The New Logic of Naval Power: From Stability to Strategic Disruption
I can still recall the time when I seriously realized the significance of the sea, not as an open, expansive domain, but as a delicate artery of the world of existence. It wasn’t in a classroom or a textbook. As I read of the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow strip of water, through which almost a third of the world seaborne oil passes.[1] That was what struck me at that point: whoever has to disrupt this system does not have to engage in a war, he just needs to break the system. In the tensions that are being experienced between Iran, the United States and Israel today, that realization seems even more topical than ever.
The most interesting thing about this battle is not how mighty they are, but how the logic of the naval battle is transforming. Maritime strategy in the decades was characterized by deterrence. The powerful fleets, aircraft carriers, and highly advanced destroyers were destined to keep conflict at bay, by mere presence. However, what is before me now is different. Deterrence is not sufficient any more. It is being superseded–noisily but surely–by discontinuity.
When gazing at the Strait of Hormuz today, I do not see typical naval battles. I envision a conflicted zone in which uncertainty as such has been turned into a weapon. The conflict caused serious disruption: the shipping traffic decreased significantly, the tankers movement decreased by almost 70 percent and at one point almost reaching the zero.[2] This cannot be called a coincidence. It is strategy.
Iran has shown that you do not have to control the sea but make it unusable. Iran has transformed a narrow waterway to a region of measured disorder, through naval mines, drones and swarming fast boats.[3] I consider this change to be of the greatest importance. The power of the naval force can no longer be gauged by the size of the fleet, or its caliber. It is more and more characterized by the capacity to impose costs, create uncertainty and extend the capacity of an opponent to respond.
Take this into account: Iran is estimated to have thousands of naval mines and is able to launch them quickly using small boats or even under the guise of civilian ships.[4] They are not billion dollar, hi-tech weapons. They are not very expensive, but their effect is gigantic. To clear mines may take weeks, involves special equipment and puts naval forces under constant threat.
Simultaneously, the production of drones in Iran which is estimated at approximately 10,000 drones monthly adds some more complexity.[5] Such drones are cheap in comparison to the systems deployed to intercept them, which poses a dangerous imbalance in which disruption is more cost-effective than defense.
The reasons why this asymmetry appeals to me are the fact that it questions everything that we have always traditionally attributed to military superiority. America might lead in terms of highly advanced naval resources, but even it is being compelled to change. The growing importance of unmanned underwater vehicles and AI-controlled mine detection systems are an indication of a shift in priorities, where the risk associated with human life is minimized, and the operational flexibility is increased.[6]
To put it another way, even the mightiest navy in the world is adapting to a battlefield in which unpredictability is more important than dominance. Strategy alone, however, is not the whole story. The ethical aspect of this change is what is of concern to me as well.
Sea disruption is not an isolated event but a spillover, impacting economies, societies and the lives of ordinary people. When the Strait of Hormuz is destabilized, the world prices of oil are increased, the global supply chains break down, and millions of people in the world feel the ripple effect well above the battlefield. Disruptions in the strait have in the recent months added to global economic pressure and this is a reminder that maritime conflict is not local but is global.[7]
And finally there are the methods themselves. The growing popularity of autonomous systems, drones, and, even, unconventional tactics pose some challenging questions. Who is liable in the event of a fatal decision of an autonomous system? In what ways are we going to strike a balance between innovation and escalation? Certain of the reported strategies, like the possibility of using animals to deploy mines, push these ethical limits even farther, compelling us to confront some ugly realities about how far can be groups of people in search of strategic advantage.[8]
When I consider all this, I am aware that such change is not merely technological in nature, it is philosophical in nature. We are abandoning a model of war which is either centered on decisive battle to one that is characterized by continuous pressure. Victory is no longer concerned with defeating an enemy out of hand but of weakening him economically, politically, and psychologically.
This is the secret of the power of disruption. It is also functioning at the grey area between war and peace. It does not escalate to a full scale and yet it can still have strategic impacts. We can hardly attribute, nor can we easily counter, nor can we at all ignore. However, this change is accompanied by hazards, as well. Should all actors start to focus on disruption rather than deterrence, stability of global maritime systems can be eroded very fast. Chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz may become a permanent zone of tension where the threat of disruption is omnipresent and the margin of error is extremely small.
Herewith I find myself asking a question which is both pressing and unsolved: When the deterrence is not being used and the disruption is the new order of things, what about the rules that have governed the seas over the decades?
The principles underlying international maritime law such as freedom of navigation and shared access find it hard to adapt to a reality in which denial and disruption are the tools of the trade. When one of the states is able to close a global chokepoint without declaring war, the line between legal and illegal, peace and conflict starts to blur.
And it may well be the worst thing of all.
The sea is not only in the end a battlefield. It is a common space- a space that unites economies, cultures and nations. Once it turns into an instrument of disruption, the ramifications go way beyond strategy. I believe that in the future, technology or firepower alone will not determine the future of naval warfare. It will be influenced by the way we react to this change, to the deterrence-disruption shift, and whether or not we can work out new frameworks that will balance security and responsibility.
Up to this time, the Strait of Hormuz waters will continue to be something more than merely strategic chokepoint. They will represent a symbol of a shifting world- one in which power is no longer about being able to control the sea, but about being able to control uncertainty in the sea.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Opinion Desk.
[1] Strait of Hormuz significance and global oil flow
[2] 2026 crisis, shipping disruption and tanker traffic decline
[3] ran’s use of drones, mines, and swarm tactics
[4] Iran’s mine capabilities and asymmetric naval doctrine
[5] Drone production capacity (~10,000/month)
[6] AI and unmanned systems in US naval response
[7] Economic impact and global consequences of disruption
[8] Ethical concerns in unconventional naval tactics