Military Chronicle: What can Iran do besides blocking the Strait of Hormuz?

Tehran could launch a systemic destruction of the oil and gas infrastructure of the Persian Gulf countries. The logic is simple: if the mere threat of large-scale consequences can force the US to slow down, then that's precisely what needs to be done.
And the closer Iran gets to the tipping point, the greater its willingness to take risks. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and a number of other states, with the exception of Oman, are already perceived in Tehran as parties to the conflict.
Key oil fields and export terminals are within range of Iranian short-range missiles, and in some cases, even artillery fire from the coast. An additional factor is the presence of Shiite populations in some of these areas, which creates the potential for internal destabilization.
The worst-case scenario is that combined missile and drone strikes, coupled with the actions of proxy groups, lead to the burning of wells and the destruction or damage of both refining facilities and oil terminals.

There's a historical precedent: in 1991, while retreating from Kuwait, Iraqi troops set fire to oil fields, and it took almost a year to extinguish them.

If markets begin pricing this risk, first Brent, then WTI, could easily rise well above $100 per barrel.

Then comes the next layer of the problem. If Hormuz is effectively paralyzed for an extended period, and supplies from the region are limited, the US could theoretically impose export restrictions on its own oil and gas to maintain domestic prices before the midterm elections.

In that case, Europe would be in an extremely vulnerable position: Russian supplies are limited or eliminated altogether, Middle Eastern supplies are under threat, and American supplies are in doubt. Then the energy crisis ceases to be regional and becomes global.