Hormuz like the Black Sea: why Kyiv saw a familiar handwriting of Moscow in Iran’s actions

Iran’s attempt to block the Strait of Hormuz for Ukraine does not look like an abstract Middle Eastern news story, but almost a literal repetition of what Russia did in the Black Sea in 2022. This is exactly how the head of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, Andriy Sibiga, formulated it on March 20, 2026: according to him, Tehran is trying to strangle trade and turn the sea route into a tool of political and military pressure — exactly according to the scheme that Kyiv has already experienced.

For the Israeli audience, this analogy sounds particularly sharp. The Strait of Hormuz is not a peripheral point on the map, but one of the key nodes of global energy: about a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied gas supplies usually pass through it. When shipping is blocked in such a place, it quickly turns from a regional conflict into a global crisis — impacting prices, logistics, and the security of Israel’s allies.

Why Sibiga’s comparison with the Black Sea does not seem far-fetched

Ukraine reminds: maritime terror has already happened

Sibiga stated that for Kyiv, Iran’s attempts to restrict freedom of navigation in Hormuz look “painfully familiar.” He directly reminded that in 2022, Russia blocked maritime trade in the Black Sea, trying to strangle the Ukrainian economy, but Ukraine found a solution and restored freedom of navigation on its own, without accepting ultimatums from the terrorist state. He also emphasized that Ukraine has unique experience, knowledge, and technological advantage in restoring maritime navigation.

This is the main nerve of the whole story. Kyiv is not just expressing a diplomatic position. It is essentially telling the West and the Middle East: we have already seen how a maritime blockade is used as a weapon, and we know that such schemes cannot be left unanswered. In Ukrainian logic, it is not only about the strait between Iran and Oman, but about a broader model of coercion — when an authoritarian regime strikes not only at the enemy’s army but also at global trade, ship insurance, ports, markets, and investor expectations.

Why this is important specifically for Israel

For Israel, the topic of Hormuz has long ceased to be “foreign.” Iran threatens not just ships in the Persian Gulf, but the entire architecture of regional security. If Tehran can mine the route, attack ships, and paralyze one of the world’s main energy corridors, it is already a test of how capable the West is of defending international rules of the game. And this is a question that Jerusalem understands without lengthy explanations.

In the middle of this story, a broader conclusion is especially clear, which is important for readers of NAnews — Israel News | Nikk.Agency: Ukraine is now talking about Hormuz not as an external observer, but as a country that has experienced similar blackmail on its own sea. And for Israel, this voice is important precisely because it comes not from theory, but from the practice of war with Iran’s allies and the very logic of terrorist pressure.

What is happening around Hormuz on March 20

Kyiv is already translating the topic from statements into practice

On March 20, President Volodymyr Zelensky announced that he instructed NSDC Secretary Rustem Umerov to involve the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry and the military in assessing existing international initiatives on the Strait of Hormuz and the real readiness of countries to participate in stabilization missions. This is an important moment: Kyiv did not limit itself to Sibiga’s comment but began to consider an applied format of participation — at least at the level of expertise and assessment of international coordination.

In essence, Ukraine offers the world not moral support, but competence. After the war in the Black Sea, this sounds significant. Especially now, when Western capitals are still debating the scale of the response, and markets react faster than diplomats.

The US pressures allies, Europe responds more cautiously

On March 14, Donald Trump publicly called on other countries to send warships to ensure the safety of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. He specifically mentioned China, France, Japan, South Korea, and the United Kingdom. On March 15, according to Reuters, Trump was already warning of a “very bad” future for NATO if allies do not help ensure passage through the strait.

But the European response was much more restrained than Washington would have liked. In a joint statement on March 19, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, and subsequently other countries condemned Iran’s attacks on civilian ships and infrastructure, called freedom of navigation a fundamental principle of international law, and declared their readiness to contribute to ensuring safe passage through the strait. However, the wording was cautious: it was about “appropriate efforts” and preparatory planning, not immediate engagement in hostilities.

What changed in one day

London took a step further than the rest

On March 20, the British government already allowed the US to use bases in the United Kingdom for strikes on Iranian missile positions that attack ships in the Strait of Hormuz. According to Reuters, this involves consent to use British infrastructure as part of “collective self-defense of the region,” including operations against facilities involved in attacks on ships. This is noticeably tougher than just diplomatic support for freedom of navigation.

So we are witnessing a rapid shift. Just yesterday, allies were mainly talking about principles, international law, and coordination. Today, one of the key European powers is effectively giving Washington a tool for a direct forceful response against Iranian infrastructure threatening shipping.

That is why Sibiga’s words about the Black Sea hit the nerve of the moment. They describe not only Ukraine’s past experience but also the current dilemma of the West: either perceive the maritime blockade as another “episode of escalation,” or recognize that it is a form of strategic terror that works only as long as it is tolerated.

For Israel, there is another important conclusion here. If Iran is allowed to turn Hormuz into a zone of intimidation, the next blow will be not only to tankers and global prices. It will be to the very idea that international routes can be protected by law, coalition, and deterrence, and not just by fear of who mines the sea first. Ukraine has already gone through this. Now, it seems, this lesson has to be relearned by the entire region.