The closure of the Strait of Hormuz serves as a brutal revealer of the structural vulnerabilities of the global energy system. According to oil market economist Julien Mathonnier, the idea of a complete disengagement from the Middle East is more of a myth than a realistic short-term perspective. “The question is not whether we can reduce dependency, but whether we can eliminate it. And the answer is no,” he summarizes.
The Gulf holds a significant portion of global reserves, making complete substitution extremely costly and technically complex. According to his estimates, establishing an alternative energy architecture would require massive investments, potentially well above several billion dollars, to rebuild infrastructures on a global scale.
Vulnerability lies not so much in the resource itself as in its chokepoints. Places like Ormuz, Bab el-Mandeb, and the Red Sea are strategic bottlenecks. Their blockade is enough to reorganize global energy flows. In this context, alternative corridor projects – whether by rail, ports, or pipelines – aim not to replace the Gulf, but to diversify supply routes.
These initiatives, notably led by Turkey or within the framework of the India-Middle East-Europe corridor, respond to a logic of resilience. However, their economic viability depends on several factors rarely combined simultaneously in the region: massive investments, time, and above all, enduring political stability.
Julien Mathonnier points out that these corridors could first benefit non-oil trade, as hydrocarbon volumes require much larger logistical capacities. But in the long term, they could form a basis for expanded energy infrastructure.
In this reshaping, Israel is not necessarily marginalized. Between its port ambitions and competing regional dynamics, the Jewish state could instead participate in this diversification movement. One thing is certain: faced with multiple crises, these projects should quickly return to the heart of global energy strategies.
