Conflicts over the Strait of Hormuz—from Portuguese expansion to contemporary tensions—demonstrate how strategic trade chokepoints shape shifts in global power
In 2026, escalating tensions between the United States (US) and Iran placed the Strait of Hormuz at the centre of global attention. During this period, United States President Donald Trump issued a 48-hour ultimatum to Iran, demanding the reopening of the strait to maritime traffic and warning of strikes on Iranian power plants and other critical infrastructure if the demand was not met. This episode is part of a longer history in which the Strait of Hormuz—and the port town of Hormuz—has been a focal point of conflicts over trade and power. The developments of 2026 reflect enduring patterns of contestation and control, with precedents in 1507 (Portuguese capture), 1552 (Ottoman challenge to Portuguese maritime dominance), 1622 (Anglo-Persian expulsion of the Portuguese), and 1625 (subsequent naval contestation involving the Portuguese, the English East India Company, and the Dutch VOC).
The Strait of Hormuz derives its name from the small Iranian island of Hormuz. For centuries, this island functioned as a transcontinental trading hub, handling significant commercial traffic and serving as a key link between distant regions connected by maritime trade routes. In global economic history, Hormuz played a pivotal role in linking trade between the Indian Ocean and Europe via the Persian Gulf. While other important nodes along this route included Basra, Beirut, and Alexandria, Hormuz occupied a distinctive position due to its strategic location at the mouth of the Persian Gulf.
In 1507, a consequential battle was fought at Hormuz between the rising Portuguese maritime empire and the Kingdom of Hormuz. The Portuguese succeeded in capturing the island under the command of Afonso de Albuquerque, who later also conquered Goa in 1509 and Malacca in 1511.
This period was marked by mercantilist competition, with emerging European naval powers engaging in frequent conflicts across the globe to secure commercial dominance over lucrative segments of world trade. Trade and commerce originating from and flowing through India and the Indian Ocean constituted a significant share of the global economy. Angus Maddison, the British economist, estimated that the region accounted for nearly 24 percent of global GDP in the 17th century. By capturing Hormuz, the Portuguese sought to dominate maritime commerce in the Indian Ocean.
Amid a recent phase of intensifying military and naval tensions in the Strait of Hormuz in the second quarter of the 21st century, it became important to recognise that this geographical setting has long been central to global geopolitics and trade conflicts.
Before this conquest, Indian Ocean commerce functioned as a relatively open trading system in which the benefits of global exchange were shared among diverse merchant communities, including Arabs, Gujaratis, Bengalis, Malabaris, Armenians, and Egyptians. The Portuguese were late entrants to this highly profitable sector of world trade; however, they sought to impose firm control over the circulation of goods and maritime traffic. The battle was consequential because it marked a new phase in world politics and global trade. It led to the consolidation of the Portuguese maritime empire headquartered in Goa, India, historically known as the Estado da Índia.
Before turning to present US–Iran tensions, it is worth recalling that control over Hormuz has long hinged on asymmetries of naval power. In 1507, Afonso de Albuquerque secured victory at Hormuz through sustained naval engagement, employing early cannon fire to overcome local resistance.
In 1552, intense naval engagements unfolded in the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf, as the Portuguese and the Ottoman Empire confronted each other. Despite repeated Ottoman attempts to challenge Portuguese control, the latter maintained their dominance in the region by successfully repelling Ottoman naval forces.
The third conflict over Hormuz unfolded in 1622, when Portuguese forces came into confrontation with Persian forces, who were allied with the English. The English East India Company (1600) and the Dutch East India Company (VOC, 1602) entered the Indian Ocean arena with the same urgency and ambition that had earlier defined Portuguese expansion. The 1622 confrontation became inevitable as the English sought to break Portuguese control over Asian maritime routes and secure a strategic foothold. In parallel, Iran under Shah Abbas pursued a more assertive coastal policy, capturing Bahrain, developing the port of Bandar Abbas, and strengthening its presence along key maritime points such as Gwadar.
The diplomatic manoeuvring and trade rivalries of this period place contemporary 21st-century power politics in a far simpler register by comparison. The combined Anglo-Persian forces decisively defeated the Portuguese at Hormuz, ending their control over the strategically significant island. Following this defeat, the Portuguese retreated to Muscat, which thereafter emerged as a key base for their residual operations in the region.
Hormuz once again proved decisive. The defeat severely weakened Portugal’s standing across its empire, with repercussions extending from Gujarat to Thailand and from Goa to Macau. Hormuz has never been merely a regional trade chokepoint; its strategic significance has repeatedly been positioned at the core of wider geopolitical contestation, whether in the age of modern statecraft or earlier imperial rivalries. Beyond rerouting commodities such as horses, spices, silk, oil, or natural gas, it has, at critical historical moments, shaped the broader course of world history.
The Battle of Hormuz in 1625 is often described as one of the largest naval engagements in the Persian Gulf up to that point. The Portuguese fleet came under combined pressure from the English East India Company navy and the Dutch VOC. Although the encounter did not produce a decisive victor and is generally regarded as a draw, it marked a setback for Portuguese naval dominance in the region. In the years that followed, the Portuguese made repeated—and ultimately unsuccessful—attempts to recover Hormuz, including renewed efforts throughout the 1620s and a diplomatic push in 1631. Each attempt failed, underscoring the steady shift in maritime power. Across centuries, Hormuz has remained a strategic fulcrum of maritime power, reflecting broader shifts in the global order.
Amid a recent phase of intensifying military and naval tensions in the Strait of Hormuz in the second quarter of the 21st century, it became important to recognise that this geographical setting has long been central to global geopolitics and trade conflicts. Various global powers of earlier eras—including the Portuguese, the Ottoman Turks, the Safavid Persians, the English, Arab traders, and the Dutch—engaged in sustained struggles for supremacy over this crucial trade corridor. The consequences of these conflicts were far-reaching, reshaping political maps, altering international trade patterns, and transforming the consumption of key strategic commodities. If the Hormuz conflicts of the 16th and 17th centuries reshaped global order through their impact on trade in horses, spices, and cotton textiles, the current escalation could similarly produce systemic effects by disrupting global flows of oil and natural gas. Contemporary attention on the Strait of Hormuz is therefore part of a longer historical continuum—one in which control over strategic trade corridors continues to shape geopolitical outcomes.
Dr Abhimanyu Singh Arha is an Associate Professor at the Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Abhimanyu Singh Arha is a historian and an academician currently serving as Associate Professor at Centre for Historical Studies, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru ...
Read More +
PREV
