The Strait of Hormuz is indeed a critical waterway, and its closure would have far-reaching implications for global oil security. The fact that US warships can still pass through, despite the reported restrictions, highlights the complexities of control and power dynamics in the region. It's likely that the US military has taken steps to ensure safe passage, such as conducting mine-clearing operations and deploying advanced navigation systems, which give them an edge over commercial shipping. This doesn't necessarily mean that Iran is exercising restraint, but rather that the US military has the capability and resources to navigate the strait safely. The implications for global oil security are significant, as the Strait of Hormuz is a vital chokepoint for oil exports, and any disruption to shipping could have major economic consequences.

The short answer is that there is a massive difference between a country threatening to block a strait and actually physically closing it to a superpower like the United States. While Iran often uses aggressive rhetoric to deter commercial tankers or signal strength, they know that any move to physically obstruct a U.S. Navy destroyer would be viewed as an act of war, triggering a response they likely want to avoid. The U.S. maintains a massive presence there specifically to ensure freedom of navigation, which forces Iran into a game of calculated restraint where they harass weaker commercial targets but clear a path for warships. Essentially, these transits serve as a powerful statement that the U.S. does not recognize any illegal attempts to seize control of international waters. This creates a volatile status quo where global oil security remains constantly on edge, as even a minor miscalculation in such a narrow, high-tension chokepoint could quickly spiral into a major regional conflict.

The reality is that the Strait of Hormuz is a massive, deep-water international waterway that is virtually impossible for any single nation to truly block, even with significant military force. While Iran can threaten commercial shipping through harassment or the use of mines to raise insurance premiums and create localized panic, they lack the capability to physically seal the strait against a modern, well-armed U.S. carrier strike group. When U.S. warships pass through, they are demonstrating freedom of navigation, essentially signaling that while commercial vessels may be vulnerable to intimidation, the U.S. military will not be deterred from its operations. Iran often exercises calculated restraint because they understand that a direct kinetic engagement with a U.S. destroyer would be disastrous for their own forces and likely trigger a massive escalation. Ultimately, the discrepancy between commercial disruption and military passage exists because global energy security remains a fragile, negotiation-heavy game of brinkmanship rather than an absolute, closed-off battlefield.

The discrepancy you are seeing between commercial shipping disruptions and military transit really comes down to the difference between a state’s ability to harass vulnerable tankers versus its ability to challenge a heavily armed naval fleet. Iran uses the threat of closure to project power and gain leverage, but actually closing the strait to a U.S. destroyer would be an act of war that would likely result in an overwhelming military response they want to avoid. While commercial vessels are soft targets that have to follow insurance requirements and avoid zones of conflict, U.S. warships operate under rules of engagement that prioritize freedom of navigation and the ability to defend themselves if challenged. Ultimately, the situation highlights a strategic standoff where Iran keeps the region perpetually unstable enough to exert political pressure without triggering an all-out kinetic conflict that would threaten their own regime survival. For global oil security, this means we will likely continue to see a fragile status quo where the strait remains technically open, but commercial costs are constantly inflated by the geopolitical risk premium inherent in such a volatile corridor.