Sixty-two days into the Strait of Hormuz crisis, cargo vessels are staying away, fertilizer prices are climbing fast, and one of the world's foremost shipping analysts is warning that the disruption could last years, with the poorest nations paying the price in hunger. Fox News Digital reported that the U.S. has maintained its naval blockade of traffic entering and exiting Iranian ports while Iran has continued to effectively close the Strait, choking off a waterway that carries nearly a third of the world's seaborne fertilizer.
The standoff is no longer just an energy story. It is becoming a food story, and the timeline for relief, even under the best diplomatic scenario, stretches into months.
Lars Jensen, CEO and partner at the maritime consultancy Vespucci Maritime, told Fox News Digital that the best outcome still leaves global supply chains limping for a long time. The worst case, he said, mirrors a disruption that paralyzed international shipping for nearly a decade.
Jensen laid out the range of possibilities in blunt terms. Even a rapid diplomatic breakthrough, he said, would not flip a switch and restore normal commerce.
"Best case, there is an agreement between the U.S. and Iran within the next few weeks, and the Strait reopens. And it has to be a deal where there is trust that Iran is sufficiently satisfied with the deal such that they do not suddenly close the strait again. Even in that case, it will still take months for the supply chains to revert back to normality."
That is the optimistic scenario. Jensen then pointed to the darker end of the spectrum, the Suez Canal closure that began in 1967 after the Arab-Israeli conflict and lasted until 1975. Eight years. One of the most important commercial waterways on Earth, shut despite its enormous economic significance.
Jensen told Fox News Digital plainly:
"Worst case, we can look at the eight-year closure of the Suez Canal from 1967 to 1975. Despite its importance to the global economy, it proved impossible to reopen the canal for those eight years."
The comparison is not academic. The Suez Canal has faced recurring disruption, including attacks in the Red Sea since 2023 that curbed tanker traffic and drove up insurance costs. A photo caption in the Fox News report noted the SKS Doyles crude oil tanker moving along the Suez Canal toward Ismailia, Egypt, on Dec. 21, 2023, amid a sharp decline in tanker traffic caused by those attacks. The Hormuz crisis now layers a second major chokepoint disruption on top of an already fragile global shipping network.
The connection between a Persian Gulf standoff and grocery prices, or, in the developing world, between a standoff and starvation, runs through fertilizer. Jensen identified it as the single most important commodity at risk.
"Fertilizer is the most important element. Thirty percent of the world's seaborne fertilizer comes from the Persian Gulf. Fertilizer prices are already rising fast."
Thirty percent. Nearly a third of the global seaborne supply, locked behind a waterway that commercial shipping companies refuse to transit because, as Jensen put it, they "do not want to see their seafarers potentially killed." That is not a political statement. It is a business calculation, and it means the fertilizer is not moving.
The downstream consequences split along wealth lines. Jensen described the divergence with precision:
"In wealthy countries, it means more expensive food come harvest season, and, in poor countries, it means that farmers right now cannot afford fertilizer. This will lead to the harvest being lower later in the season, leading to rapid increases in food prices in very poor countries. And such a situation increases the risk of famine and conflict."
American consumers may face higher grocery bills. Farmers in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia may face crop failure. The mechanism is the same, missing fertilizer, but the severity scales with poverty. That is the arithmetic of a prolonged Hormuz closure, and it is already in motion.
President Donald Trump announced on April 21 that he would delay renewed strikes on Iran until Tehran presents a proposal for long-term peace, effectively extending a 14-day ceasefire indefinitely. Trump said Washington's blockade of Iranian ports has been effective and urged Tehran to "just give up."
The administration's approach has been to tighten the blockade while keeping the door open for diplomacy. But as of Thursday, Day 62, diplomatic efforts remained fragile, with limited signs of progress.
Iran, for its part, has shown no public inclination to back down. Fox News Digital reported that a giant banner hangs on a building at Tehran's central Enqelab Square declaring, "The Strait of Hormuz will remain closed; the entire Persian Gulf is our hunting ground." That is not the language of a regime preparing to negotiate. It is the language of a regime digging in.
The result is a mutual stranglehold. The U.S. blocks Iranian ports. Iran effectively closes the Strait. And the commercial vessels that would normally carry oil, gas, fertilizer, and other cargo through the Persian Gulf sit idle or reroute, because no shipping company will gamble its crews' lives on a transit through contested waters.
Jensen's analysis highlights a problem that goes beyond the current military posture. Even if a deal materializes quickly, the trust deficit is enormous. Any agreement, he noted, must leave Iran "sufficiently satisfied" that it will not simply close the Strait again. That is a high bar. Shipping companies and insurers will not resume normal operations on the strength of a handshake; they will need sustained evidence that the waterway is safe.
The Red Sea disruptions offer a cautionary precedent. Attacks there since 2023 drove up insurance costs, curbed traffic, and forced rerouting, and that crisis involved non-state actors, not a sovereign nation with a conventional military and a declared intention to keep the waterway shut. The Hormuz situation is, by every measure, more severe.
Meanwhile, the administration has made clear it intends to maintain pressure. That is the right instinct, Iran's nuclear ambitions and regional aggression demand a firm response. But firmness without a clear diplomatic off-ramp risks exactly the scenario Jensen describes: a years-long closure that reshapes global trade routes, punishes developing nations, and drives food prices higher for American families already stretched thin.
The open questions are significant. What specific proposal would satisfy Washington? What would Iran accept? And who, if anyone, is mediating? Fox News Digital reported limited signs of progress as of Thursday, and the fact pack offers no detail on back-channel efforts or third-party involvement.
Jensen's point about seafarer safety deserves emphasis. Commercial shipping is not a branch of the military. Companies make risk calculations based on insurance premiums, crew safety, and liability. When a waterway becomes a potential combat zone, the math changes overnight.
"Cargo vessels are not going through for the simple reason that commercial companies do not want to see their seafarers potentially killed."
That single sentence explains why the Strait of Hormuz crisis cannot be resolved by military force alone. The U.S. Navy can escort individual ships through the Strait, but it cannot underwrite the insurance policies, crew contracts, and corporate risk tolerances that govern global commerce. Until the Strait is safe enough for routine, unescorted transit, the supply-chain damage will compound.
And every week that passes without a resolution, the fertilizer shortage deepens, planting seasons are missed, and the harvest math for the world's poorest farmers gets worse.
The Hormuz crisis is a test of American resolve, and it should be. Iran's regime has spent decades threatening this waterway, sponsoring terrorism, and pursuing nuclear weapons. Confronting that threat is not optional. But the costs of confrontation are real, and they fall hardest on people who have no say in the matter: farmers in poor countries who cannot afford fertilizer, families in wealthy countries facing higher food bills, and merchant sailors whose employers will not send them into harm's way.
Jensen's comparison to the Suez Canal closure is the kind of warning that policymakers ignore at their peril. Eight years. That is how long a critical waterway stayed shut the last time geopolitics overrode economics. The Strait of Hormuz handles a larger share of global energy and fertilizer trade than the Suez did in 1967. The consequences of a similar duration closure would be worse.
The administration is right to hold firm against Iran. But holding firm is not the same as standing still. Sixty-two days in, with fertilizer prices climbing and famine risks rising in the developing world, the question is no longer whether the blockade is working. It is whether anyone has a plan for what comes next, and whether that plan arrives before the harvest window closes.
Strength without strategy is just a siege. And sieges have a way of starving more than the enemy.
