The Strait of Hormuz is back in the headlines. Again. Around one-fifth of globally traded oil passes through that narrow waterway between Oman and Iran. And once more, geopolitical tensions in the Middle East have turned this chokepoint into a pressure valve for the entire global economy. Insurance premiums jump. Oil tankers hesitate. Traders hold their breath. Politicians rush to podiums.

And Europe wonders why its energy bills are rising.

There is something deeply frustrating about this moment — not because it is unexpected, but because it is entirely predictable. Over recent years, I have repeatedly written about Europe’s structural vulnerability to fossil fuel imports. Not just to “imports” in general, but to imports that pass through narrow chokepoints controlled, directly or indirectly, by regimes and power structures that do not necessarily share Europe’s political stability, regulatory transparency, or strategic interests. The Strait of Hormuz is not a black swan. It is a recurring character in a story we refuse to end.

Dependence is not fate — it is policy

Europe imports the majority of its oil and gas needs. This reality is often framed as geographic destiny. It is not destiny; it is policy. For decades, short-term cost efficiency was prioritized over long-term resilience. We built an energy system dependent on molecules traveling thousands of kilometers, crossing narrow sea lanes, pipelines running through politically sensitive territories, and contractual relationships that can be reshaped by elections, revolutions, or sanctions.

When those routes shake, our economies shake with them. The latest effective closure or severe disruption of navigation through Hormuz exposes this vulnerability once again. Tankers reroute. Futures markets spike. Governments scramble. And almost immediately, familiar reactions return.

The familiar panic playbook

In the Netherlands, quiet discussions resume about reopening the Groningen gas field. In the North Sea, calls intensify to extend oil and gas exploration. Across Europe, the phrase “energy security” begins to function as a synonym for “drill more.”

Give it a few weeks and someone will inevitably shout “shale gas!” in a Brussels corridor, as if Europe’s geology and public acceptance have suddenly transformed overnight.

We have seen this before. After every crisis — supply disputes, wars, pipeline sabotage — we tend to double down on the very system that created the fragility in the first place.

But let us be honest: even if we extracted every remaining drop from the North Sea and Groningen, Europe would remain structurally dependent on imported oil. If global prices surge because of Hormuz, domestic European production will not magically shield consumers from global pricing dynamics. Oil is globally priced. Gas increasingly is too. We are not only dependent on volumes of supply, but on a pricing system shaped by global instability.

Whims, strongmen, and market volatility

When your energy bill depends on a tanker safely crossing a 33-kilometer-wide strait, you do not have energy sovereignty. You have exposure. Exposure to regional conflicts. Exposure to sanctions regimes. Exposure to leaders whose domestic priorities may not align with European economic stability.

This is not about demonizing any particular country. It is about acknowledging a structural reality: fossil-fuel-importing economies remain vulnerable to geopolitical shocks, especially when supply chains converge at chokepoints.

And yet policymakers often act surprised when chokepoints behave like chokepoints. Why do we keep forgetting this?

Renewables: not just climate policy, but strategy

The discussion must go beyond climate rhetoric. Renewables are not only about emissions; they are about insulation. Wind and solar do not pass through Hormuz.

Electrons do not queue at narrow maritime corridors. A diversified, electrified system based on local generation is structurally less exposed to geopolitical coercion or regional instability.

Of course, renewables require materials, manufacturing, grids, storage, and supply chains. They are not geopolitically neutral. But the nature of their vulnerability is fundamentally different.

Instead of concentrating risk in a handful of maritime corridors and producing regions, renewable systems distribute generation geographically. They shift dependence from continuous fuel imports to upfront infrastructure and material supply chains — chains that can be diversified and strategically managed.

Do not abandon globalization — fix it

This is not an argument for isolationism. Europe cannot, and should not, pursue full self-sufficiency. Global trade remains essential. But we can choose our dependencies more wisely.

Rather than heavy reliance on unstable fossil chokepoints, Europe should accelerate cooperation with rule-based, reliable partners in renewable technologies, critical material processing, hydrogen trade, and clean industrial value chains.

Strengthen ties with neighboring regions rich in solar and wind potential. Develop shared grids. Invest in joint manufacturing. Build strategic reserves of critical materials. Create redundancy. Globalization is not the enemy; unbalanced, single-route dependence is.

The real cost of delay

Each time Hormuz unsettles markets, we pay twice: first through higher prices and economic uncertainty, and second through political panic that pushes us back toward short-term fossil solutions instead of structural change.

Reopening gas fields undermines public trust. Extending exploration licenses locks in infrastructure for decades. Reviving shale fantasies distracts from scalable solutions. And through it all, the underlying vulnerability remains untouched.

The energy transition is often portrayed as costly and disruptive. But what is the cost of recurring geopolitical exposure? What is the cost of industrial planning built on volatile inputs? What is the cost of strategic fragility? Resilience has a price. Dependence has one too.

This crisis is not a surprise — it is a reminder

The Strait of Hormuz is doing what it has always done: reminding us that fossil fuel dependence is not just an environmental issue, but a geopolitical liability. We cannot claim we did not see this coming. We have seen it repeatedly in shipping disruptions, pipeline disputes, sanctions regimes, and regional conflicts.

The only surprising thing is how quickly we forget.

If Europe wants genuine energy security, it must accelerate electrification, renewables, storage, grid expansion, and domestic industrial capacity. It must build resilient supply chains with trusted partners. It must reduce exposure to volatile fossil chokepoints, not merely manage them slightly better.

Every crisis tests whether we learned from the last one.

Hormuz is testing us again. The question is simple: will we finally treat renewable acceleration as a strategic necessity rather than just a climate ambition?

Or will we wait for the next closure to remember, once again, too late?

US stock indices declined during Monday’s trading session amid geopolitical concerns in the Middle East linked to the military escalation between the United States and Iran.

The US–Israeli strikes reportedly led to the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in a development seen as a major turning point for the Islamic Republic and one of the most significant events since 1979.

In response, Iranian officials vowed strong retaliation, fueling fears that the conflict could spread further across the region, particularly as explosions were reported in several cities across Gulf countries.

US President Donald Trump said in an interview with CNBC that US military operations in Iran are progressing ahead of schedule.

In the oil market, analysts believe price direction will depend on whether the fighting leads to disruptions in navigation through the Strait of Hormuz — the world’s most critical chokepoint for crude oil flows. Any sustained interruption there could strongly impact global energy markets and reignite inflationary pressures.

Meanwhile, concerns that expanding automation could undermine business models and trigger waves of layoffs continue to cast a shadow over broader economic outlooks.

As for trading performance, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was down 0.5% (about 265 points) at 48,713 as of 16:36 GMT. The broader S&P 500 declined 0.4% (around 27 points) to 6,851, while the Nasdaq Composite fell 0.2% (roughly 45 points) to 22,618.

Aluminum prices rose to their highest level in more than a month on Monday, after US and Israeli strikes on Iran raised concerns about an escalation in the Middle East — one of the world’s key producing regions for the metal.

The benchmark aluminum contract on the London Metal Exchange gained 3.1% to $3,236 per metric ton by 10:50 GMT, after touching $3,254, its highest level since January 29.

Investors are closely monitoring developments around shipping activity through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital trade route for commodities that has faced disruptions following Iranian attacks on US military bases in the region.

Neil Welsh of Britannia Global Markets said base metals broadly moved higher in morning trading, with aluminum leading gains amid fears that critical supply routes for Middle Eastern producers could be disrupted by the conflict in a region that accounts for a significant share of global output.

He added that the region represents around 9% of global aluminum production capacity, noting that prices tend to react sensitively to rising regional tensions.

According to data from the International Aluminium Institute, global primary aluminum output reached about 75 million tons last year. Most aluminum produced in the Middle East is exported to the US and Europe.

Citi analysts noted that the UAE is the largest aluminum producer in the region, and that nearly all shipments — except for exports from Sohar Aluminium in Oman — pass through the Strait of Hormuz.

Meanwhile, Panmure Liberum commodities analyst Tom Price warned that a prolonged conflict in the Middle East could push oil prices significantly higher, potentially weighing on global economic growth and weakening industrial demand.

In other metals markets, copper rose 0.2% to $13,370 per ton, zinc climbed 1% to $3,351, and lead gained 0.6% to $1,974, while tin fell 1.1% to $57,105 and nickel declined 1.1% to $17,645 per ton.

Bitcoin, the world’s largest cryptocurrency, declined by 0.3% during the day to trade near the $66,666 level, while Asian equity indices fell and oil prices surged amid broader macroeconomic uncertainty.

Over the weekend, Bitcoin traded within a range between $63,000 and $66,000. Analysts highlighted the market’s resilience, noting that the 24/7 nature of crypto trading allows investors to manage risk quickly while traditional markets are closed. Dominic John of Kronos Research said cryptocurrencies recovered their footing rapidly after the limited pullback. Jeff Ko, senior analyst at CoinEx, added that Bitcoin held the $66,000 level despite selling pressure in Asian equities, suggesting the market viewed the recent volatility as temporary rather than the beginning of a prolonged decline.

Macro pressures: equities and oil

Traditional markets opened the week on the back foot. Japan’s Nikkei 225 fell around 2.5%, while the broader TOPIX index dropped nearly 3%. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng and Singapore’s Straits Times Index also declined by roughly 2%.

Meanwhile, Brent crude rose more than 8.38% to $78.9 per barrel, while gold gained 2.05% to $5,386.

Rick Maida of Presto Research described oil as a key transmission channel through which macroeconomic shocks reach the crypto market. He explained that if oil stabilizes above $90 per barrel, inflation expectations could rise further, strengthening the US dollar and tightening liquidity, which would make cryptocurrencies more vulnerable to volatility.

Even so, the market avoided a wave of forced liquidations or any instability in stablecoins, while the continued operation of futures platforms such as Hyperliquid helped absorb the shock in real time.

Traders continue to monitor oil prices, US Treasury yields, and inflation indicators to assess whether the spike in volatility is temporary or the start of a longer liquidity tightening cycle.

Crypto market resilience

Analysts at QCP Capital noted that digital asset pricing quickly returned to prior levels. During the volatility, algorithms liquidated roughly $300 million in long positions, a figure considered moderate compared with the broad deleveraging seen in early February.

The relatively limited liquidations suggest traders had already reduced risk exposure in advance. At the same time, Bitcoin’s role as a “weekend hedge” is gradually being challenged by tokenized gold, which also trades around the clock and tends to attract capital during periods of uncertainty.

Derivatives data also point to market stability, with implied volatility briefly rising to 93%, still below readings seen last week at similar price levels.

QCP analysts noted similarities with last June’s scenario, when Bitcoin dropped below $100,000 during a weekend before rebounding on Monday and later reaching a record high near $123,000 weeks later.

Bets on large capital inflows

Despite the limited pullback, large investors continue to position for long-term upside. On February 28, sizable call option purchases expiring in March were recorded, including:

1,000 contracts with a strike price of $74,000

4,000 contracts with a strike price of $75,000 (expiring March 27)

These trades reflect expectations of a spring recovery following five months of declines.

Despite some constructive signals, QCP experts urged caution, emphasizing that price direction will remain closely tied to geopolitical developments and the broader macro environment.

A potential buying signal?

Data suggest that most investors who bought Bitcoin over the past two years are currently holding unrealized losses. Analyst Crypto Dan believes any further decline could present an attractive entry opportunity.

He argued that “contrarian logic” often works in markets, with major crashes typically occurring when most investors sit on large profits, while strong rallies tend to begin when the majority are under pressure.

In his view, a drop below $60,000 would increase the share of losing positions so that most market participants — excluding long-term holders — would be at a loss, potentially creating an ideal accumulation phase.

He also stressed that the lack of a clear strategy often leads to hesitation when opening or closing trades, advising investors to define clear trading rules in advance during current conditions.

On March 1, analyst CryptoTalisman said the largest cryptocurrency had fully recovered from its earlier pullback driven by geopolitical tensions and macroeconomic pressures.