If Hormuz Could Tell Its Story… All the Way to Malacca

Or the Brutal Focus of Geography, Interests, and the Sacrificed

Once again, in Europe—and particularly in France—we tend to view events through far too narrow a lens. What is happening today can only be understood through a global perspective rather than a purely local one. Europeans, and certainly the residents of the Paris region, do not vote in the United States, in Moscow, or in Beijing.

What appears chaotic, irrational, and incomprehensible in American foreign policy may not actually be so. Perhaps it is simply the fog surrounding a vast international game of high-stakes poker whose rules we do not yet fully understand.

For decades, the Strait of Hormuz has symbolized global energy vulnerability. A strategic passage linking the Gulf to international markets, it has become far more than a maritime route: it is a tool of power, pressure, and at times geopolitical coercion. One is entitled to question the choices of past and present leaders in the face of a reality that has never changed. Playing cards is not enough, whether the game is played with trumps or without them.

Yet observing Hormuz without relating it to the Strait of Malacca is now equivalent to seeing only half the picture. As Talleyrand famously remarked in another context, “It is worse than a mistake; it is a blunder.”

For the two straits form, in reality, a single strategic architecture:

• Hormuz primarily controls energy flows, while Malacca controls Asian industrial and commercial flows.

Between them unfolds a much broader contest:

the gradual shift of the world’s center of gravity toward Asia, the return of maritime power politics, and perhaps the quiet return of Europe to its closest natural energy supplier: Russia.

Europe Discovers, Amid Turmoil, That Geography Never Disappears

Since 2022, the European Union has sought to reduce its energy dependence on Russia. Yet this proclaimed independence has proved highly relative.

Russian gas has been replaced in part by American LNG, Qatari gas, and other Middle Eastern supplies.

In other words, Europe has not eliminated its dependence; it has merely relocated it.

This substitution comes with several limitations: structurally higher costs, greater reliance on maritime transport, increased vulnerability to strategic chokepoints, competition from Asia for LNG supplies, and the gradual deindustrialization of certain European sectors. Surprise, surprise—many seem to be discovering this only now, despite the abundance of research institutes and specialized experts dedicated to every conceivable field.

Geography, however, remains unforgiving.

Russia continues to be, for Europe, the nearest large-scale energy supplier, the most accessible by land, and historically one of the most economically competitive.

This is precisely where the Hormuz issue takes on a different dimension.

At present, every scenario remains plausible.

For several months, indirect signs of de-escalation have emerged between the United States and Iran:

• discreet mediation efforts;
• a desire to avoid a regional war;

• the need to calm energy markets;
• Western strategic fatigue.

The American president has recently referred publicly to the Islamic Republic of Iran in several statements.

A relative easing of tensions around Hormuz could relax energy markets, reduce maritime transport costs, stabilize global oil flows, and provide Europe with much-needed economic breathing space.

Paradoxically, however, such a détente could also facilitate the gradual return of a form of European “energy realism.”

The more European economies suffer from inflation, high energy costs, declining competitiveness, and social tensions, the stronger the pragmatic temptation becomes:

to return, directly or indirectly, to Russian hydrocarbons.

Not necessarily in a dramatic fashion.

More likely through:

• reprocessed LNG;
• imports routed through third countries;
• hybrid supply chains;
• technical mechanisms designed to avoid direct political visibility.

Geography often reasserts itself over ideology.

Malacca: Hormuz’s Asian Mirror

The parallel with Malacca then becomes essential.

As a result, any crisis in Hormuz creates energy pressure on Beijing, highlights Malacca’s vulnerability, and generates widespread disruptions across global industrial supply chains.

For China, this is the well-known Malacca Dilemma:

how to become a superpower while remaining dependent on maritime routes that others could potentially disrupt.

Behind the Iranian issue therefore lies the defining geopolitical reality of the twenty-first century:

the strategic rivalry between Washington and Beijing, which increasingly shapes regional crises across the globe.

Ukraine: The Risk of a Shift in the Strategic Center of Gravity

This is perhaps where the geopolitical shift becomes most visible.

If the Middle East once again becomes the primary strategic concern;

• maritime chokepoints dominate international attention;
• U.S.–China rivalry absorbs strategic resources;
• and European economies seek relief from energy pressures;

then a different scenario emerges.

Western assistance to Ukraine could slow as public opinion grows weary and becomes increasingly concerned about purchasing power—an issue exacerbated by the energy crisis. Military priorities and available resources evolve according to the economic difficulties and political constraints faced by governments.

Whatever European leaders may say publicly, pressure for some form of territorial compromise is likely to increase.

Russia would not necessarily need a total military victory.

Time, attrition, and economic constraints alone could be sufficient to consolidate part of the territorial gains achieved since 2014.

Within this geopolitical recomposition, two populations emerge as the silent losers.

The Ukrainian People

Caught in a prolonged conflict in which power politics increasingly overshadow the original moral imperative.

As Western fatigue grows;

• budgetary constraints increase;
• energy tensions persist;
• and Asian priorities take precedence;

the risk emerges of a peace born of exhaustion rather than a peace founded on justice.

The Iranian People

For behind the geopolitical calculations surrounding Hormuz lies a reality often pushed aside:

the Iranian population continues to endure sanctions, torture, growing isolation, runaway inflation, political repression, repeated arrests, and death sentences.

The paradox is striking.

The more strategically indispensable Iran becomes, the less central the concrete fate of ordinary Iranians appears in the implicit negotiations among major powers.

The regime becomes indispensable.

The people remain trapped within the equation.

The Big Return of Geopolitical Realism

Ultimately, Hormuz and Malacca may be telling the story of the end of a European illusion: the belief that the world is governed primarily by norms, values, peaceful interdependence, and, in broader terms, international law.

The return of strategic chokepoints reminds us of a far older reality:

• power still rests on geography;
• energy remains a weapon;
• maritime routes remain vital;
• and states invariably return to their fundamental interests.

Alliances become flexible.

Former enemies become acceptable interlocutors.

Sanctions become adjustable.

And principles sometimes yield to energy needs, economic stability, and the fear of industrial decline.

The wind is turning.

And it often turns in the direction dictated by geography—and, let us acknowledge it,  also by the law of the strongest.

Such is the world in which we live.