The US and Iran Have Historical Blueprints for a Strait of Hormuz Deal

The Strait of Hormuz has become the flashpoint of a six-week conflict between the US and Iran, now paused by a tentative two-week ceasefire announced Tuesday night. The core issue at stake isn't new—it's fundamentally about who controls one of the world's most critical maritime chokepoints, through which roughly one-third of global seaborne oil passes. Columnist Javier Blas frames this through a 300-year historical lens, tracing how maritime boundaries have always been defined by the reach of weaponry: from the "cannon shot rule" codified by Dutch jurist Cornelius van Bynkershoek in 1702 to today's missiles and drones.

The real diplomatic challenge ahead is a feat of "linguistic gymnastics," as Blas puts it. Negotiators must craft a settlement that allows both Washington and Tehran to claim victory while actually resolving competing claims over the strait's governance. This isn't merely academic: the Strait of Hormuz is so vital to global energy markets that instability there sends shockwaves through oil prices worldwide. The article suggests that historical precedent and existing diplomatic frameworks offer a roadmap—there are blueprints available if both sides can find political cover to accept them.

What makes this moment delicate is that neither side can afford to appear weak domestically while ceding control or sovereignty claims. The two-week ceasefire buys time, but the real test comes in negotiating the permanent architecture that governs the strait going forward. Blas implies that solutions exist in the historical record; the question is whether political will exists to deploy them.