrastructure. The difference underlines Katzman’s point that air power alone cannot replicate territorial control. For investors, the comparison matters: the cost and collateral damage profiles of air campaigns versus occupations feed into different probability distributions for energy-market shocks.
For further reading on how geopolitics maps to market outcomes, see our institutional insights on energy and geopolitics at Fazen Capital Insights.
Energy markets are the most direct channel. Given the strait’s throughput, a credible threat that increases the perceived probability of closure or effective interdiction tends to lift prompt Brent and prompt freight rates. A one-off tactical escalation historically can push front-month Brent up by multiple percentage points within days; for modelling, risk premia of 5–15% on prompt spreads are within historical bounds for serious disruption scenarios. Refinery margins for users in Asia and Europe widen as spot crude becomes scarce or insurance costs increase, with downstream operators passing through costs where contractual frameworks permit.
Shipping and marine insurance are second-order but financially material channels. War risk premiums for tanker voyages through the Gulf can multiply bunker and freight costs, and P&I clubs adjust their circulars and advice to members. In September 2019, for instance, spot tanker freight spiked when tanker attacks and seizures became prevalent; while each episode differs, underwriting behaviour and premium repricing are persistent. Asset owners with shipping exposure should quantify potential EBITDA compression for carriers operating in the region and stress test balance sheets for counterparty default under sustained premium increases.
Sovereign and corporate credit are also sensitive. Gulf producers rely on shipping receipts and forward sales; a protracted disruption could force them to use alternative logistics (e.g., pipeline reversals to Turkish or Red Sea routes), compressing netbacks. Credit spreads on regional sovereigns and state oil companies are prone to widening versus global peers—consider a comparison: in localized Gulf crises, sovereign CDS spreads for the most exposed issuers have historically widened by 50–150 basis points versus pre-crisis levels, reflecting both immediate revenue risk and longer-term investor reassessment.
For thematic investors, energy security should be cross-referenced with our research on geopolitical premium modelling at Fazen Capital Insights, which integrates historical volatility, shipping costs, and sovereign credit metrics into scenario frameworks.
Operationally, a ground campaign to secure a strait entails open-ended risks: insurgency, asymmetric attacks on supply lines, and the need for a permissive regional basing environment. Militarily, achieving “open” passage for commercial shipping is not a one-time event; it requires persistent patrols, mine countermeasure operations, and port security—activities that increase exposure to attrition and political blowback. From a fiscal standpoint, the mobilisation and sustainment costs would be large, and they would compound reputational and diplomatic costs across allies and regional partners.
Market-side risks include feedback loops that amplify initial shocks. For example, precautionary buying by refiners and trading houses can take months to unwind, and freight markets can remain elevated even after military tensions de-escalate because of re-routing and capacity constraints. Counterparty risk rises as insurance costs and voyage times increase; banks financing shipping and commodity traders may require higher collateral or revise haircuts on receivables, compressing liquidity for trading firms.
Political risks are high: an extended ground operation would shift regional alignments and could provoke state or non-state retaliation beyond the immediate theatre. The diplomatic cost—loss of overflight rights, base access negotiations, and increased isolation for local partners—would weigh on long-term stability and on creditworthiness for regional sovereigns. For investors, the risk calibration should therefore incorporate both acute price impacts and chronic fiscal/credit implications over a 12–36 month horizon.
In the near term (0–3 months), markets will most likely price in elevated volatility rather than a deterministic closure of the strait. Investors should expect spikes in freight rates and insurance premia following provocative statements and episodic kinetic events, but sustained price dislocations require either a physical closure or a protracted campaign that the international community does not contest. Historical precedent suggests short, sharp price moves are more likely than long-term supply shocks absent an occupation or blockade with broad regional buy-in.
Over a medium horizon (3–12 months), scenarios diverge: a limited US-orchestrated maritime security operation, backed by coalition partners and with legal cover, could re-open commercial lanes more quickly than a ground occupation that lacks regional legitimacy. Conversely, a unilateral ground intervention risks an extended insurgent campaign that would keep markets jittery and raise fiscal burdens for sponsors. Modelling should therefore use multi-path stochastic simulations rather than single-point forecasts.
For long-term strategic exposure, the increased salience of Gulf chokepoints will accelerate structural trends—diversification of LNG and crude routes, investment into strategic storage, and re-prioritisation of upstream investments away from the most transit-dependent corridors. These structural shifts will influence asset allocation decisions for energy-heavy portfolios and state-contingent sovereign holdings.
Contrary to headline narratives that treat control of the Strait of Hormuz as binary (open vs closed), Fazen Capital evaluates the strait as a continuous variable in risk modelling: partial friction, persistent insurance premia, and re-routed logistics all create multi-year drags on realisable cash flows even if physical closure is avoided. This non-binary framing changes portfolio responses—from tactical hedges in oil futures to defensive credit overlays on regional borrowers. We recommend scenario-based overlays that treat a 10–25% risk premium to freight and a 5–15% premium to prompt crude spreads as plausible under elevated tensions.
A non-obvious implication is that Western insurance market recalibration could benefit regional competitors with alternative corridors. For example, investments into pipeline capacity, storage in neutral ports, and longer-term shipping contracts with fixed-rate trampers can become strategically valuable; capital redeployed in these areas may earn convenience yields that are underappreciated by public markets. This points to inefficiencies that active managers can exploit by reweighting exposures to logistics-enhanced assets.
Finally, while ground operations are militarily feasible, their political and fiscal costs make them a low-probability, high-impact tail event with asymmetric market consequences. From an investor’s toolkit perspective, it is prudent to price in elevated volatility and to stress-test balance sheets for sustained insurance and freight premia rather than to assume immediate normalisation after tactical military actions.
Q: How likely is a US ground operation specifically to secure the Strait of Hormuz?
A: Political and logistical constraints make a full-scale ground operation a low-probability but high-impact event. Historical troop deployments with territorial objectives have required sustained international support and extensive logistics; absent explicit coalition buy-in and diplomatic cover, the US faces significant barriers. The more probable near-term outcome is increased maritime patrols, carrier presence and targeted strikes rather than a large-scale occupation.
Q: What are practical short-term hedges institutions use to insulate portfolios from Strait-of-Hormuz disruptions?
A: Institutions commonly deploy layered responses: (1) liquidity reserves to cover margin calls; (2) hedges in oil futures for 1–6 month tenors; (3) optionality via call spreads rather than outright long positions to control cost; and (4) counterparty credit stress tests for traders and shipping counterparties. Long-duration structural hedges include investments in storage and alternative route infrastructure, which can provide both economic return and insurance-like characteristics.
Q: How does control of the Strait compare historically with other chokepoints like the Suez Canal?
A: The Strait of Hormuz is more critical to global seaborne oil and LNG because of Gulf production concentration. Suez handles significant crude and container flows, but the energy sensitivity is higher for Hormuz due to the volume of refinery feedstocks and LNG shipments from the Gulf. Historically, disruptions in either corridor have different commercial remedies—rerouting around the Cape or through pipelines—but rerouting capacity has limits and cost implications that markets price quickly.
Katzman’s March 29, 2026 comments crystallise an uncomfortable truth for policymakers and markets: controlling a chokepoint like the Strait of Hormuz is a ground-intensive endeavour with sizeable economic externalities. Investors should plan for elevated volatility and structural shifts in logistics and credit risk rather than assume rapid normalisation.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.
Sponsored
Open a demo account in 30 seconds. No deposit required.
CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. You should consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money.