Hormuz disruption persists, trade costs rise
US President Trump maintains a ceasefire with Iran despite a clash between Iranian forces and US destroyers in the Strait of Hormuz. The UAE reported its air defenses engaged a missile and drone attack from Iran, indicating continued tensions. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has caused significant disruptions to international trade, with shipping company Maersk citing higher costs and shipment delays. Insurance companies may keep the area classified as high‑risk, leading vessels to avoid the route and keeping freight rates elevated.
5 months ago
The Strait of Hormuz remains effectively blockaded, with a fragile cease‑fire between the United States and Iran persisting amid ongoing naval clashes and missile attacks. The disruption has pushed freight rates higher, forced shipping firms such as Maersk to pass costs onto customers, and kept a significant share of global oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) off its usual route, tightening energy markets worldwide. 1
The United States, represented by President Donald Trump, maintains that a cease‑fire with Iran is still in effect, even after a recent confrontation between Iranian forces and U.S. naval destroyers in the Strait of Hormuz, for which each side blames the other. 1
On the same day, the United Arab Emirates reported that its air‑defence systems were actively engaging a missile and drone attack launched by Iran. 1
The blockage has crippled the flow of goods through the Strait, which normally transports roughly 20 % of the world’s oil and LNG. 1
Vincent Clerc, CEO of Danish shipping giant Maersk, said the company is transferring sharply higher operating costs to its customers because cargo shipments are severely delayed. He warned that even an immediate reopening of the waterway would not instantly clear the backlog or restore normal operations. 1
Insurers are likely to continue classifying the corridor as high‑risk, prompting many vessels to avoid the route. This risk perception sustains elevated freight rates and contributes to tightness in global energy markets. 1
Iran has maintained an effective blockade of the Strait since late February, following a series of attacks by U.S. and Israeli forces on Iranian targets. 1
The United States has also imposed its own blockade on Iranian ports, reporting the interception of dozens of ships. 1
Although a cease‑fire was announced in early April, under which Iran halted drone and missile strikes against Gulf states—including the UAE—only a limited number of vessels have been able to transit the Strait since that agreement. 1
The combination of ongoing military tensions, high‑risk insurance classifications, and limited vessel movements suggests that trade disruptions and elevated freight costs are likely to persist in the near term, even if diplomatic talks continue. 1
Does the Church’s teaching on peace address maritime security conflicts?
Yes—though the Church’s teaching on peace is not usually written in “maritime-only” terms, its principles clearly apply to maritime security conflicts (naval incidents, blockade-type coercion, piracy/security threats at sea, armed clashes affecting seafarers and migrants, etc.). In the sources at hand, the Church also speaks explicitly about the sea (notably the Mediterranean) as a place that should serve peace rather than violence and death.
The Catechism defines peace as “not merely the absence of war” and not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Instead, peace involves safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the practice of fraternity; it is “the tranquillity of order,” and “the work of justice” and the effect of charity.
That definition applies just as much to oceans and sea-lanes as to borders on land, because maritime conflict also threatens persons’ goods, communication, and dignity (think of attacks on ships, suffering of civilians caught in conflict, and insecurity on migration routes).
The Catechism also states that the common good requires peace—“the stability and security of a just order”—and that this presupposes that authority secures society by morally acceptable means. Peace is described as the basis for the right to legitimate personal and collective defence.
So maritime security concerns fall under the same moral categories: when force is considered, it must be evaluated within the Church’s overall framework of defending persons and the common good without undermining justice and human dignity.
Pope Francis’ address to the Diplomatic Corps uses the Mediterranean Sea as a concrete example of what happens when violence, criminal exploitation, and despair dominate: he laments that “in the last ten years the Mediterranean has turned into a great cemetery” due to tragedies continuing “due also to unscrupulous human traffickers,” including many unaccompanied minors.
He adds that the Mediterranean should instead be “a laboratory of peace,” “a place where different countries and realities can encounter each other” and where the sea is “not a tomb but a place of encounter and mutual enrichment.”
While this text is not “naval warfare policy,” it shows the Church treating sea security as a peace issue—because sea routes are where human vulnerability and conflict spill into mass suffering.
The USCCB’s Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship emphasizes that Catholics must “work to avoid war and to promote peace,” noting war is a sign that something more basic to human dignity has failed, and urging nations to prevent conflicts and resolve them by peaceful means, including reconstruction and reconciliation afterward.
More broadly, scholarship presented in the just-war discussion quotes the US bishops’ 1983 pastoral letter The Challenge of Peace as affirming that “Catholic teaching begins in every case with a presumption against war and for peaceful settlement of disputes.”
Those principles apply directly to maritime disputes: before escalation into force (e.g., dangerous maritime encounters), the Church’s logic pushes decision-makers toward negotiation, restraint, and nonviolent settlement.
The USCCB also states that the Catholic tradition recognizes just war teaching as legitimate when defending the innocent against grave evil, while warning not to lose sight of the cost of war and its harm to human life.
It further says nations have a right and obligation to defend human life and the common good against threats such as terrorism, aggression, and similar threats, and it highlights the need for moral assessment and restraint regarding the means used and respect for ethical limits on the use of force.
Maritime security conflicts—when they involve aggression against persons or grave threats—are therefore not excluded from Church consideration. They must be judged according to these same criteria, not treated as morally “automatic” because the arena is the sea.
From these teachings, the Church’s peace framework implies that maritime security conflict should be approached with:
In short: the Church’s teaching on peace is not confined to land-based conflicts, and the provided sources show both sea-specific moral concern (the Mediterranean) and general moral principles that apply to maritime security conflicts as well.