The problem can be reopened, but the world’s confidence will not return | Thoughts

US President Donald Trump’s claims that the deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz was renegotiated could dampen markets for a while. But the deeper meaning of this problem lies elsewhere. The problem is no longer whether trade channels remain open but who has the power to make them accessible.

The terms of any agreement are subject to change, and any diplomatic arrangement may be delayed, challenged or modified. But a broader trend is already visible: Smart business strategies are becoming increasingly political, exposed to trade and international competition.

The danger does not mean that negotiations have failed. The most important risk is that it succeeds enough to hide a weak system like stability.

Temporary stability does not equate to systemic stability. Calmness can be discussed; stability must be trusted.

Therefore, the greatest change is not from war to peace but from chaos to rule.

Iran’s plans to have a monopoly in control of the Strait of Hormuz and have a greater influence on navigation decisions and potential tariffs show that Tehran is trying to turn a temporary privilege into a permanent role in controlling maritime traffic.

Therefore, the question of knowledge is moving away from the acquisition of authority. Access relates to whether ships can pass through. Authority is concerned with who sets the rules, sets risk prices, controls the variances and decides whether or not the common trades are mutually beneficial.

This is important not only in the Gulf, but in many countries around the world. Countries that rely heavily on maritime trade are now faced with a situation where trade opportunities are created not by markets but by geopolitical power, sanctions pressure, naval power and crisis negotiations.

Asia is still in the middle of this calculation. China, India, Japan and South Korea are among the major users of Gulf energy, and many of the trade risks caused by uncertainty in the Strait of Hormuz spread further east. But the impact extends to Asia. Many developing countries remain vulnerable to energy instability and transport disruptions while not being highly competitive with their surrounding countries.

The upcoming trend shows a world where trade has resumed but in a political environment that needs to be renegotiated. This is important because modern marketing relies on more than physical acquisition. It takes predictability, insurance, legal clarity, maritime confidence and the belief that today’s route will be tomorrow’s.

This is the difference between de-escalation and normalization. Mitigation reduces the risk of immediate conflict. Stability restores confidence. For now, the first can be achieved, but the second remains far away.

None of this means that the Strait of Hormuz is headed for a permanent crisis, nor does it mean that negotiations are futile. This point is less important but more important: Even the best management of problems can leave a reliable business.

For markets, this difference is important. If the agreement is declared, the reopening can be considered as a decision. That may be early. A temporary calm can be mistaken for a permanent calm. Freight rates may decline, energy prices may decline and stock markets may decline. However, this does not mean that the current threat is over. It may simply mean that the problem is postponed for further discussion.

This has more effect than oil. Renovators must plan purchases against the costs of changing risks. Producers must set the price of electricity and drive volatility to their margins. Insurers must review exposure. Shipping companies have to make route decisions without political certainty. Banks and traders must calculate the risks of penalties, payment disruptions and subsequent costs.

This is how global instability creeps into the world economy: not because of a dramatic upheaval but because of repeated uncertainties that slowly raise the price of ordinary commodities.

The main lesson of the Strait of Hormuz crisis is that globalization does not end. It is becoming more and more political and sustainable.

Companies and governments that have built their minds on sustainable mobility now have to operate in a world where routes, payments, insurance, ports and suppliers are increasingly subject to political risk. The Strait of Hormuz is just one place. But because of the centrality of the global energy movement, he has become one of the clearest examples of this great change.

For policymakers, responding to the current crisis requires more than reassurance that the fleet is moving again. It requires cooperation between governments, commercial operators, insurers, transmission companies and energy consumers. It is also important to note that operational processes can no longer be considered political.

For boardrooms, the lessons are the same. Geopolitical risk can no longer be outside of purchasing, transportation, financial and insurance decisions. The question was no longer whether the crisis would disrupt sales. It is as if businesses can absorb repeated volatility without losing resilience or technological flexibility.

Whatever happens with the current negotiations between Iran and the US, one thing is certain: We have no doubt that we will return to the old idea that international trade can run smoothly as if geopolitics is background noise.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect Al Jazeera’s influence.