What Are the Real Safe-Haven Assets as the Strait of Hormuz Shuts Down?

Human civilization originated from an act of violence, and some places are inherently destined to be focal points of war.

The Strait of Hormuz is one such chokepoint—what impact would occur on assets, including Bitcoin, if this narrow waterway, which carries one-fifth of the world’s oil shipments, were to be closed?

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

Over the past few decades, the Strait of Hormuz has more than once been at the center of geopolitical storms. The closest it came to being "closed" was during the 1980s, in the covert naval conflict known as the "Tanker War" amid the Iran-Iraq War.

During the Iran-Iraq War from 1980 to 1988, Iran repeatedly threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz and laid mines in the area while attacking oil tankers in 1987. At the time, tanker crew members referred to the strait as the "Corridor of Death." Iran’s threats caused oil prices to rise from over $30 per barrel to more than $45 per barrel. Meanwhile, tanker freight rates surged due to tensions in the strait, peaking at double their original levels.

In 2018, the U.S. government withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal and reinstated sanctions on Iran. At the time, Iran stated it had the capability to disrupt oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz. In July of that year, Iran seized a British oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz, and the heightened tensions briefly pushed crude oil prices higher.

In June 2025, U.S. officials claimed a "successful strike" on Iran's nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Following the announcement, Iranian officials stated that the parliament had reached a consensus on "closing the Strait of Hormuz." After the news broke, London Brent crude oil prices surged by 6%.

Those were the years when Iran and Iraq choked each other’s economies. After all, Iran also relied on this waterway to export its oil; blocking it would mean cutting off its own war funding. Thus, threats, harassment, and localized conflicts flared up one after another, yet always maintained a dangerous yet restrained balance.

Today, Iran continues to assert its toughness 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 vessel attempting to force its way through would face retaliation. Meanwhile, international maritime safety agencies have adopted a more cautious stance—the UK Maritime Trade Operations Office stated that although it has intercepted Iran’s radio broadcast of the “blockade order,” no legally binding official announcement has yet been received. From an international law perspective, the blockade has not been formally completed; yet from a practical shipping standpoint, the strait has effectively come to a near standstill.

After multiple tankers were attacked near the strait, war risk premiums surged to unsustainable levels, prompting some insurers to suspend coverage entirely. Without insurance, virtually no legitimate shipowners dared to send vessels into these waters. Secondly, electronic interference emerged—widespread GPS spoofing and signal jamming caused ships’ navigation systems to display false positions, showing vessels as “stationary on land” or severely off-course. The sea remained, but the coordinates lost all meaning. Coupled with announcements from shipping giants like Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd suspending related routes, this global busiest energy artery suddenly fell into an unprecedented silence.

As a global energy hub, the Strait of Hormuz typically sees about 50 large oil tankers passing through daily, but real-time AIS tracking data showed nearly zero tankers transiting on March 1 and 2, with no LNG vessels passing through either—an unprecedented occurrence in recent years.

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

First, although the United States has achieved energy self-sufficiency in recent years, global oil prices are interconnected, and the U.S. cannot remain insulated. As of March 3, Brent crude has surged to $82 per barrel. Institutions like Goldman Sachs predict that if lockdowns persist, oil prices could exceed $100. This would directly cause a sharp rise in domestic gasoline prices in the U.S., offsetting the Federal Reserve’s previous inflation-fighting efforts, forcing interest rates to remain high, and potentially triggering an economic recession.

Second, the United States' allies in Asia (Japan and South Korea) and Europe heavily rely on strait energy. Iran’s move essentially forces these allies to pressure Washington to rein in Israel or halt its military actions, thereby diplomatically isolating the United States.

In addition, 2026 falls within a sensitive period of the U.S. political cycle, and inflation triggered by the energy crisis is the most politically damaging issue for the ruling party, with Iran directly intervening in America’s internal political stability.

Although Israel does not directly import oil through the Strait (primarily sourcing from countries like Azerbaijan), indirect strikes are equally devastating. The "de facto closure" of the Strait of Hormuz coincides with a full escalation of risks along the Red Sea shipping lanes. The cost of global trade essential to Israel—including electronics, raw materials, and imported food—has surged, and insurers have begun refusing to cover vessels heading to Israeli ports. Meanwhile, the cost of war is also highly unsustainable; global economic disruption caused by the blockade will undermine Western nations’ ability to financially support Israel’s prolonged military operations.

We often mistakenly believe that a world war began on a specific day.

Indeed, Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in a single day, the gunshots echoing through the streets of Sarajevo. But that house of political cards had been built up over decades, even centuries. It collapsed in just weeks, yet it took people months to truly realize they were standing at the edge of a cliff.

Even before World War I had ended, people were already predicting the next conflict. By the 1930s, Japan was expanding in Asia, Germany was rearming, and annexations and probes advanced step by step. Even after invasions began, a long period of the "Phoney War" followed. It wasn't until the flames rose over Pearl Harbor that many still failed to grasp that the world had been utterly transformed.

So if this is already the Third World War, how should we prepare for it 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 expectations of war are rising, silver often initially rises alongside gold, but subsequently experiences sharp volatility due to a collapse in industrial demand. Historical experience shows that during the early stages of conflict, silver may surge more sharply, but its medium-term movement tends to be far more unstable. It acts like an amplifier, magnifying fear rather than certainty.

As for oil, it is the central pawn in this geopolitical game. The Strait of Hormuz carries about one-fifth of the world’s daily crude oil flow. Should it be truly severed, oil prices would surge past key psychological thresholds not due to sentiment, but simply due to physical reality. With a daily supply gap of 20 million barrels, analysts expect Brent crude prices to rapidly exceed $100 per barrel.

Rising energy prices signify a renewed surge in global inflation, deepen the central banks' dilemma between fighting inflation and supporting growth, and imply a more complex liquidity environment—all of which have historically been unfavorable signals for risk assets.

Compared to gold, silver, and oil, crypto enthusiasts are more concerned with Bitcoin’s price movement.

In the early stages of a conflict, Bitcoin often behaves more like a high-volatility tech stock than gold. This is because, when global risk appetite sharply declines, investors first sell off the most volatile assets. Liquidation of leveraged positions, stablecoin runs, and reduced exchange liquidity 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 15%–20% deep correction. This means Bitcoin also has a significant likelihood of declining alongside the broader global stock market.

Moreover, if the conflict truly escalates into a global war and parts of the traditional financial system fail, the role of crypto assets would undergo a qualitative transformation.

In an environment with strengthened capital controls and restricted cross-border clearing, the ability to transfer value on-chain will be reevaluated. The distribution of mining farms, electricity, and computational power will become geopolitical variables. The reserve structures of stablecoins will come under scrutiny, and the jurisdictional affiliations of trading platforms will become risk points.

At that time, the question was no longer "bull market or bear market," but rather who could still settle freely and who could still exchange freely.

Many prominent investors and institutions have expressed the view: "What should we do if a third world war breaks out?"

J.P. Morgan believes it is necessary to reassess previous optimistic forecasts, as the probability of a global recession has risen above 35%. It recommends preparing defensive positions, such as increasing cash allocations and shortening bond duration.

A month ago, when the Trump administration publicly discussed the possibility of incorporating Greenland into Washington’s territory, Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater Associates, issued a warning. He bluntly stated that, amid escalating geopolitical tensions and volatile capital markets, the world is nearing the brink of a “capital war.”

Although capital wars involve博弈 over currency, debt, tariffs, and asset prices, they are typically centered around "major conflicts." For example, before the United States entered World War II, it imposed sanctions on Japan, escalating tensions between the two countries.

Amid escalating tensions, Ray Dalio consistently emphasizes a view that almost seems "classical": the value of gold should not be defined by daily price fluctuations. “Gold is up about 65% compared to the same period last year and has pulled back about 16% from its recent high. People often fall into the trap of obsessing over whether to chase prices when they rise or buy when they fall,” he said.

He repeatedly emphasized that gold is important not because it always rises, but because it has low correlation with most financial assets. During periods of economic downturn, credit contraction, and market panic, it typically holds up well; during times of economic prosperity and rising risk appetite, it may appear flat. It is precisely this inverse relationship that makes gold a true diversification tool.

As the war between Israel and Iran erupted, Warren Buffett’s past investment advice was revisited.

During Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, Buffett warned against selling stocks, hoarding cash, or buying gold or bitcoin during times of war, as he believed investing in businesses is the best way to build wealth over time.

At the time, Buffett stated that it was certain that if a major war broke out, the value of money would decline. “What I mean is, this has almost happened in every war I’m aware of, so the last thing you want to do is hold cash during a war.”

In comparison, Goldman Sachs focuses on oil prices, as rising energy costs could lead to renewed increases in transportation, manufacturing, and food prices, potentially reigniting global inflation. If inflation expectations re-emerge, central banks will be forced to tighten policy, altering the liquidity environment. Based on this logic, Goldman Sachs’ recommendation is straightforward: hedge against inflation risk by focusing on tools such as commodity futures and Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS). The goal is not to chase price gains, but to proactively prepare for the erosion of purchasing power.

In addition, analysts generally believe that once a state of "full confrontation" is reached, the underlying logic of asset pricing will undergo a fundamental shift.

First to be reevaluated will be the priority of physical assets. Land, agricultural products, energy, and industrial raw materials—such as lithium, cobalt, and rare earth elements—once viewed as cyclical commodities, will instead become critical assets under extreme conditions. This is because war first consumes resources, then capital. Stocks and derivatives depend on corporate profits and the stability of the financial system, whereas resources possess the most fundamental certainty. When supply chains are disrupted, the value of control over physical assets will surpass paper returns.

Next is the volatility in the technology sector. In peacetime, artificial intelligence and semiconductors represent growth stories; in wartime, they become the core of productivity. Computing power determines command efficiency, chips determine the performance of weapon systems, and satellite communications determine information sovereignty. Assets such as data centers, power infrastructure, and low-earth-orbit satellite networks will be rapidly integrated into national strategic frameworks.

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