Wong said the meetings were aimed at strengthening coordination with key regional partners as instability linked to the Iran conflict affects international energy supplies and shipping routes.

In Tokyo, Wong is scheduled to meet Japanese Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi for discussions on fuel security, regional stability and the Middle East conflict.

In Beijing, she will hold the eighth Australia-China Foreign and Strategic Dialogue with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, describing the talks as an opportunity to advance shared interests while managing strategic differences between Canberra and Beijing.

In Seoul, Wong will meet South Korean Foreign Minister Cho Hyun, noting that South Korea remains one of Australia’s most important suppliers of refined fuels.Australia imports the majority of its fuel requirements and has faced localized shortages since the Middle East conflict began in February, exposing vulnerabilities in supply chains and raising concerns over long-term energy resilience.

“These meetings will help ensure we are coordinating effectively,” Wong said in a statement, pointing to volatility in oil and gas markets caused by the conflict and disruptions to major shipping corridors.

The diplomatic push reflects Canberra’s effort to secure stable energy flows while balancing strategic relations across Asia, particularly with China, its largest trading partner, and close security partners Japan and South Korea.

Energy security has become a growing concern for Australia as tensions around the Strait of Hormuz and broader regional instability continue to affect fuel prices and shipping reliability across the Indo-Pacific.

The visit also comes as Australia seeks to strengthen regional cooperation on both economic security and broader geopolitical challenges linked to the Middle East war.

Ministers are set to gather in Santa Marta against the backdrop of fuel shortages and rising prices following what the International Energy Agency has described as the largest oil supply shock on record, driven in part by constraints around the Strait of Hormuz, a critical transit route for global energy supplies.

The conference, co-hosted by Colombia and the Netherlands, was initiated amid frustration with the pace of negotiations under United Nations climate frameworks, where consensus-based processes have struggled to produce a clear pathway for reducing fossil fuel dependence.

Organisers say the current energy crisis has reinforced the strategic need for a managed transition, even as some governments increase coal use in the short term to stabilise domestic supply.Energy security considerations are expected to weigh as heavily as climate commitments during the discussions, reflecting the policy dilemma facing both advanced and developing economies.

Countries including Australia, Canada and Norway are expected to attend alongside emerging producers such as Angola, Mexico and Brazil, as well as coal-reliant economies like Turkiye and Vietnam. European nations including Germany, France and the United Kingdom are also set to participate.

However, several of the world’s largest fossil fuel producers and consumers, including the United States, China, Saudi Arabia and Russia, will not be represented, limiting the scope of any immediate global alignment.Colombia’s environment minister Irene Vélez Torres said the meeting has gained increased relevance in light of recent geopolitical developments, describing it as an opportunity to foster more direct engagement between producers and consumers on an issue often constrained in multilateral forums.

Analysts say the smaller, focused format may allow for more candid discussions but could also dilute outcomes given the diversity of national interests. Climate scientist Bill Hare of Climate Analytics noted that broader participation can make it harder to reach specific commitments, while supporters argue the inclusion of fossil fuel-producing nations marks a necessary step in advancing negotiations.

Participants from climate-vulnerable states, including Tuvalu and Vanuatu, are expected to push for accelerated timelines, citing the disproportionate impact of climate change and their reliance on imported energy. Officials from these countries have framed the current crisis as further evidence of the need to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

Global investment in clean energy now outpaces spending on fossil fuels by roughly a factor of two, yet emissions from coal, oil and gas reached a record high in 2025, underscoring the gap between policy commitments and implementation.

The Santa Marta meeting is not expected to yield binding agreements but will contribute to a voluntary roadmap on fossil fuel transition being developed under Brazil’s leadership, as countries continue to grapple with balancing climate goals and energy security.

The waiver replaces a previous 30-day authorization that expired on April 11 and permits transactions involving Russian crude and petroleum products already loaded at sea, while continuing to exclude dealings tied to Iran, Cuba and North Korea.

The move follows pressure from energy-importing countries, particularly in Asia, grappling with supply disruptions and elevated costs.A Treasury spokesperson said the decision was linked to broader efforts to stabilize markets as diplomatic engagement with Iran intensifies. “As negotiations with Iran accelerate, Treasury wants to ensure oil is available to those who need it,” the spokesperson said.

The extension marks a reversal from comments made earlier in the week by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who had indicated the administration would not renew waivers covering Russian and Iranian oil. The Iranian waiver, issued on March 20, had facilitated the flow of roughly 140 million barrels into global markets, according to Bessent’s prior statements.

Global oil prices fell about 9% on Friday to around $90 per barrel after Iran temporarily reopened the Strait of Hormuz, a critical transit route for global crude supplies. However, the conflict now entering its eighth week has already caused extensive disruption, with more than 80 oil and gas facilities in the Middle East reported damaged, according to the International Energy Agency.

Tehran has warned it could again close the strait if U.S. naval actions targeting Iranian ports continue, raising the risk of renewed supply shocks. The war has been described by the agency as the most severe disruption to global energy supply in history.

The administration’s decision also reflects domestic political pressures, as elevated fuel prices pose risks to Republican candidates ahead of the November midterm elections. U.S. officials said the issue was raised during meetings on the sidelines of G20, World Bank and International Monetary Fund gatherings in Washington, where partner countries urged continued flexibility on supply.

Trump also discussed oil markets during a recent call with Narendra Modi, whose country remains a major importer of Russian crude.The waiver has drawn criticism from lawmakers across party lines, who argue it risks undermining sanctions aimed at curbing Russia’s revenue from its war in Ukraine while also easing pressure on Iran during its confrontation with the United States.

European officials have voiced similar concerns, with Ursula von der Leyen stating that sanctions relief would be premature.Russian presidential envoy Kirill Dmitriev said the policy signaled ongoing economic and energy engagement between Washington and Moscow, adding that earlier waivers could release volumes equivalent to nearly a day of global oil output.

Analysts said the measure underscores the limited policy options available to policymakers confronting simultaneous geopolitical crises and market instability. Brett Erickson of Obsidian Risk Advisers said the damage to global energy systems may be enduring, warning that “the tools available to stabilize them are nearly exhausted.”

The discussions, held days after a Pakistan-brokered ceasefire, marked the first direct engagement between senior U.S. and Iranian officials since Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution. Delegations led by U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf met over more than 20 hours at Islamabad’s Serena Hotel, with Pakistani mediators shuttling between the sides.

Despite moments when negotiators appeared close to a framework agreement, talks ultimately stalled over key issues including Iran’s nuclear program, control of the Strait of Hormuz, and access to frozen assets, according to 11 sources familiar with the discussions.

A U.S. official said Washington’s core objective remained ensuring Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon, while Iranian officials emphasized sovereignty concerns, sanctions relief, and broader security guarantees.

Iran has consistently denied seeking nuclear weapons but maintains its right to uranium enrichment.Sources described a tense and shifting atmosphere, with periods of optimism giving way to deadlock. At one stage, the sides were “80 percent” toward an understanding before unresolved political decisions derailed progress, one source said.

Pakistan played a central mediating role, with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif confirming that efforts to bridge differences are ongoing. Officials said communication between Tehran and Washington continues through intermediaries, even after the formal talks ended.

U.S. President Donald Trump said on Monday that Iran had reached out seeking a deal, though this could not be independently verified. A White House spokesperson reiterated that Washington’s position remains unchanged, particularly its demand that Iran abandon any pathway to nuclear weapons.

Iranian officials signaled deep mistrust, citing past negotiations and subsequent military actions, while also indicating willingness to continue discussions under defined conditions.The Strait of Hormuz remains a central point of contention, with Iran asserting control over the waterway and the United States insisting on restoring unrestricted navigation.

The dispute has had significant implications for global energy markets, contributing to volatility and supply concerns.Mediators, including Pakistani officials and regional diplomats, have continued backchannel communications in an effort to revive talks.

Both sides face mounting pressure to de-escalate, with economic costs rising and broader geopolitical risks intensifying.

The negotiation are aimed at ending a six-week conflict between the United States and Iran that has killed thousands across the Middle East and disrupted global energy supplies, contributing to rising inflation and slower economic growth.

The arrival of the U.S. delegation marks a key step in diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the conflict, with Washington and Tehran expected to begin negotiations shortly in the Pakistani capital.

Pakistan has implemented heightened security measures in Islamabad as it hosts the talks, which are seen as a critical opportunity to stabilize the region and address broader economic fallout linked to the war.

The U.S. delegation, led by Vice President JD Vance and including special envoy Steve Witkoff and adviser Jared Kushner, was en route to the Pakistani capital after a stop in Paris. The Iranian side, headed by parliamentary speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, arrived on Friday.

Qalibaf said Iran did not trust the United States based on past negotiations and warned that talks would not proceed unless Washington fulfilled earlier commitments, including unblocking Iranian assets and securing a ceasefire in Lebanon.

Iranian officials have linked progress in the talks to developments in the parallel conflict involving Hezbollah, a stance rejected by Washington and its allies.U.S. President Donald Trump said on social media that Iran “has no cards,” adding that Tehran’s leverage was limited to disrupting international waterways.

Vice President Vance, speaking en route, expressed cautious optimism about the negotiations but warned that the U.S. would respond firmly if it perceived bad-faith tactics.The talks come amid a fragile ceasefire announced earlier this week following weeks of U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran and retaliatory actions by Tehran.

While the ceasefire has paused direct attacks, it has not resolved Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which continues to disrupt global energy flows.Pakistan imposed extensive security measures in Islamabad ahead of the negotiations, with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif describing the meeting as “make-or-break.” Thousands of security personnel were deployed across the city.

Parallel tensions persist in Lebanon, where Israeli operations against Hezbollah have continued despite diplomatic efforts. Lebanese President Joseph Aoun has called for a ceasefire as a condition for broader negotiations, while Israeli officials have signaled that upcoming talks with Lebanese representatives in Washington would proceed without linking them to a truce.

Iran has also pushed for broader concessions, including the lifting of sanctions and recognition of its authority over transit through the Strait of Hormuz, a proposal that would significantly alter regional power dynamics. While Iranian vessels were reported to be moving freely through the strait, shipping by other nations remains constrained.

The disruption to energy supplies has contributed to inflationary pressures and slowed global economic activity, with analysts warning that the impact could persist even if negotiations lead to a reopening of the route.Iran’s leadership has maintained a firm stance ahead of the talks.

Mojtaba Khamenei said Tehran would seek compensation for wartime damage and hold those responsible accountable.Despite U.S. claims of degrading Iran’s military capabilities, Tehran retains missile and drone capacity and a significant stockpile of highly enriched uranium, underscoring the challenges facing negotiators in reaching a comprehensive agreement.

Speaking at the White House, Trump said the withdrawal would proceed regardless of whether an agreement is reached with Tehran, adding that U.S. objectives in the conflict were nearing completion.

“We’re finishing the job, and I think within maybe two weeks, maybe a couple of days longer,” Trump said, indicating that the decision to leave would not hinge on negotiations.

“Whether we have a deal or not, it’s irrelevant.”The conflict, which began on Feb. 28, has disrupted global energy markets, with Iran effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz to oil tanker traffic. Trump linked a potential easing of fuel price pressures to a U.S. withdrawal, suggesting that regional dynamics would shift once American forces exit.

He also urged other countries to secure their own energy supplies, signaling a reduced U.S. role in safeguarding maritime routes. “If France or some other country wants to get oil or gas, they’ll go up through the Hormuz Strait and fend for themselves,” Trump said.

In a social media post earlier in the day, Trump reiterated that position, telling countries facing shortages to “go get your own oil,” while asserting that Iran had been significantly weakened.

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the coming days would be “decisive” in the conflict, without ruling out the possibility of ground operations. He added that the United States had undertaken extensive efforts to ensure navigational access through the Strait of Hormuz, though he emphasized that future responsibility would not rest solely with Washington.

Hegseth also confirmed an unannounced visit to U.S. forces operating under Central Command, declining to disclose locations for security reasons.Trump said U.S. forces would withdraw once Iran is deemed incapable of developing a nuclear weapon for a prolonged period, framing the campaign as aimed at degrading Tehran’s military and nuclear capabilities.

The remarks come amid strained coordination with allies, many of whom have declined U.S. requests for military support to reopen key shipping lanes.

The administration’s stance suggests a shift toward limiting direct U.S. involvement in securing global energy transit routes despite ongoing instability in the region.

Experts agree: the closure of the Strait of Hormuz would be a global catastrophe.

As tensions between Iran and Israel reach a fever pitch following Israel’s strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities earlier this month, global attention is zeroing in on one of the world’s most critical chokepoints for energy transit: the Strait of Hormuz.

This narrow, 33-kilometer-wide strait, which lies between Iran and Oman, is more than a geographical feature — it is the lifeline of the global energy market. With nearly 20 percent of the world’s daily oil consumption passing through its waters, even the hint of a blockade or disruption sends shockwaves through financial markets and rattles policymakers from Beijing to Brussels.

Now, as the specter of U.S. military involvement in support of Israel looms larger, Iran’s threats to block the strait are once again dominating headlines. Analysts warn that such a move would ignite an oil shock unlike any seen in recent history.

“The Strait of Hormuz is not just a waterway; it is the artery of global energy,” said Saudi geopolitical analyst Salman Al-Ansari. “Any blockade would trigger a chain reaction the global economy is not prepared for.”

A Strategic Lifeline

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), nearly 20 million barrels of crude oil — around one-fifth of global oil consumption — transits the Strait of Hormuz daily. It also handles about 20 percent of the world’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, mostly from Qatar.

There are virtually no viable alternatives. The strait is the only deep-water passage in the region capable of accommodating the world’s largest oil tankers. Pipelines across the Arabian Peninsula offer limited relief but cannot come close to replacing the volume that moves through Hormuz.

The EIA estimates that 84 percent of the crude oil flowing through the strait heads toward Asia, with China, India, Japan, and South Korea as top consumers. In February 2024, the Center for Security Policy in Washington reported that more than three-quarters of crude passing through the strait is destined for Asian markets.

Volatility on a Knife-Edge

When Iran launched retaliatory strikes on Israel last week, oil markets reacted immediately. Brent crude surged from $69 to $74 per barrel in a single day — and that was without any actual blockade.

“The market’s reaction to mere tension is telling,” said Jassem Ajaka, an economist and professor at the Lebanese University. “The full closure of the strait would send prices soaring above $100 per barrel in a matter of hours.”

Ajaka stressed the ripple effect such a spike would have on inflation: “Oil is a foundational commodity — its price is embedded in 95 percent of goods. Everything from food production to transportation will see costs surge.”

Limited Escape Routes

Saudi Arabia, which exported 5.5 million barrels per day through Hormuz in 2024 — nearly 40 percent of all crude transiting the strait — has some contingency plans in place. The Kingdom’s East-West Pipeline can divert up to 7 million barrels per day to the Red Sea, but current use is already high due to ongoing disruptions in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait from Houthi threats.

The UAE’s Fujairah Pipeline, with a capacity of 1.8 million barrels per day, is also operating near capacity. Iran’s Goreh-Jask Pipeline, meant to ease its own vulnerability, has remained largely dormant since late 2024.

“If the Strait of Hormuz were blocked, only about 2.6 million barrels per day could be rerouted,” noted Al-Ansari. “That leaves a gaping shortfall of more than 17 million barrels — a blow the world cannot absorb overnight.”

Asian Economies at Risk

China, which imports nearly half its crude oil via Hormuz, would be among the hardest hit in the event of a closure. India, Japan, and South Korea would also face severe disruptions, likely triggering the release of emergency reserves.

“China would be the first to feel the sting,” said Ajaka. “If the blockade stretches beyond a few weeks, we could be looking at a global recession.”

Shipping costs would rise exponentially as tankers are forced to reroute around Africa. Supply chains would suffer, and energy-importing nations would scramble to find alternatives.

For smaller nations like Lebanon, the consequences could be catastrophic. “We’d face a total blackout,” said Ajaka, “as our power generation depends entirely on imported fuel oil from Iraq.”

Not Just an Economic Gamble

Iran has long viewed the Strait of Hormuz as a pressure point — a strategic card it holds to deter Western intervention. But experts warn that closing the strait would not come without consequences for Tehran.

“Iran’s own economy is heavily reliant on oil exports through the same strait it threatens to close,” said Abdulaziz Sager, Chairman of the Gulf Research Center, in a recent op-ed. “Shutting it down would inflict self-harm — unless the regime feels cornered.”

Indeed, a growing number of Iranian officials are openly discussing the possibility. On June 20, Behnam Saeedi, a member of Iran’s National Security Committee, told local media that closure remains an “option on the table” should the U.S. become involved.

Another lawmaker, Ali Yazdikhah, warned that Iran’s tolerance for shipping freedom depends on the West’s posture. “If the U.S. enters the war operationally, Iran has the legitimate right to disrupt energy transit,” he said.

However, Ajaka cautioned that any such move would be seen as a last resort. “Iran would only close Hormuz if the survival of the regime is at stake — the economic fallout would be too severe otherwise.”

Western Response and Global Stakes

The U.S. and its allies have long maintained a naval presence in the Gulf to safeguard shipping routes. In 2019, attacks on Saudi oil tankers and the Abqaiq facility — which briefly took out 5 percent of global supply — triggered a multinational response.

On June 17, U.S. intelligence officials revealed that Iran has positioned ballistic missiles and military assets aimed at American bases in the Middle East — a clear signal of escalation readiness. Additional reports suggested that Iran may consider mining the Strait of Hormuz, a tactic designed to trap U.S. naval forces in the Gulf.

In the event of a closure, emergency strategic reserves would likely be released. However, Ajaka pointed out that this solution offers only temporary relief.

“Non-OPEC nations are already producing at capacity. Only OPEC members like Saudi Arabia have the ability to increase output — and even that depends on geopolitical calculations,” he said.

Should the crisis deepen, Ajaka predicts Washington may ease sanctions on countries like Venezuela to boost supply. “It’s not just about oil anymore — it’s about stabilizing a world economy on the brink.”

The Strait Must Remain Open

Experts agree: the closure of the Strait of Hormuz would be a global catastrophe.

“It would prompt immediate military intervention by the U.S. and the U.K.,” said Ajaka. “The stakes are simply too high.”

Al-Ansari underscored that the crisis is more than a regional flashpoint. “What’s at risk is not just oil — it’s the fragile equilibrium that keeps economies functioning and societies stable.”

With tensions mounting, the world now watches anxiously. The Strait of Hormuz, long seen as a barometer of Gulf stability, is once again the frontline of global geopolitics.

If diplomacy fails and the conflict escalates further, this critical chokepoint may turn from a transit hub to a trigger — one capable of reshaping the global order.