The short answer is that some bypasses do exist, but geography, cost, and politics limit how much oil can realistically avoid the Strait.
First, a quick sense of scale. The Strait of Hormuz is the outlet for the Persian Gulf, and roughly a fifth of the world’s traded oil passes through it. The big producers—especially Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates—sit inside the Gulf. To reach the open ocean without Hormuz, pipelines would have to cross long distances of desert or politically complicated territory.
Some countries have in fact built work-arounds.
Saudi Arabia operates the East–West pipeline (often called Petroline), which runs from the Gulf oil fields to the Red Sea port of Yanbu. That allows several million barrels per day to bypass Hormuz and ship via the Red Sea instead.
The UAE built the Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline, which runs to the port of Fujairah on the Gulf of Oman, outside the Strait entirely.
In the past there was also the Iraq–Turkey Pipeline to the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan, although political and security problems have frequently interrupted its use.
So the idea of bypassing Hormuz is not new, and several million barrels per day can already avoid it. The problem is that the Gulf exports far more oil than those pipelines can carry.
Three practical limits explain why the bypass isn’t complete.
Capacity and cost. Pipelines capable of moving several million barrels per day cost many billions of dollars and require pumping stations, security, and maintenance across hundreds or even thousands of kilometers. Tankers passing through Hormuz are simply cheaper. As long as the strait remains open most of the time, economics favors shipping.
Geography. Kuwait and most Iraqi oil fields lie deep inside the northern Gulf. To avoid Hormuz they would need pipelines across multiple countries or across very long distances of desert to the Red Sea or Mediterranean. Each additional border adds political risk.
Politics and security. Pipelines are fixed targets. A tanker route can be protected by navies and rerouted; a pipeline running across remote territory can be sabotaged at hundreds of points. In places like Iraq or Syria this has repeatedly happened.
There is also a strategic calculation. The United States and its allies have spent decades ensuring freedom of navigation in the Strait. The assumption—so far correct—is that even hostile actors like Iran would pay an enormous price for actually closing it. Because of that deterrence, the incentive to build enormously expensive alternatives has never been overwhelming.
So the situation is a compromise: partial bypass pipelines exist, but the majority of oil still flows through Hormuz because, under normal conditions, it remains the cheapest and most practical route.
If you like, we can also look at the interesting counterfactual: how much of the Gulf’s oil could bypass Hormuz today if the Strait suddenly closed. The answer is surprisingly limited.
You are correct that at the moment the Strait of Hormuz is effectively closed for normal commercial shipping. Traffic has collapsed because vessels risk missile and drone attack, so most operators and insurers are refusing to transit.
Commercial traffic through the strait has fallen by roughly 90–97%, with only a handful of Iran-linked vessels moving through the waterway while most ships wait outside the Gulf or remain in port.
Your original question—why weren’t bypass pipelines built long ago?—actually becomes clearer once the strait is closed, because we are seeing the limits of what alternatives exist.
The problem is scale. The Gulf exports vastly more oil than any bypass network can handle. Roughly 20% of global traded oil normally transits the strait, and there simply are not pipelines capable of replacing that flow.
The existing bypass routes are real but limited.
Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline runs from the Gulf fields to the Red Sea port of Yanbu. The United Arab Emirates has the Abu Dhabi–Fujairah pipeline to the port of Fujairah outside the strait. These together can move several million barrels per day, but the Gulf normally exports well over three times that amount.
The countries trapped by geography are the real constraint.
-
Kuwait has no alternate outlet.
-
Most of Iraq’s production sits deep in the northern Gulf and must move through Hormuz unless it goes by pipelines to Ceyhan or possibly Jordan—routes that are politically fragile and limited in capacity.
-
Qatar’s LNG industry is physically located inside the Gulf and has essentially no alternative export route.
That is why, even now, Iraq is scrambling to revive old export corridors and consider emergency options like shipping oil by truck to Jordan or expanding pipelines toward Turkey and Oman.
There is also an uncomfortable strategic truth: until now the world assumed the strait would never stay closed for long. The navies of the United States and its allies have spent decades signaling that closing it would trigger overwhelming military response. Because of that expectation, governments and oil companies generally chose the cheaper option—tankers—rather than building massive redundant pipelines that might never be needed.
In other words, the system was designed around a gamble:
that the strait might be threatened, but not actually shut for long.
Right now we are seeing what happens when that gamble fails, even temporarily.
If you’re interested, the next question economists are asking is a fascinating one: how many barrels per day can the world realistically reroute without Hormuz? The answer is surprisingly small compared with what normally flows through it.
Israel is part of the story, but it’s actually a smaller factor than one might first think. The deeper political problem is that every possible bypass route crosses somebody else’s territory, and in the Middle East that quickly becomes complicated.
Take the obvious geographic possibilities.
One route would run west to the Mediterranean through or near Israel. In fact, something very close to this already exists: the Eilat–Ashkelon Pipeline, originally built in the 1960s as a quiet partnership between Israel and Iran under the Shah. Oil landed at Eilat on the Red Sea and was piped to Ashkelon on the Mediterranean.
But after the Iranian Revolution that arrangement collapsed, and Arab states were never willing to rely on Israeli infrastructure for their primary export route. Even if some governments might quietly consider it today, politically it would be explosive for them domestically.
Another possibility is pipelines north to the Mediterranean through Turkey. That does exist for some oil—the Kirkuk–Ceyhan pipeline from northern Iraq. But the major Gulf fields are far to the south, and moving their output that way would require massive new pipelines crossing Iraq or Saudi Arabia. Security problems and internal politics have repeatedly disrupted even the pipelines that already exist.
A third route is across Arabia to the Red Sea. Saudi Arabia actually did this decades ago with its East–West Petroline to Yanbu. That is probably the most politically stable bypass because it stays inside one country. But it only helps Saudi exports; it doesn’t solve the problem for Kuwait, Iraq, or Qatar.
So the political obstacles are broader than Israel:
-
governments dislike depending on another country’s territory for their main export lifeline
-
rivalries inside the Arab world make long cross-border infrastructure fragile
-
pipelines are easy sabotage targets in unstable regions
-
and regimes worry about strategic leverage if a neighbor controls the valve.
Israel does add another layer, because for many Arab governments—even those quietly cooperating with Israel today—public reliance on Israeli infrastructure would still be extremely sensitive.
Your larger point about energy economics is exactly right. Historically, the world tolerates vulnerabilities like Hormuz because they keep oil cheap. Only when prices spike for a sustained period does the system reorganize—new pipelines, new shipping patterns, and eventually shifts toward other energy sources. But, as you say, those changes happen on the scale of years, not weeks.
If you step back historically, the irony is striking: the vulnerability of the Strait of Hormuz has been discussed seriously since the 1970s, yet the world still allowed roughly one fifth of global oil trade to depend on that narrow passage. That tells you how powerful the economics of the tanker route have been.
The available reporting suggests the disruption is not mainly about the U.S. being involved, though that certainly intensifies it. The central cause is simpler: Iran is willing to threaten shipping to impose economic pressure on its adversaries, and that alone is enough to stop most commercial traffic.
Several things are happening simultaneously.
First, Iran has warned it will attack ships attempting to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, and several vessels have already been struck. That immediately changes the risk calculation for shipowners and insurers. Even if the strait is not formally closed, the threat alone can halt shipping.
Second, maritime insurance has effectively collapsed for the area. Major war-risk insurers withdrew coverage, which means many ships cannot legally sail there at all, regardless of the military situation.
Third, the threat environment is extremely asymmetric. Iran does not need to control the sea to stop shipping. Mines, drones, and shore-based missiles can threaten slow-moving tankers in a narrow channel. Even navies struggle to guarantee safety under those conditions.
Now to your question: would this still be happening if the conflict were purely Israel–Iran without U.S. participation?
Probably yes—at least in some form. The logic from Iran’s perspective would be similar:
-
If Israel attacks Iran, Iran looks for indirect ways to impose costs.
-
The strait is the most powerful economic lever available.
-
Disrupting global oil supply pressures Israel’s allies and the world economy.
However, the scale of disruption might be smaller if the U.S. were clearly not involved. Iran has reportedly framed its restrictions partly around ships linked to the U.S., Israel, and their partners. In a strictly bilateral Israel–Iran conflict, Tehran might try to limit the disruption more selectively rather than freezing most traffic.
But there is an important practical reality: once missiles or drones start hitting tankers, commercial shipping stops regardless of the political nuance. Shipping companies do not attempt fine distinctions about which cargoes are “allowed.”
So the key drivers of the current shutdown are:
-
the physical vulnerability of ships in a narrow channel
-
the withdrawal of insurance
-
and the risk calculations of commercial operators.
Those forces would likely exist even if the United States were not directly participating, though U.S. involvement raises the stakes and broadens the target list.
If you're interested, there is a deeper strategic irony here: closing Hormuz hurts Iran’s own economy badly, yet it remains their strongest leverage. That paradox has shaped Gulf strategy for forty years.
Your reasoning captures the strategic dilemma that many analysts are describing, though the policy debate in Washington is a bit more complicated than the three-step logic you outline.
The present crisis began after joint Israeli–U.S. strikes on Iranian targets, which triggered Iranian retaliation and warnings against shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, effectively halting most traffic.
From Washington’s perspective, the core constraints really do look something like this:
1. Preventing nuclear capability.
For decades the central U.S. objective has been to prevent the Islamic
Republic from obtaining nuclear weapons or reliable delivery systems.
That concern intensified after repeated accusations that Iran used
negotiations mainly to buy time while advancing its program.
2. Limited effectiveness of airstrikes alone.
Air and missile strikes can damage facilities such as enrichment sites
or missile bases, but they rarely eliminate the capability permanently.
Underground facilities, dispersed infrastructure, and technical
knowledge survive. That means bombing campaigns often delay programs rather than end them.
3. Escalation risks.
Iran’s asymmetric response options—mines, missiles, drones, proxy
attacks, and disruption of oil shipping—allow it to impose global costs
even if it is militarily weaker. The closure or disruption of Hormuz is
the most dramatic example.
Where your argument becomes more debatable is the “therefore regime change” step.
Many strategists agree with your logic that the nuclear issue ultimately stems from the nature of the regime, but they also see enormous obstacles to external regime change:
-
Iran is a large country (90 million people) with strong internal security forces.
-
Nationalism can rally support for the regime when the country is attacked.
-
A ground invasion would be vastly larger than the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.
-
The political aftermath is unpredictable—collapse of the state could be worse.
Because of that, U.S. policy historically oscillates among three imperfect options rather than jumping directly to regime change:
-
Containment (sanctions, deterrence, naval presence).
-
Limited military strikes to slow nuclear development.
-
Internal pressure hoping domestic opposition eventually changes the system.
There is internal dissent inside Iran—recent protest waves and diaspora activism show that—but outside powers cannot easily control how or when such movements succeed.
So Washington’s quandary is very close to what you describe, but policymakers typically see regime change by force as the most dangerous option, not the inevitable one. Even some critics of the current war note that there is no clear plan for what follows if the regime collapses, which worries many analysts.
In short:
your logic is strategically coherent, but the reason Washington hesitates is that every path—negotiation, bombing, containment, or regime change—carries major risks.
If you’re interested, there’s a deeper historical parallel here that strategists often discuss: the United States faced a very similar logic problem with Iraq in the 1990s, and the eventual decision in 2003 still heavily shapes how policymakers think about Iran today.
Yes, what you are describing corresponds to a strategy often called “decapitation”—targeting the leadership and command structure in the hope that the regime loses coherence and internal forces finish the job. It is not quite the same as full-scale regime change by invasion; it is an attempt to trigger regime change from within by removing the people who hold the system together.
The logic is straightforward. In a highly centralized political system like that of Iran—ultimately anchored in the authority of the Ali Khamenei and a network of clerical and security elites—much of the real power lies in a relatively small circle. If that circle is disrupted, the hope is that internal rivalries, public dissatisfaction, and institutional fragmentation might produce political change without the need for foreign occupation.
Historically, though, the results of leadership decapitation are mixed. Sometimes regimes fracture quickly; sometimes they harden. Authoritarian systems often have succession mechanisms and secondary leadership layers precisely to survive this kind of shock. And external attack can produce a surge of nationalism that temporarily strengthens the regime rather than weakening it.
Your observation about insurance is also accurate. In principle, governments could replace the commercial insurance market if shipping were strategically necessary. During earlier crises in the Gulf—particularly the Tanker War in the 1980s—the United States and other states effectively did this by escorting tankers and assuming much of the risk themselves. The U.S. Navy even reflagged foreign tankers during Operation Earnest Will so they could sail under American protection.
But the point you make about crews is the hard limit. Even if states insure the cargo and hull, they cannot easily insure the human beings operating the ships. Merchant seafarers are civilians, and shipping companies cannot compel them to sail into waters where missiles or mines are expected. In practice, crews refuse contracts, unions intervene, and companies cannot crew their vessels.
So the shutdown of traffic in places like the Strait of Hormuz is rarely caused by a formal legal closure. It usually happens because the combination of insurance withdrawal, crew refusal, and commercial risk makes normal shipping impossible.
The interesting strategic question now is whether governments decide to militarize the shipping lanes again, as they did in the late 1980s. That would mean naval escorts, mine-clearing operations, and possibly direct confrontation with Iranian forces—essentially turning the strait into an actively managed wartime corridor.
Frank, you’re right to object, and I owe you a straightforward apology. I misread your argument and extended it to something you did not say. You never proposed regime change by invasion; you were reasoning through the dilemma and pointing out the logic that might push policymakers toward regime change, not advocating a ground war. I shouldn’t have attributed that step to you. Thank you for calling it out.
What you actually said was much closer to this chain:
-
Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is unacceptable to its adversaries.
-
Negotiations are viewed by many as delaying tactics.
-
Direct attacks provoke retaliation such as closing the Strait of Hormuz.
-
Therefore policymakers search for alternatives that might change the regime without invasion.
Your later remark—about eliminating leaders and hoping internal forces take over—fits squarely in that line of reasoning. That approach tries to shift the decisive action to the internal politics of Iran, rather than impose change externally.
Your point about insurance is also well taken. States can underwrite ships if necessary; the harder constraint is the crew risk, because merchant seafarers are civilians and cannot simply be ordered into a combat zone.
In short, the logic you were tracing is a genuine strategic puzzle: every available option—containment, strikes, internal destabilization, or large-scale war—has severe drawbacks. Your comment was exploring the reasoning that leads governments to experiment with the middle options.
Again, you were right to push back. If you’re willing, I’d actually be curious about one part of your reasoning: do you think policymakers really expected internal collapse in Iran, or were they simply hoping for confusion and temporary paralysis at the top? Those are quite different strategic bets.
Yes—on that point there is very broad agreement among military planners and analysts. A U.S. land invasion of Iran would be extraordinarily difficult for three separate reasons: geography, logistics, and domestic politics, just as you say.
Geographically, Iran is a very different problem from places where the United States has fought recent wars. It is a large, mountainous country of roughly ninety million people with multiple natural defensive barriers. Major cities and military sites are spread across a wide plateau ringed by mountain ranges such as the Zagros Mountains and Alborz Mountains. That terrain complicates armored movement, supply lines, and air-ground coordination. It favors defenders and irregular warfare.
Logistically, the scale would be enormous. During the Iraq War the United States deployed roughly 150,000 troops for the initial invasion of a country less than half Iran’s population and with far more accessible terrain. Military estimates over the years have suggested that a serious invasion of Iran could require several times that number, plus staging areas in neighboring countries. Those staging bases are not easy to obtain politically. Turkey, the Gulf states, and others would be extremely cautious about hosting forces for such an operation because it would make them immediate targets.
Then there is the domestic political dimension in the United States. The experiences of the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan have left a strong reluctance toward large occupation wars. The financial cost, casualties, and uncertain outcomes weigh heavily in American political memory. Even policymakers who favor strong action against Iran generally assume that another large ground war in the Middle East would be politically unsustainable at home.
Because of those constraints, most strategic thinking about Iran has focused on alternatives: deterrence, sanctions, covert operations, air and missile strikes, support for internal opposition, or attempts to disrupt specific programs such as nuclear development. None of those options fully solves the problem, but they avoid the enormous commitment that a land invasion would entail.
So your conclusion—that a U.S. invasion is essentially off the table for practical as well as political reasons—matches the consensus view in most policy circles.
Yes, and your comparison with Venezuela is perceptive. The internal structure of the Iranian state is far deeper and more institutionalized than what existed around Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela.
In Iran the regime is not simply a leader surrounded by loyalists. It is a layered system built deliberately to survive shocks. At the center is the office of the Supreme Leader, but beneath that sits a dense network of institutions—clerical bodies, security services, and above all the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The IRGC is not merely a military force; it is also a political and economic power center that controls large segments of the economy and maintains internal security through associated forces like the Basij militia.
That structure means that removing a few individuals rarely collapses the system. Analysts frequently point out that the Iranian state was designed with redundancy: multiple institutions share authority and succession mechanisms exist so that the system continues even if senior figures are killed.
Recent reporting suggests something similar in the current crisis. Intelligence assessments reportedly warn that even major military blows are unlikely to topple the regime because the clerical establishment, security apparatus, and IRGC together provide enough institutional continuity to keep the system functioning.
That’s the key difference from Venezuela. In Venezuela the regime’s durability depended heavily on a narrower coalition around the presidency and the military leadership. Iran, by contrast, is closer to what political scientists sometimes call a “revolutionary state.” Those tend to embed loyal institutions deeply into society—security forces, ideological organizations, patronage networks—specifically to prevent the kind of collapse that occurred to the Shah in 1979.
Your speculation about Donald Trump being influenced by earlier success in Venezuela is plausible in the sense that policymakers often extrapolate from recent experience. But the two systems differ structurally: Venezuela’s regime is personalist and economically fragile, whereas Iran’s has forty-plus years of institutional layering and security penetration.
So your instinct about “depth of state” is exactly the concept analysts usually reach for. In Iran the problem is not simply the leadership; it is that the regime is embedded in multiple mutually reinforcing institutions, and those are much harder to dislodge.
And there is another subtle factor people sometimes overlook: the regime also draws some resilience from nationalism. External attack can sometimes strengthen internal cohesion, at least temporarily, even among citizens who dislike the government.
Your earlier point about outcomes being uncertain seems very fair. Situations like this can flip quickly—but historically systems built like Iran’s tend to bend before they break.
