Any interruption on that route would immediately impact international crude oil prices, and consequently, global inflation. While there is still room to avoid a major escalation, that margin narrows with each military action. The Panama Canal, as a strategic axis of global maritime transit, could be indirectly affected. The United States could reaffirm its military projection capability, but would face economic costs and political wear and tear. Its influence is projected through a network of non-state actors and strategic allies operating on different fronts: from Lebanon to Yemen. Israel, for its part, maintains a security doctrine based on anticipation and threat neutralization, while the United States supports that approach within its interest in preserving the balance of power in the region. This triangle of power configures a highly volatile scenario. Panama is not on the sidelines of this reality. Although geographically distant from the conflict, its economy is deeply connected to international trade. The possibility that the conflict could extend to Syria, Lebanon, or even the Persian Gulf is not remote. The Middle East and its shock waves reach Panama. In that context, the Strait of Hormuz acquires critical relevance: nearly one-fifth of the world's oil passes through it. Containment of the conflict will depend on the actors' ability to recognize that the cost of continuing outweighs any immediate strategic gain. In an interconnected world, wars are no longer local. Today it is shaping up as a conflict with the real capacity to expand regionally and generate long-term global impacts. The current dynamic responds less to the logic of classical deterrence and more to a dangerous accumulation of reprisals, where each actor seeks to reaffirm its position without fully measuring the systemic consequences. Iran does not act solely as a traditional state. And in that context, Panama and its canal are not spectators, but part of a system that will inevitably feel the shock waves. The author is a former Minister of Housing and a student of the Master's in Territorial Planning for Sustainable Development at the University of Panama. In any case, the impact would not be neutral. Storm of Crossed Interests. Recent history shows that modern wars rarely produce clear winners. However, the decisions of the directly involved actors are conditioned by internal political, military, and symbolic factors that make it difficult to cede ground. In this type of conflict, the question of who wins is, at best, relative. Rather, they generate precarious balances, weakened economies, and fragmented societies. International powers have clear incentives to promote a de-escalation: Europe, due to its energy dependence; China, due to its commercial stability; and Russia, due to its own geopolitical positioning. Iran, although it would strengthen its narrative of resistance, would assume severe impacts on its economy and internal stability. The main losers are predictable: civilian populations, global markets, and interdependent economies. Their effects travel with the same speed as markets, energy, and commerce. Israel could contain immediate threats, but at the cost of greater regional hostility. In turn, a possible reconfiguration of trade routes, resulting from insecurity in the Middle East, could modify the cargo flows that cross the canal. When the Fire Approaches. In scenarios of high uncertainty, the canal can experience mixed effects: from a reduction in demand due to global economic slowdown to an increase in its use if other routes become unviable. Therefore, the central question should not be who wins, but if we are still in time to avoid a greater spiral of violence. Diplomacy in Flames. The answer, although uncertain, still leaves room for diplomacy. The escalation between the United States, Israel, and Iran has ceased to be a contained episode in the Middle East. But that space is narrowing rapidly. Financial volatility, the rising cost of energy, and logistical disruptions do not recognize borders. A sustained increase in fuel prices raises the cost of maritime transport and alters the logistical decisions of shipping companies.
