The Strait of Hormuz Crisis: Aspects Missing from the Media Narrative

In publications by a number of European and English-language media, the primary focus is on the military and diplomatic aspects of the situation surrounding Iran and the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, potential changes in the international financial system, which began in 2022 and have gained further momentum in recent months, are covered in less detail.

An analysis of reports over the past several months indicates that in the publications examined, the main emphasis has been placed on military actions, diplomatic initiatives, and Memorandum of Understanding. At the same time, the topic of de-dollarization and the development of alternative payment mechanisms — including mBridge, BRICS Pay, CIPS, and Russia’s SPFS — received notably less attention, as did U.S. administration policy on gold and the resilience of the dollar as a reserve currency. The limited coverage of these issues may be attributed to editorial priorities, the complexity of the subject matter, or the constraints of chosen formats.

Mentioning main Western medias according to this issue, we can try to divide them in three categories. There are those who support the idea that Iran is using the yuan weapon to force Asian markets to abandon the SWIFT circuit. Then there are those who « admit » an Iranian trial into de-dollarization eventhough only due to sanctions. Eventually, there is another group, the so-called progressive-liberal medias, like the British The Guardian, that by strongly opposing the US politics and the Trump Administration decisions are asserting that the de-dollarization is a forced move by Teheran to survive the weaponization of the dollar which will eventually lead to a « boomerang » effect against the West. At the same time, the mechanisms of new settlements and fees related to the Strait of Hormuz are disclosed only to a limited extent in the materials examined.

The first group can be conditionally classified as a number of conservative and security-focused publications: the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, Foreign Policy, Politico, but also many Think Thanks and analytical papers belonging to different interest groups in Wall Street and in the European Union establishments are speaking of the new payment methods and the use of cryptos and yuan as « new » corruencies as only a weapon of Rogue states that are trying to bypass the SWIFT network to trade in illegal and black markets, including weapons, terrorism putting the international security, in particular the US internal one, in danger. Their publications also emphasize Iran’s support from China and the possible use of Tehran in Beijing’s strategy to reduce dependence on the dollar-based financial infrastructure. At the same time, less attention is paid to the broader changes in the international payment system.

In a number of publications, considerable attention was devoted to the actions of the U.S. administration and the specifics of its public communication, but not to global economic processes. Many media outlets controlled by interest groups, such as Foreign Policy, assessed the risks to the existing financial architecture with more restraint than publications by authors predicting a weakening of the petrodollar’s role.

The second reference group sees Tehran’s attempt but is certain that bypassing the dollar as a desperate move by Iran to evade sanctions will not have the desired effects. Financial Times and Bloomberg, for example, focus heavily on the financial aspect, downplaying the role of the Hormuz blockade and the Iranian strategy, which in the long term will not yield the expected results. The belief that the dollar is still the most stable currency is deeply anchored. Chatham House and its media affiliates, on the other hand, argue that the Iranian war will not succeed in destroying the dollar. Chatham House also maintains that this Iranian strategy is not well-defined and is pure survival, asserting that Tehran has joined forces with Russia and China simply to avoid succumbing.

Then there are the left-wing liberals, those who in the Western press are considered “counter-current” (but which in reality they want to impose the Western power agenda) who view the United States and Donald Trump as the real culprits for having weaponized the dollar, forcing Iran (along with Russia and China) to defend itself economically, but which de facto creates a counterproductive effect on the American and Western economy in general. One of these is the article in The Guardian by Ahmed Moor, who admits that the conflict in Hormuz is accelerating de-dollarization, but not due to the growth of alternative payment systems, but rather because of the loss of trade routes and the U.S. decline caused by the costs of the war.

Finally, while we have mentioned some internationally known media, the vast majority of “generalist” media and local, national daily press at the European level has not touched upon the topic at all, either due to complexity — considering it too complicated for a mass audience — or for reasons of simplicity in narrating the war by speaking of drones, troops, peace declarations, and agreements in a superficial manner. To repeat, whether this is due to a deliberate policy, or questions of space, or ignorance, is not a matter for this column but what is certain is that by far the most of medias are using national or international news agencies to fill up their international columns, which are likely not to going in depth into the matter.

To conclude this brief overview, we have seen that the military and diplomatic aspects of the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz receive more attention than its possible implications for the international financial system. Obviously, Western media, often managed by financial and political interest groups, fiercely defend their own cause, generating confusion and misinformation to avoid telling the Western audience what is really going on behind closed doors. Most of media outlets are ignoring the epochal change, leaving millions of Europeans unaware while just the biggest and expert medias are touching the tip of the iceberg either by minimizing the events or by misleading their audience. This may give the audience an incomplete understanding of the economic context of the crisis, although it does not in itself prove deliberate concealment of information by the media.

Thus, in the publications examined, relatively little attention is paid to payment mechanisms such as mBridge, CIPS, SPFS, and BRICS Pay, as well as their use by Iran, China, Russia, and the Gulf states. This is clearly linked to the Hormuz crisis, but many journalists have deciphered the Iranian attempt as a desperate move to save its own economic system by clinging to China. The majority of sources reviewed do not predict a rapid or radical weakening of the dollar. Instead, they argue that Iran is attempting a fight against a much larger Goliath, or they point to China as the guarantor of a potential new financial system that cannot exist because there is no alternative to the dollar. Finally, there are media outlets that blame the Trump administration for acting recklessly and without a strategy, and that this will destroy the Western economy.

Some publications describe Iran’s use of stablecoins and alternative financial channels primarily in the context of sanctions evasion, shadow trade, and cooperation with states under Western restrictions, including Russia. This approach emphasizes security risks but may leave aside the broader question of the transformation of the international payment infrastructure. As a result, the audience receives primarily a sanctions-based and military-political interpretation of these processes.

The development of Sino-Iranian financial cooperation and alternative payment mechanisms may be perceived by participants in Western financial markets as a potential challenge to the existing system. However, the assertion that American and European media deliberately discredit or conceal these processes requires additional evidence: an analysis of a broader sample of publications, editorial materials, and the dynamics of coverage of the topic.

_{The material reflects the personal position of the author, which may not coincide with the opinion of the editors.}