Shipping has a long memory—and the Strait of Hormuz an even longer one. What’s been happening in the region over the past few weeks is a stark reminder that every drop of crude oil crossing the Arabian Sea is not just a commodity, but a potential target.
From Exocet missiles to cyber warfare: Technology’s double-edged evolution
From Iran’s open threats to block transit, to targeted attacks on cargo ships and support vessels, the events of 2025 bring dangerous echoes of a war the industry has never forgotten—the 1980s Tanker War.
Between 1984 and 1988, during the Iran–Iraq war, more than 500 commercial ships came under attack.
It was the first time that freedom of navigation turned into a battlefield, with Exocet missiles, air raids, and torpedo strikes taking place in international waters.
Back then—as now—the crisis wasn’t limited to the warring states.
Global shipping, from Greece to Singapore, found its vessels trapped in high-risk zones, with insurance premiums spiking and energy markets scrambling for alternatives.
It was Iraq that launched the first strikes against Iranian tankers in the Gulf, hoping to provoke an Iranian overreaction that would drag the West into the conflict.
Iran responded by hitting both Iraqi and foreign tankers, especially those carrying oil for countries that supported Saddam Hussein.
In 1987, the U.S. stepped in through Operation Earnest Will, escorting tankers with warships—marking the end of neutrality in international waters.
The losses were serious: dozens of seafarers killed, ships destroyed, and the global energy market rocked by repeated price shocks.
For shipping companies, those years became a crash course in strategic survival—changing routes, securing quiet protection deals, and reshaping how maritime insurance worked.
Greek shipping’s strategic response: Learning from historical memory
Greek-flagged ships were not spared. Several Greek-owned vessels were damaged and informally blacklisted as high-risk by London insurers.
Today, things may look similar, but the context has changed. Technology has drastically reshaped the landscape—from AIS tracking systems to real-time satellite imagery, shipping companies now have clearer situational awareness.
But new threats like drones, electronic warfare, signal jamming, and cyberattacks make things even more complex.
Governments are quicker to react, but the number of actors involved has multiplied—and many remain unknown.
One thing hasn’t changed: geography. The Strait of Hormuz, just 39 km wide, remains the world’s most important maritime chokepoint, with about 20% of global oil passing through it daily.
Instability in the region causes immediate disruption to global flows, increases market uncertainty, and creates opportunities for geopolitical players like Russia, China, and—again—the U.S.
Greek shipowners, who control a significant share of the global tanker fleet, are facing a déjà vu situation.
But today, they have more tools.
Many major companies have already activated security operations centers, are in communication with military authorities, and have rerouted vessels around the Cape of Good Hope.
This leads to higher costs, delays, and in some cases, canceled charters.
Insurance markets are responding with premium surcharges that resemble the “War Risk” rates of the 1980s.
At the same time, military and political frameworks are being reactivated.
The International Maritime Organization has issued new safety guidelines, and Gulf countries are exploring joint surveillance protocols.
Japan, South Korea, and India—key oil importers from the region—are looking for diplomatic counterbalances and planning for greater energy independence.
2025 may not be 1987, but the lesson remains clear: When shipping becomes part of geopolitical conflict, neutrality is lost.
Commercial shipping—especially Greek shipping—must plan not only with market logic, but with historical memory.
The experience of the Tanker War reminds us that foresight, operational readiness, and geopolitical awareness are no longer optional—they are essential.