Hormuz Is Not A New Shock

Global Supply Chains Have Simply Been Pretending To Be Surprised

For decades, globalization has been built on a simple assumption: goods will always be able to move across oceans at relatively stable costs.

But the logistics disruptions of recent years suggest otherwise. The global trading system may be extraordinarily efficient—but it is far less resilient to geopolitical shocks than many once assumed.

A narrow maritime passage in the Middle East, less than 50 kilometers wide at its narrowest point, carries roughly 20% of the world’s daily oil consumption. That passage is the Strait of Hormuz.

Any military tension in the region immediately raises concerns about a new shock to global energy markets and shipping routes. Yet the risk itself is hardly new. Hormuz has long been recognized as one of the most critical strategic chokepoints in the global trading system.

In reality, international trade depends on a surprisingly small number of such chokepoints.

According to multiple logistics and energy studies, the world relies on roughly 7–10 major maritime chokepoints—including the Strait of Hormuz, the Strait of Malacca, the Suez Canal, Bab el-Mandeb, the Panama Canal, and the Turkish Straits. These routes function as the pressure valves of global maritime trade.

Viewed more broadly, supply chain experts estimate that the entire international trading system depends on no more than around 20–30 strategic bottlenecks. Beyond maritime passages, these include major container ports, strategic transport corridors, transshipment hubs, and even certain critical energy or semiconductor infrastructures.

In container shipping alone, a small number of mega-ports—such as Shanghai, Singapore, and Rotterdam—handle a significant share of global cargo flows. When one of these nodes is disrupted, the impact often spreads far beyond its immediate geography.

This creates a familiar paradox of globalization: the international trading system has become more efficient and more integrated than ever before—but also increasingly dependent on a small number of critical infrastructure nodes.

In such a network, even a localized disruption—from geopolitical conflict to port congestion or infrastructure failure—can quickly cascade into a global logistics shock.

The deeper issue lies elsewhere. Global supply chains are still designed as if geopolitical disruptions were rare exceptions.

In reality, logistics shocks are appearing with increasing frequency—from pandemics and wars to disruptions along strategic shipping routes.

If the 1990s and 2000s were the decades of cost-optimized globalization, the 2020s are gradually becoming the decade of supply chain resilience.

A trading system dependent on a few shipping routes

According to the World Trade Organization, roughly 80–90% of global merchandise trade is transported by sea. This makes the global trading system heavily dependent on a small number of strategic maritime routes.

Beyond Hormuz, other critical chokepoints include the Suez Canal, Bab el-Mandeb Strait, and the Strait of Malacca. Logistics studies suggest that more than half of global container trade passes through these maritime chokepoints.

When one of these routes is disrupted, the consequences rarely remain regional. The effects often ripple rapidly across the global economy.

The global container system is highly sensitive

One often overlooked factor in logistics disruptions is the structure of the global container fleet.

Today, the world’s commercial container fleet has a capacity of roughly 30 million TEU. The system operates through a tightly coordinated cycle linking ships, containers, transshipment ports, and inland logistics networks.

Even a small slowdown in one part of the system can trigger a domino effect across the entire network.

This dynamic was evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, when containers became stranded at major ports, causing freight rates to surge dramatically within a short period.

A more recent example can be seen in the Red Sea shipping disruptions. As many shipping lines avoided routes through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and rerouted vessels around the Cape of Good Hope, transit times between Asia and Europe increased by roughly 10 to 14 days.

When the circulation speed of container vessels slows, the effective capacity of the entire shipping system declines.

During some phases of the recent disruptions, container freight rates on the Asia–Europe route doubled or even tripled.

Logistics does not need to stop entirely to disrupt global trade.

Sometimes, it only needs to slow down.

Why geopolitical risks are often underestimated

One reason global supply chains tend to respond slowly to disruptions lies in the psychology of risk management.

In behavioral economics, rare but high-impact risks are often systematically underestimated. Decision-makers tend to rely on recent experience when evaluating future risks—a phenomenon known as recency bias.

When shipping routes function smoothly for years, companies begin to assume that stability will continue.

As a result, global companies have long designed their logistics networks primarily around cost optimization.

This approach works well in stable trading environments, but it can also cause organizations to overlook low-probability risks with potentially large impacts.

Only when crises occur—such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine, or recent Red Sea shipping disruptions—does the system recognize that the cost of resilience had been severely undervalued for years.

Over the past decade, global supply chains have experienced a series of such shocks.

As a result, many international economic institutions increasingly view geopolitical risk not as a temporary disruption, but as a structural feature of global trade.

According to the International Monetary Fund, growing geoeconomic fragmentation could reduce global economic output by up to 7% in the long run if the trend continues.

Meanwhile, the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2026 ranks geoeconomic fragmentation among the most significant risks of the coming decade.

Together, these warnings point to a growing reality: global supply chains are not simply facing isolated disruptions—they are entering a period of systemic instability.

Vietnam: the indirect impact may be larger

For Vietnam, direct trade with the Middle East represents a relatively small share of total exports.

However, as a major export-driven economy with total trade exceeding twice its GDP, Vietnam is deeply dependent on the stability of global logistics systems.

Most Vietnamese exports travel along long international shipping routes, rely on foreign transshipment ports, and are tightly integrated into multinational supply chains.

This means global logistics disruptions can affect Vietnamese businesses even when they have no direct connection to the Middle East.

Common impacts include longer transit times, higher logistics costs, and congestion at international transshipment ports.

In modern supply chains, indirect effects often spread much further than direct ones.

Supply chains are changing their operating logic

Facing increasingly frequent logistics disruptions, many global exporters are now adjusting their supply chain strategies.

For decades, international logistics systems were designed around cost optimization: produce where costs are lowest, ship through the shortest routes, and maintain minimal inventory.

This model functioned efficiently in a stable trading environment.

But the repeated shocks of the past decade—from COVID-19 and the war in Ukraine to disruptions in the Red Sea—have shown that the cost of fragility can be far greater than the savings from optimization.

As a result, more companies are adopting strategies such as diversifying shipping routes, distributing production networks, and expanding market access to reduce reliance on a single bottleneck.

In other words, global supply chains are gradually shifting from cost optimization toward risk management.

Supply chains of the 21st century will be measured by their ability to survive crises

This shift is also reshaping the role of export economies in the global trading system.

As multinational companies diversify their supply chains, manufacturing hubs in Southeast Asia are becoming increasingly important in maintaining regional trade stability.

With trade volume exceeding twice its GDP, Vietnam is emerging as a key node in global supply chains—from electronics and textiles to industrial manufacturing.

In a world where logistics disruptions can cascade from a single point on the map, supply chain resilience is becoming a new form of strategic infrastructure.

And that may be the most important lesson from Hormuz:

The risk is not that shipping routes are occasionally disrupted.

The real risk is that too much of the world’s trade depends on too few routes.