Attempts to win geopolitical advantages through natural resources generally backfire. Resource Resolutions recently surveyed past attempts by nations to weaponise their resource exports, and found these moves were often both ineffective in achieving their geopolitical goals and also seeded some form of blowback.
The article below, which was published by Prospect Magazine on April 9th 2026, used these findings to cast light on the current US-Iranian standoff in the Strait of Hormuz.
In early March, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard effectively shut down the Strait of Hormuz, allowing only approved vessels through this critical energy chokepoint. Until recently roughly a fifth of the world’s oil production and a big chunk of global liquefied natural gas (LNG) flowed through this strait. Hundreds of vessels came to a standstill. Oil prices soared.
President Trump, meanwhile, said he wanted to “take the oil in Iran”, and threatened destruction not just of Iran’s energy infrastructure but Iranian civilisation if a deal with Tehran was not reached. Despite this week’s ceasefire agreement, the security of the Strait remains uncertain, and most ships are not expected to start moving again.
Whether these were acts of skilled geopolitical brinkmanship or of national self-harm remains unclear—but they certainly reflect an increasing willingness among states and other actors to treat natural resources either as a tool for geopolitical leverage or as a motive for asserting themselves aggressively in foreign lands.
Across the sweep of history such approaches are nothing new. Conquest by colonial powers was often motivated by resource acquisition, just as wresting back control of and wielding resource exports was often a focus of nationalist movements in previously colonised nations. But after several decades of relative abeyance, these approaches are becoming popular once more.
To read the full article published by Prospect, click here
Image: Alones Creative Stock photo ID: 2265963203
Resource Resolutions 