You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Green hydrogen may yet descend the cost curve, and expect lots more fusion research.

While some of our most promising decarbonization technologies were born in one of the Department of Energy’s National Labs or in Silicon Valley, China is where so many of them — from solar panels to electric vehicles and battery energy storage — have achieved critical commercial scale. That makes the country’s latest Five-Year Plan an essential document for understanding the future of climate tech.
With a U.S. administration that has eschewed its own climate commitments, many have hoped that China would take on a global leadership role. On that front, many experts have been left wanting. The document makes no promises on phasing out coal, which accounts for over half of China’s energy consumption, and doesn’t set a target for the expansion of solar.
“It’s a green tech addition plan as opposed to a decarbonization plan,” Jeremy Wallace, a Professor of China Studies at Johns Hopkins University, told me. Over the past five years, the country has deployed nearly a terawatt of new solar, far exceeding even its own ambitions. “So the buildout rapidly exceeded expectations, but has not seemingly led to a systematic rethinking about the system,” Wallace said.
The plan does lean into climate tech, however, even if it stops short of positioning new forms of clean energy generation as direct coal replacements. And that interest extends far beyond already commercialized sectors like solar, wind, battery storage, and electric vehicles. The list of “future industries” that the party is prioritizing includes “hydrogen energy and nuclear fusion energy,” alongside quantum science, biological manufacturing, brain-computer interfaces, and 6G wireless networks.
“I don’t think China is creating these technologies as a niche climate experiment anymore. They’re being folded into a broader industrial strategy,” Qi Qin, a China analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, told me of the emergent tech that the plan mentions. “I think that the more important question is which of them are moving into real deployment now, and which are still at the stage of strategic signaling.”
Much of that should come into sharper focus in the coming months. Now that the national direction has been set, local officials will begin translating the state’s broad agenda into concrete targets and on-the-ground projects. It is not too much to say that how they choose to do so will largely determine how quickly the world decarbonizes.
The plan’s repeated mention of green hydrogen and hydrogen-derived fuels is particularly notable given these industries' struggles in the U.S. to reach economic viability and secure offtakers, as the Trump administration has dialed back the clean hydrogen tax credits and canceled grants for planned green hydrogen hubs.
And while China also can’t ignore the underlying economics of green hydrogen — which is useful for decarbonizing heavy industry and transport by truck, ship, or air, but still expensive to produce and not so helpful outside those specific use cases — the party appears much more open to bringing it down the cost curve. As Qin put it, “hydrogen has clearly moved up in political visibility.” The plan promises to “expand applications of hydrogen energy in transportation, electricity, industrial, and other domains,” according to an unofficial translation, while improving “renewable energy hydrogen production equipment” such as electrolyzers, advancing “the hydrogen energy industry chain toward green ammonia, methanol, and sustainable aviation fuels,” and accelerating technological breakthroughs in hydrogen storage and transportation. (China has not released an official translation of the plan.)
The Five-Year Plan also comes amidst a slew of recently announced policies supporting the industry’s development, Yuki Yu, an independent researcher with a deep knowledge of China’s hydrogen economy, told me.
The week before the plan was finalized, Premier Li Qiang delivered China’s annual policy statement to the National People’s Congress, which included a pledge to “establish the National Low‑Carbon Transition Fund, and cultivate hydrogen energy, green fuels and other new growth points.” By rhetorically linking the fund — which Yu described to me as functioning “a little bit like a national private equity company to invest directly into frontier technology” — specifically to hydrogen and clean fuels, it signals that the country views these technologies as core pillars of its energy transition, Yu said.
Then just days after the plan was adopted, the country launched a green hydrogen pilot program, offering performance-based government funding to five regions for projects spanning sectors such as fuel cell vehicles, green ammonia and methanol production, low-carbon steelmaking, and industrial heating. The four-year program aims to cut the end-use price of hydrogen to below 25 Chinese yuan (approximately $3.50) per kilogram, and double the national fleet of hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles nationwide to 100,000.
Taken together, all of this sends a “very, very clear financial signal” to the industry, Yu told me. While government funding for hydrogen had previously focused primarily on fuel-cell vehicles like trucks and buses, Yu said China now appears to be placing a far greater emphasis on commercializing other hydrogen use-cases.
Yet as Qin sees it, producing hydrogen with renewable energy — which powers the process of splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen — is, in some sense, simply a diversion from leveraging renewables to replace coal on the grid.
“I think that part of the reason that green fuels has become a hot topic, has become a new focus in China is because nobody wants to touch that 55% of coal power,” Qin told me, referencing coal’s approximate share of primary energy. Hydrogen, she said, offers an attractive way to decarbonize certain hard-to-abate sectors without having to overturn the coal economy.
Wallace also noted that electrolyzers — the devices used to split hydrogen from water — made in China are generally viewed as “second rate” compared with Western systems, which are typically more powerful and better able to ramp up and down in tandem with solar and wind resources. Perhaps, he suggested, the country is betting that its lower-cost electrolyzers will go the way of lithium iron phosphate batteries, a cheaper alternative to the traditional lithium-ion chemistry involving nickel and cobalt, which are much more expensive and supply constrained than iron. LFP batteries “approximate the first rate tech, but at a much cheaper price point,” Wallace told me, which could be the arc its electrolyzer industry attempts to follow.
None of the other frontier tech gets quite as enthusiastic a shoutout in the Five-Year Plan as green hydrogen. Fusion, however, seems to be an area of keen interest, at least on the research front.
In a section on key technological breakthroughs the country aims to achieve, the document lists “key fusion technologies such as tritium fuel preparation and circulation, material radiation testing, high-performance lasers, and superconducting magnet manufacturing,” with the ultimate goal being to “advance fusion research and development.”
And yet the plan does not set a timeline or explicit goal related to fusion commercialization, even as well-capitalized American startups such as Commonwealth Fusion Systems, Thea Energy, and Pacific Fusion aim to put electrons on the grid in the 2030s. “I think the government sees, okay, this is a very strategic and very interesting direction that we should also pursue,” Yu told me. And yet, it “seems to have a conservative look, or a cautious look on how commercialized these technologies truly are.”
Similarly, while Qin sees the inclusion of fusion in the plan as “politically meaningful” in and of itself, she said it “should be read as a signal about ambition” and not as a “near-term climate solution.”
Last year, China launched a state-owned fusion company, the aptly named China Fusion Energy Co., with $2.1 billion in capital, as well as a 10-nation alliance to promote collaborative fusion energy research and knowledge sharing. Yet the government has largely steered clear of talking about fusion as a commercial possibility, and when it has, the timeline is far longer than what the U.S. upstarts are promising. As Zhang Libo, the General Manager of China Fusion Energy Co. has stated, the company wants to build a demonstration reactor by 2045, while the China National Nuclear Corporation said it expects to produce commercial power around 2050.
This type of circumspection is par for the course with the Chinese Communist Party, which tends to underpromise and overdeliver when it comes to its clean energy targets. “In general, a lot of this seemingly moderate change can really kick off ripple effects and have long term impacts,” Yu told me. For instance, while China previously set a target to deploy 1,200 gigawatts of combined wind and solar capacity by 2030, it ended up achieving that goal a full six years early. “So even though sometimes the policy could come across as mild or more conservative, the effect does not necessarily mean the same.”
That may provide little comfort to those longing to see a disavowal of coal in writing. But if the past has taught us anything, it could also mean that five years from now China will have changed the game for hydrogen, clean fuels, fusion, and a host of other emerging industries.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Current conditions: A wave of summer heat is headed for the East Coast, with midweek temperatures surpassing 90 degrees Fahrenheit in Washington, D.C. • Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands are bracing for winds of up to 190 miles per hour as Super Typhoon Sinlaku bears down on the U.S. territories • At least 30 people have died in floods in Yemen, which just recorded its highest rainfall in five years.
The Trump administration is holding up some funding for grants at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, The Hill reported. On April 1, the University of Colorado put out a statement saying that a federal pause on funding had put scientists who collect data about the atmosphere “at risk for elimination” after the White House Office of Management and Budget had “not released these funds.” The university’s Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences said that roughly 30 days before running out of funds to pay scientists, “we were informed that NOAA has put a pause on all grant actions.”
As I told you back in December, the Trump administration is also working to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, an institution credited with many of the biggest scientific breakthroughs in our understanding of weather and climate over the past 66 years since its founding. In a post on X at the time, Russell Vought, the director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, called the institute “one of the largest sources of climate alarmism in the country,” and said the administration would be “breaking up” its operations.
Secretary of Energy Chris Wright is scheduled to testify Wednesday morning before the House Committee on Appropriations to defend the White House’s latest budget request for his agency. He’s not the only chieftain of a federal agency with relevance to Heatmap readers who’s coming before Congress this week.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection plans to launch the first phase of what’s called the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries tool in the agency’s automated commercial secure data portal to allow companies to request refunds of Trump administration tariffs the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unlawful earlier this year. Solar companies are among the thousands of American businesses that filed complaints with the U.S. Court of International Trade for refunds prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling. Those, according to Solar Power World, include American Wire Group, Canadian Solar, GameChange Solar, Fluke, Hellerman Tyton, Kinematics, JA Solar, Jinko Solar, Longi, Merlin Solar, Qcells, and Trina Solar.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:

Gas power plants are booming in the U.S. as demand surges, but the growth doesn’t yet mark a fundamental shift away from renewables, clean-energy analyst Michael Thomas wrote in a post on his Substack newsletter, Distilled. “If there were to be an unprecedented pivot to gas, you’d expect Texas to be ground zero for it,” he said. “The state has done everything it can to prop up fossil fuel power in recent years. It’s also one of the most permissive when it comes to environmental regulations and permitting.” Despite major growth in the past year, he wrote, gas made up just 10% of proposed new project capacity in Texas so far this year. The remaining 90% of capacity came from solar, wind, and battery projects. Last year alone, renewable and storage developers proposed 100 gigawatts of clean capacity — seven times more than gas developers proposed.
The developer behind a major Massachusetts offshore wind farm is suing its turbine manufacturer in a bid to keep the company from backing out of the project. By February, the Vineyard Wind project off Cape Cod had installed 60 of the project’s 62 turbines, as I reported at the time. Yet the parent company behind GE Renewables, the maker of the project’s turbines, said “it would be terminating its contracts for turbine services and maintenance at the end of April,” the Associated Press reported. GE Vernova, the parent company, says Vineyard Wind owes it $300 million already.
The war in Iran is taking a toll on Central African minerals. Miners in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are curbing output of copper and cobalt as the war cuts supplies of sulfuric acid needed for leaching minerals out of rock, Reuters reported. Mine managers are reducing cobalt production to conserve chemicals.
The deal represents one of the largest public-private partnerships in the history of the national labs.
I’ll admit, I thought I might be done covering fresh fusion startups for a while. In the U.S., at least, the number of new industry entrants has slowed, and most venture capital now flows towards more established players such as Commonwealth Fusion Systems and Helion. But in February, a startup called Inertia Enterprises made headlines with its $450 million Series A raise. It’s aiming to commercialize fusion using the physics pioneered at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the only place yet to achieve scientific breakeven — the point at which a fusion reaction produces more energy than it took to initiate it.
That achievement first came in 2022 at the lab’s National Ignition Facility in Berkeley, California. On Tuesday, Inertia announced that it’s deepening its partnership with Lawrence Livermore, creating one of the largest private sector-led partnerships in the history of the national lab system. This collaboration involves three separate agreements that allow Inertia to work directly with the lab’s employees on research and development, while also giving the startup access to nearly 200 Lawrence Livermore patents covering fusion technology.
The startup’s team isn’t merely a group of enthusiasts galvanized by the national lab’s fusion milestone. Alongside Twilio’s former CEO Jeff Lawson and fusion power plant designer Mike Dunne, Inertia’s other co-founders is Annie Kritcher, a senior employee at Lawrence Livermore who has led the physics design for NIF’s fusion energy experiments since 2019.
“We’re not starting from zero,” Kritcher told me, putting it mildly. “And that was really, really important to me when I decided to co-found this company.” Or as Lawson told me after the company’s fundraise in February, “the government put 60 years and $30 billion into NIF trying to get that thing to work.”
The technical approach pursued by Lawrence Livermore — and now by Inertia — is called inertial confinement fusion. In this system, high-powered lasers are directed at a millimeter-scale pellet of fusion fuel, typically a mixture of the hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium. The laser energy rapidly compresses and heats the pellet to extreme temperatures and pressures, driving the nuclei to fuse and releasing enormous amounts of energy. But NIF didn’t build its system for commercial purposes. Rather, its primary mission is to support the domestic nuclear weapons stockpile by recreating the extreme conditions inside a nuclear detonation, allowing scientists to study how U.S. weapons perform without conducting explosive tests.
To translate the lab’s research into a commercially viable device, Kritcher explained, Inertia must significantly increase the lasers’ efficiency and power output, targeting a system roughly 50 times more powerful than existing lasers of its class. The startup is also working to scale production of its fusion targets to drive down costs and enable mass manufacturing.
Inertia is not the only company attempting to commercialize this general approach, however. Back in 2021, as Lawrence Livermore moved closer to its breakeven moment, the future founders of the startup Xcimer Energy were taking note. Convinced that the fundamental physics of inertial confinement had been proven, they thought, “if we’re going to do this, we have to do it now,” Xcimer's CTO, Alexander Valys, told me a few years ago. He and his co-founder quit their day jobs, and Xcimer went on to raise a $100 million Series A round in 2024. Others joined in on the hype, too — the Fusion Industry Association reports 13 fusion companies that were founded or emerged from stealth between summer 2022 and summer 2023, a record for the sector.
Kritcher told me that none are adhering as closely to NIF’s successful design as Inertia. “There are fundamental technical differences between us and the other laser approaches,” she told me, explaining that while Xcimer and others are using broadly similar methodologies to produce a hot, dense plasma, the underlying physics behind their plan diverges significantly. Xcimer, for instance, is developing a novel laser architecture that hasn’t yet been demonstrated at scale, along with a different fuel capsule design than the one validated by NIF.
Kritcher will be allowed to continue her work at the lab thanks to what the company describes as a “first-of-its-kind agreement” enabled by the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act, which allows scientists at the national labs to participate in commercialization efforts with the goal of accelerating the transfer of knowledge to the private sector.
For the fusion engineer, it’s the ultimate dream come true. She first arrived at Lawrence Livermore as a summer intern in 2004, just before her senior year at the University of Michigan, and “fell in love with the lab and the NIF project,” which was still under construction at the time. She opted to attend the University of California, Berkeley for her masters and PhD in nuclear engineering so that she could continue her work there.
“I was starstruck by the possibility of fusion energy and [it having] such a big impact on humanity, and that really kept me going for a long time,” she told me. But after the NIF facility was finally completed in 2009, it failed to achieve ignition by its initial 2012 target.
By then, Kritcher was a postdoctoral fellow, and attention at NIF began to shift toward supporting the nation’s nuclear stockpile. Fusion energy was “always in the back of my mind, driving me day to day,” she said, “but you sort of forget about it, and you lose a little bit of that excitement and spark.” Under her guidance, NIF ultimately reached that watershed moment, which has since been replicated numerous times. And when it did, "it just reopened all those old inspirational feelings and motivations and excitement and it was like a 180 turning point where we all just go, oh, fusion energy is possible again with this approach.”
Many of the lab’s employees feel similarly, she said, and this close collaboration will allow some of the nation’s foremost experts in inertial confinement to work with the startup across a range of technical capabilities, including “the laser side, the target fabrication side, the simulations team side, the code development side, our physics design side,” Kritcher enumerated.
Inertia is looking to bring its first pilot plant online in the “2030s to 2040s,” she told me. By contrast, Commonwealth Fusion Systems — the most well-capitalized company in the sector — plans to connect its first plant to the grid early next decade, while Xcimer is targeting 2035. Kritcher is unfazed, though. While she acknowledges that other companies might complete their facilities sooner, she argues that Inertia still has an upper hand given that NIF effectively serves as the startup’s demonstration plant, something no other company has built.
Not to mention that all of the sector’s projected timelines remain highly speculative. There are serious technical and economic challenges that would-be fusion energy companies will have to overcome — Inertia not excepted — and the industry’s status 10 years down the line remains anyone’s guess. What’s crystal clear, however, is that a serious new contender has entered the race.
Big questions about naval strategy and the oil economy with Cornell University’s Nicolas Mulder.
After negotiations between the United States and Iran broke down Sunday without a deal, the United States Central Command said it would “begin implementing a blockade of all maritime traffic entering and exiting Iranian ports” Monday morning.
It’s hardly like traffic through the Strait of Hormuz had been unencumbered before that. The strait has been largely closed to through traffic since the beginning of March thanks to the threat of Iranian strikes on ships going in and out of the Persian Gulf. That has remained the case even after the ceasefire deal was supposed to have opened up the waterway last week. Only a few countries have been able to get their tankers out, mostly those with close trade relationships with Iran, including China.
President Trump has been seeking to reverse that state of play and open the strait to non-Iranian traffic (e.g. oil, liquified natural gas, and fertilizer coming in and out of the Gulf states), whether by badgering European allies to help clear the strait and by having U.S. Navy ships traverse the channel to clear mines and demonstrate it’s safe to navigate. He appears to have ultimately settled on blockading the blockaders.
The president said Monday on Truth Social that 34 ships had sailed through the strait on Sunday, a number that has not been confirmed by third party sources. In the run-up to the U.S. blockade, about 10 to 12 ships were sailing through the strait per day, according to marine data service Kpler and The New York Times.
So, is the blockade an escalation of U.S. pressure on Iran? A violation of the ceasefire? A “pacific blockade” designed to pressure Iran without resorting to direct strikes? And how would it work, anyway?
I spoke with Nicolas Mulder, an assistant professor of history at Cornell University and the author of The Economic Weapon: The Rise of Sanctions as a Tool of Modern War, to try and get some of my questions answered. This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.
Let’s start from the beginning. What is a naval blockade? And how does it different from typical naval warfare?
A naval blockade is actually interesting because it is a form of warfare that has been quite regulated for quite a long time already under international law. A lot of our modern understanding of the laws of belligerence and neutrality actually comes from blockades because they impose an important stricture on international maritime traffic. As a result, they raise all sorts of questions about who wars are fought between, and what wars mean for the civilian economies of the countries involved, and what they mean for the relationship of the belligerent states and third countries.
For most of U.S. history, the U.S. was not the blockader, but the neutral wanting to bypass blockades. The reason that the United States concretely intervened in the First World War and began to really involve itself with the power politics of Eurasia in 1917 is because it insisted on its neutral rights to trade with Britain when Germany had declared an unrestricted submarine warfare campaign that was effectively a blockade of the British Isles.
Even before that, the Union used it against the Confederacy.
In the 18th century, all the big great power wars — the Seven Years War, the various succession wars, the Napoleonic Wars — all of those involved blockades.
What I find interesting is that we have this ceasefire. We have these negotiations, which are apparently still going on. But then we also have the blockade. You seem to be arguing that blockades are a part of warfare. So, is this implying that the U.S. Navy is still potentially going to be shooting at stuff, even if there’s a so-called ceasefire?
That’s the big uncertain aspect of the current situation. We are not back into the same war that we were in last week before the ceasefire took effect. The way I would interpret this is that it’s a kind of fudge. From the perception of the Trump administration, it needs to do something to not look weak, but at the same time wants to avoid the risks of a full resumption of kinetic warfare and a massive air campaign, which they had pursued for six weeks to very mixed and disappointing effects.
The one historical parallel that I think can help us make sense of what they may be attempting to do now is the practice in the 19th century of “pacific blockade.” There were several conflicts, beginning in the 1820s with the Greek War of Independence and then through a whole bunch of Latin American wars and Asian conflicts, where European great powers would blockade small countries — not to declare war on them, but to prevent any of their ships from entering or leaving to put serious pressure on them.
What they were doing in that situation was to use wartime levels of pressure without initiating the full war because they knew that the target states were basically too weak to retaliate and did not have the naval power to contest that blockade.
How can we see this operation in Iran as part of a continuum of using these strangulation-type strategies against much weaker opponents?
One way to interpret what they’re trying to do now is to apply that Venezuela-Cuba template to Iran, and to wager that if they play this carefully, they might be able to bring real economic pressure to bear without provoking Iran into as full-scale a retaliation as it was undertaking before.
But that Venezuela-Cuba template is difficult to implement in the case of Iran for two simple reasons. One is just that Iran has, of course, shown that it has quite a lot of military capacity to retaliate with drones and missiles, and also mines and small ships and submarines. It also has the ability to widen its own maritime disruption in the region, for example by working with the Houthis to really stem the flow of traffic through the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait.
What works in the Western Hemisphere, where the United States has a really unrivaled military dominance, may not be reproducible in this strategic theater.
What does the geography tell you about the ability to impose or contest a blockade like this?
They may be doing it with multiple rings, or multiple screens — a light initial screen, and then bigger barriers of ships a bit further away, so as to not risk most of their force too close to the Iranian coastline. We saw in the early phase of the war that some carrier strike groups began to operate over time further and further away from the Iranian coast, presumably to avoid the risk of being hit with missiles and drones.
In this case, one of the questions is, what kind of resources are needed to keep that going? The U.S. did run a blockade against Iraq for most of the 1990s that was in the Persian Gulf itself, which is very narrow. Iraq’s ports are a tiny sliver of land that ends in the Persian Gulf. So that was a very small stretch of coastline.
Iran should still be manageable, but it will require a wider screen, and potentially one that really crosses the entire Arabian Sea somewhere from the southern coast of Oman, diagonally, northeastwards to Pakistan, or at least the Pakistan-Iranian border, and potentially a bit further out. And if there is also interference in the Red Sea, then the U.S. Navy is going to have to route most of disabled forces all the way around Cape of Good Hope to move that whole force into the Indian Ocean.
I think that the Red Sea contingency is quite important to how this shapes up.
CENTCOM said yesterday that this blockade is on ships going in and out of Iranian ports. I wonder if this is unique historically — both a blockade of Iran and trying to impose freedom of navigation elsewhere?
It’s interesting, right? Because indeed, there is the commitment to freedom of navigation. But then it also has been suggested that the U.S. Navy will stop all ships that have paid any toll or transit fee to the [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps], and that paying that toll ipso facto would make their passage illegal. For that I don’t know any good historical precedent.
The other historical precedent is probably actually the Ottoman Empire and Russia and World War I. The Ottoman Empire was bottling up Russia’s Black Sea Fleet in the Black Sea by its control over the Turkish straits, which actually imposed a really serious, long run cost on the Russian economy. It’s one of the things that really fed us in the Russian Revolution. But at the same time, the Ottoman Empire was itself being blockaded by British and French forces in the Mediterranean.
Iran is blockading [Gulf Cooperation Council] states selectively — though of course, it is allowing through some shipments. But those shipments are then going to be intercepted, presumably by the Americans. So the de facto result of it is that no one is really going to be able to leave the Gulf. And that’s kind of where I see this game theoretically ending up.
So it seems like the result of this won’t be hugely different than what things were a few weeks ago, just with fewer Iranian ships getting out.
Also ships of those countries that negotiated transit with Iran.
If you looked at the news coming out of Asia and the diplomatic communiques of a large number of Asian states that brokered bilateral arrangements with Iran — so Pakistan, India; Bangladesh had done so; China, of course — but also countries that have otherwise fairly good links with the United States — the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam — all of them had essentially accepted that some payment to the IRGC was now the new cost of doing business. They were so desperately in need of energy supplies for the population that they decided to enter negotiations, even if, in principle, they would prefer freedom of navigation.
The likely diplomatic contestation or diplomatic issues coming out of this blockade are also going to be related to Asia, and that’s where I would focus our attention.