When the Strait of Hormuz Grinds to a Halt, What Truly Qualifies as a Safe-Haven Asset?

Human civilization originated from an act of violence. And some places are destined by nature to be focal points of war.

The Strait of Hormuz is one such place. When this narrow waterway, responsible for one-fifth of global crude oil transportation, is closed, what impact will it have on assets, including Bitcoin?

And if this is the beginning of World War III, how should we respond?

The Impact of Closing the Strait of Hormuz

Over the past few decades, the Strait of Hormuz has stood at the epicenter of geopolitical storms more than once. The moment closest to a "closure" was the covert naval warfare during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, known as the "Tanker War."

During the Iran-Iraq War from 1980 to 1988, Iran repeatedly threatened to blockade the Strait of Hormuz and, in 1987, laid mines and attacked tankers in the area. At the time, tanker crews referred to the strait as the "corridor of death." Iran's threats caused oil prices to rise from over $30 per barrel to above $45 per barrel. Meanwhile, tanker freight rates also increased due to tensions in the strait, at times doubling.

In 2018, the U.S. government withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal and reinstated sanctions on Iran. Iran stated at the time that it had the capability to disrupt crude oil transportation through the Strait of Hormuz. In July of that year, Iran seized a British tanker in the Strait of Hormuz. The tensions drove a slight increase in crude oil prices.

In June 2025, the U.S. claimed to have launched "successful strikes" on three Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Iranian officials subsequently stated that the Iranian parliament had reached a consensus that "the Strait of Hormuz should be closed." Following the news, London Brent crude oil prices jumped by 6%.

Those were the years when Iran and Iraq choked each other's economic lifelines. Because Iran also relies on this waterway for oil exports, blocking it would be akin to cutting off its own war funding. Thus, threats, harassment, and localized conflicts occurred one after another, yet a dangerous and restrained balance was always maintained.

Today, Iran continues to assert its firm stance through the "Strait of Hormuz." On March 2, a senior advisor to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps publicly declared that "the Strait of Hormuz is closed" and warned that any ship attempting to force passage would face attack. International maritime safety agencies, however, appear more cautious—the UK Maritime Trade Operations office stated that while it had monitored Iran's "blockade order" broadcast via radio channels, it had not yet received a formal, legally binding announcement. In terms of international law, the blockade is not yet complete; from a practical shipping perspective, the strait has nearly ground to a halt.

After multiple tankers were attacked near the strait, war risk insurance premiums soared to unbearable levels, with some insurers directly suspending coverage. Without insurance, almost no legitimate shipowner dares to send vessels into these waters. Secondly, electronic interference has emerged. Large-scale GPS spoofing and signal jamming cause ships' navigation systems to display their location as "on land" or show severe deviation. The sea remains, but coordinates have lost their meaning. Coupled with shipping giants like Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd announcing the suspension of related routes, the world's busiest energy artery has instantly fallen into an unprecedented silence.

As the core of global energy, the Strait of Hormuz typically sees about 50 large tankers pass through daily. However, on March 1 and 2, real-time tracking data (AIS) showed the number of passing tankers was nearly zero, and not a single liquefied natural gas vessel crossed the strait—an unprecedented situation in recent years.

What retaliatory impact can Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz have on the United States and Israel?

First, although the U.S. has achieved energy self-sufficiency in recent years, global oil prices are interconnected, and the U.S. cannot remain unaffected. As of March 3, Brent crude has surged to $82 per barrel. Institutions like Goldman Sachs predict that if the blockade persists, oil prices will break through $100. This will directly lead to a sharp rise in domestic gasoline prices in the U.S., offsetting the Federal Reserve's previous anti-inflation achievements, forcing interest rates to remain high, and potentially triggering an economic recession.

Second, U.S. allies in Asia (Japan, South Korea) and Europe are highly dependent on energy from the strait. Iran's move essentially forces these allies to pressure Washington to restrain Israel or halt military operations, thereby diplomatically isolating the U.S.

Furthermore, 2026 coincides with a sensitive period in the U.S. political cycle. Price increases triggered by an energy crisis are the most troublesome political poison for the ruling party. Iran is using this to directly interfere with the internal political stability of the United States.

Although Israel does not directly import oil from the strait (mainly from countries like Azerbaijan), indirect blows can be equally fatal. The "de facto closure" of the Strait of Hormuz is accompanied by a comprehensive escalation of risks in the Red Sea shipping lanes. The cost of global trade on which Israel relies (including electronics, raw materials, and imported food) is soaring, and insurers have begun refusing to cover ships bound for Israeli ports. Simultaneously, the cost of war is highly unsustainable. The global economic turmoil caused by the blockade will weaken Western countries' financial capacity to support Israel's long-term military operations.

What if This is World War III?

We often mistakenly believe that world wars begin on a single day.

Indeed, Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in one day, the gunshots echoing through the streets of Sarajevo. But that political house of cards was built over decades, even centuries. Its collapse took only weeks, yet people spent months truly realizing they were in an abyss.

Before World War I had even concluded, people were already predicting the next conflict. By the 1930s, Japan was expanding in Asia, Germany was rearming, and annexations and provocations proceeded layer by layer. After invasions occurred, there were long periods of "phony war." Even as flames rose over Pearl Harbor, many still could not comprehend that the world had fundamentally changed.

So, if this is already World War III, how should we prepare for this war in advance?

Gold is a symbol of safe-haven assets, while silver is more complex. It is both a precious metal and an industrial metal. In an environment where war expectations heat up, silver often initially rises alongside gold but can then experience sharp volatility due to the collapse of industrial demand. Historical experience tells us that silver may surge more sharply in the early stages of war, but its mid-term trend is more unstable. It acts like an amplifier, magnifying panic rather than certainty.

As for oil, it is the core bargaining chip in this chess game. The Strait of Hormuz carries about one-fifth of the world's daily crude oil flow. Once a real cutoff occurs, oil prices breaking through key integer levels won't require emotional push—just the physical reality. With a daily supply shortfall of 20 million barrels, analysts predict Brent crude prices will quickly surpass $100 per barrel.

Rising energy prices mean a re-ignition of global inflation, a dilemma for central banks torn between "fighting inflation" and "supporting growth," and a more complex liquidity environment. This has never been a friendly signal for risk assets.

Compared to gold, silver, and oil, people in the crypto space are more concerned about Bitcoin's trend.

In the early stages of conflict, Bitcoin often behaves more like a high-volatility tech stock than gold. Because when global risk appetite plummets, investors first sell the most volatile assets. Leverage unwinding, stablecoin runs, and exchange liquidity contraction can all lead to sharp short-term declines. Oxford Economics predicts that if the conflict lasts more than two months, global stock markets could face a deep correction of 15%–20%. This means Bitcoin also has a significant possibility of correcting alongside the global stock market.

Furthermore, if the conflict truly escalates into a global war and parts of the traditional financial system malfunction, the role of crypto assets would undergo a qualitative change.

In an environment with strengthened capital controls and restricted cross-border settlements, the ability to transfer value on-chain would be revalued. The distribution of mining farms, electricity, and hash rate would become geopolitical variables. The reserve structures of stablecoins would be scrutinized, and the jurisdictional affiliations of trading platforms would become risk points.

At that point, the question would no longer be "bull or bear market," but rather who can still settle freely and who can still exchange freely.

Many renowned investors and institutions have expressed views on "what to do if World War III happens."

J.P. Morgan believes it is necessary to reassess previous optimistic forecasts, with the probability of a global recession rising above 35%. It recommends preparing some defensive allocations, such as increasing cash ratios and shortening bond durations.

A month ago, when the Trump administration publicly discussed the possibility of incorporating Greenland into Washington's sphere of influence, Bridgewater founder Ray Dalio issued a warning. He bluntly stated that against the backdrop of escalating geopolitical tensions and severe market volatility, the world is approaching the brink of a "capital war."

While a capital war involves the interplay of currencies, debt, tariffs, and asset prices, capital wars typically revolve around "major conflicts." For example, before the U.S. entered World War II, it imposed sanctions on Japan, escalating "tensions" between the two countries.

Amid the continuously heating tensions, Ray Dalio consistently emphasizes an almost "classical" viewpoint: the value of gold should not be defined by its daily price fluctuations. "Gold is up about 65% year-over-year and down about 16% from its recent high. People often fall into the trap of obsessing over whether to chase the price when it rises or buy when it falls," he said.

He repeatedly emphasizes that gold's importance lies not in its ability to always rise, but in its low correlation with most financial assets. It typically performs strongly during economic downturns, credit contractions, and market panics; it may appear dull during periods of economic prosperity and rising risk appetite. But it is precisely this characteristic of inverse performance that makes it a true diversification tool.

With the outbreak of war between Israel and Iran, investment advice from the "Oracle of Omaha," Warren Buffett, has been revisited.

When Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, Buffett warned against selling stocks during a war outbreak, hoarding cash, or buying gold or Bitcoin, because he believed investing in businesses is the best way to accumulate wealth over time.

Buffett stated at the time that it is certain that if a major war breaks out, the value of currency will decline. "I mean, that's happened in virtually every war I know of, so the last thing you'd want to do is hold cash during a war."

In contrast, Goldman Sachs focuses on oil prices. Because rising energy costs mean renewed increases in transportation, manufacturing, and food prices, potentially "reigniting" global inflation. Once inflation expectations resurface, central banks' policy paths would be forced to tighten, changing the liquidity environment. Based on this logic, Goldman Sachs' advice is not complicated: hedge against inflation risk, focusing on tools like commodity futures and Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS). The core is not chasing rallies but preparing in advance for the erosion of monetary purchasing power.

Beyond this, analysts generally believe that once a state of "full-scale confrontation" is entered, the underlying logic of asset pricing will undergo a fundamental shift.

The first to be re-evaluated will be the priority of physical assets. Land, agricultural products, energy, industrial raw materials—such as lithium, cobalt, and rare earths—assets originally seen as cyclical and volatile, become core bargaining chips in extreme scenarios. Because war first consumes resources, and only then capital. Stocks and derivatives rely on corporate profits and the stability of the financial system, while resources themselves possess the most primal certainty. When supply chains are broken, the value of physical control surpasses book returns.

Next is the anomaly in the technology sector. Artificial intelligence and semiconductors are growth stories in peacetime but become core productive forces in wartime. Computing power determines command efficiency, chips determine weapon system performance, and satellite communications determine information sovereignty. Assets like data centers, power infrastructure, and low-earth orbit satellite networks would be rapidly incorporated into national strategic frameworks.

The waters of the Strait of Hormuz still ripple, but everything that has happened is irreversible.