Control over the world's narrowest waterways has always looked easier on a map than it is in reality. If you look at the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab el-Mandeb strait, you are looking at the two jugular veins of international trade. Whoever commands these watery bottlenecks holds the global economy hostage. History shows that major powers love to seize them. History also shows they always lose them.
The Portuguese, the French, and the British all marched into these regions with grand imperial ambitions, confident that naval supremacy meant permanent dominance. They figured out how to take the straits. They completely failed to keep them. For a different perspective, check out: this related article.
The Illusion of Permanent Naval Supremacy
When the Portuguese empire expanded into the Indian Ocean under commanders like Afonso de Albuquerque, they realized early on that controlling open water wasn't enough. You had to choke the entrances. By seizing Hormuz in the early 16th century, Lisbon taxed and regulated every single merchant vessel moving between the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. It was a classic extract-and-control strategy.
It didn't last. Distant empires suffer from structural overextension. Portugal lacked the population, the industrial depth, and the local roots to sustain a permanent chokehold thousands of miles from home. When local realignments happened and fresh naval powers like the British and the Dutch arrived, the Portuguese hold on Hormuz crumbled. Further coverage on the subject has been shared by NPR.
Centuries later, the British Empire repeated this playbook on a much grander scale. Britain occupied Aden, established positions near Bab el-Mandeb, and secured Perim Island to protect the route to India after the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869. For generations, the British Royal Navy felt untouchable in these waters. But military might cannot permanently freeze local politics or suppress anti-colonial resistance. When the British withdrew from Aden in 1967, it proved a hard truth: extra-regional maritime hegemony is always temporary.
Why Modern Powers Keep Making the Same Mistake
Fast forward to today, and you can watch superpowers walk right into the same historical trap. Modern naval task forces deploy multi-billion-dollar aircraft carriers to the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, operating under the assumption that missile defense shields and carrier strike groups equal absolute control.
They don't.
Local actors have completely rewritten the rules of naval engagement. You don't need a massive blue-water navy to shut down global commerce anymore. Cheap drones, coastal anti-ship missiles, and tactical sea mines weaponize the cost of insurance. When regional factions or states use these asymmetric tools, they turn maritime chokepoints into financial nightmares for international shippers. Tankers are forced to take the long, expensive detour around the southern tip of Africa, spiking energy prices and shaking markets globally.
When Washington or European coalitions try to secure these waters through brute force, they often trigger the exact retaliatory disruptions they are trying to prevent. Throwing military weight at a chokepoint doesn't buy stability. It usually buys a longer, costlier war of attrition.
The Real Lesson of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb
Every single empire that tried to lock down Hormuz or Bab el-Mandeb fell into the same trap. They mistook military occupation for political mastery. Controlling a narrow band of water means nothing if the local societies, tribes, and nations surrounding it refuse to bow.
Geopolitics in these regions isn't just about ships and missile ranges. It's about geography meeting local will. As long as outside powers believe they can permanently police local waterways from thousands of miles away, they will keep repeating the cycles of the Portuguese, the French, and the British. Dominance shifts the moment technologies evolve, alliances fracture, and local resistance adapts.
Stop viewing maritime security through the lens of permanent imperial control. Look at the balance of local power instead, because that is what always wins in the end.
