US Urges China to Prevent Iran from Closing Strait of Hormuz

After Iran’s parliament reportedly approved a preliminary plan to close the Strait of Hormuz, the United States called on China to use its influence to dissuade Iran from this move. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that closing the Strait would result in significant global economic turmoil.

🔍 What Is the Strait of Hormuz and Why Does It Matter?

The Strait of Hormuz, located between Iran and Oman/UAE, is one of the world’s most critical chokepoints for oil transportation. Over 20% of global oil and natural gas trade passes through it—approximately 20 million barrels of oil daily. Any disruption could cause massive volatility in global markets.

📉 Potential Global Consequences

Surging Energy Prices: Analysts at Goldman Sachs predict oil prices could spike to $100–110 per barrel if the Strait is blocked.
Shipping Disruptions: Companies such as Nippon Yusen and Mitsui OSK are reviewing routes and delaying tankers through the area due to security concerns.
Economic Recession Risks: IMF officials warn of a domino effect in markets, threatening recovery efforts across Europe, Asia, and the Americas.
Supply Chain Shocks: Major economies including India, Japan, and China are heavily reliant on Gulf oil, making them vulnerable to immediate shortages.
Military Tensions: Western and Gulf naval forces may deploy additional assets to safeguard shipping lanes and deter any aggressive acts.

🎯 What Happened Recently?

In a dramatic escalation of tensions in the Gulf region, the Iranian Parliament voted on June 22, 2025 to approve a motion that could lead to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the most strategically significant maritime chokepoints in the world. The decision, though not yet binding, has sent shockwaves through diplomatic and energy markets worldwide.

The parliamentary session, broadcast on Iranian state television, was marked by fiery rhetoric. Lawmakers argued that the proposed closure was a “legitimate response” to what they described as unprovoked aggression by the United States. The move comes in direct retaliation for a series of coordinated U.S. airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities located in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. These strikes reportedly targeted uranium enrichment sites and associated infrastructure, using a combination of Tomahawk cruise missiles, GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs, and armed drones. Damage assessments remain unconfirmed, but unverified satellite imagery suggests significant structural impacts at the Natanz facility.

Despite the parliamentary vote, the authority to enforce such a move lies with Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), the country’s highest decision-making body on defense and national security matters. The SNSC, chaired by President Ebrahim Raisi and overseen by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has not yet issued a formal directive to implement the closure. This delay suggests that Iran may still be weighing its options in terms of international reaction and economic fallout.

Responding to Iran’s legislative move, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio condemned the decision in a press conference, labeling it as “economic suicide.” He warned that such a closure would have catastrophic implications for the global energy supply chain, disrupting up to 20% of the world’s oil shipments that pass through the narrow waterway daily. Rubio emphasized that the U.S. would not allow free navigation to be obstructed and hinted at the possibility of military escorts for commercial vessels.

In parallel, the Pentagon confirmed that the airstrikes were preemptive measures aimed at preventing Iran from achieving nuclear breakout capability. According to defense officials, intelligence reports indicated accelerated uranium enrichment activities exceeding thresholds agreed upon in the now-defunct Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The international community has responded with urgency. China, which maintains strong trade ties with both the United States and Iran, called for restraint on both sides. In an official statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, China urged all parties to return to the negotiating

Expert Assessments and International Policy Reactions

Political analysts and security experts remain divided over Iran’s intentions and the feasibility of closing the Strait of Hormuz. Some argue that the Iranian Parliament’s move is primarily symbolic—an attempt to bolster Tehran’s bargaining power in ongoing international negotiations. They believe that the final decision will rest with Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, which historically has taken a more cautious approach when faced with the risk of severe international backlash. :contentReference[oaicite:13]{index=13}

From a strategic standpoint, the closure of the Strait would not only escalate military tensions but could also trigger devastating economic consequences globally. That reality, analysts suggest, makes a full closure unlikely unless Iran feels cornered with no other diplomatic options. Instead, what is more probable is the use of threats and limited tactical maneuvers—such as naval drills or partial restrictions—as a form of “strategic signaling” toward Western powers, particularly the United States.

According to Middle East policy experts at the Brookings Institution and Chatham House, Iran has a long history of employing brinkmanship to gain leverage in international talks. The closure vote may reflect frustration over renewed US sanctions and the failure of nuclear negotiations, prompting Iranian lawmakers to push the envelope to force concessions from Washington and European allies.

Meanwhile, the international response to Iran’s potential move has been swift and cautious. The European Union issued a public statement expressing “serious concern” over any disruption in maritime trade, describing the potential closure of the Strait as a “grave and destabilizing act that would harm global stability and energy security.” European leaders stressed that such a unilateral action would not only damage Iran’s standing on the world stage but also backfire economically. :contentReference[oaicite:14]{index=14}

In Washington, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called for urgent multilateral consultations, specifically encouraging China to use its diplomatic and economic ties with Iran to promote de-escalation. The Biden administration emphasized that maritime freedom in international waters is non-negotiable and signaled that any blockade of the Strait would prompt a coordinated international response.

China, which maintains a delicate balance in its relations with both the West and Iran, issued a more neutral statement. It urged “restraint from all parties” and supported a UN-mediated diplomatic resolution to prevent conflict and ensure the continued flow of global energy supplies.

Diplomatic sources within the United Nations confirmed that preliminary discussions have begun regarding an emergency session of the Security Council. The goal is to establish a unified diplomatic framework that would deter Iran from taking irreversible steps while addressing Tehran’s grievances through legitimate international mechanisms.

In summary, while the vote in Iran’s Parliament has undoubtedly heightened tensions, the consensus among global powers appears to favor a diplomatic path forward. Both regional and international actors are pushing for de-escalation to avoid a crisis that could ripple across financial markets, energy infrastructure, and international security frameworks.

🔗 Internal and External Links

Suggested Internal Links:

Recommended External Sources:

✅ Conclusion

Iran’s decision to consider closing the Strait of Hormuz comes amid heightened military and diplomatic tensions. While symbolic for now, it carries real geopolitical weight. Washington’s appeal to Beijing underscores the global stakes involved. All eyes are now on Tehran’s Supreme National Security Council and the broader international response.

Tags:Strait_of_Hormuz, Iran, US, China, oil_prices, maritime_security