Skip to content
Briefings are running a touch slower this week while we rebuild the foundations.See roadmap
Iran Conflict 2026
5MAR

35,000 seafarers and passengers stranded

3 min read
15:17UTC

Twenty thousand seafarers and fifteen thousand cruise passengers are trapped on vessels in an active conflict zone, with no insurance, no transits, and no way out.

ConflictDeveloping
Key takeaway

As crew contract limits are reached en masse in coming weeks, captains may be legally compelled to declare marine emergencies to justify unauthorised port entries — generating additional diplomatic incidents beyond the conflict's primary theatres.

IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez warned that approximately 20,000 seafarers and 15,000 cruise passengers are stranded in Gulf and Arabian Sea waters. Many seafarers have completed their employment contracts and are legally entitled to repatriation, but no route exists.

The stranding follows the complete collapse of commercial shipping insurance for The Gulf. The P&I deadline passed at midnight Thursday with no new commercial transits through the strait of Hormuz; more than 150 vessels sit at anchor. Vessel traffic through Hormuz had already fallen 80% below normal before the insurance withdrawal made remaining transits uninsurable. The 35,000 figure represents people on vessels that cannot legally move — their insurance is void, the waterway is a combat zone, and the Sonangol Namibe was struck and leaked cargo 30 nautical miles southeast of Kuwait , confirming that commercial vessels are not exempt from attack.

The human cost falls disproportionately on seafarers from the Philippines, India, Indonesia, and Bangladesh — countries whose nationals make up the majority of the world's approximately 1.89 million active merchant sailors. The 15,000 cruise passengers are a visible emergency with diplomatic weight behind their extraction. The 20,000 seafarers — largely invisible, working below decks on tankers and bulk carriers — face weeks or months of uncertainty with minimal consular leverage.

A ceasefire tomorrow would not move these vessels. Insurers would require weeks to reassess risk. Port authorities would need to clear backlogs. Each day the stranding persists, it erodes the willingness of seafarers to accept future Gulf deployments — a long-term consequence for the region's maritime labour supply that outlasts whatever diplomatic resolution eventually comes.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Seafarers have legally binding contracts capping how long they can work continuously at sea — typically six to eleven months — after which international law requires their employer to return them home. With Gulf and Arabian Sea ports closed or dangerous and the regional hub airports (Dubai, Doha, Bahrain) paralysed, there is no mechanism to fulfil this obligation. Unlike cruise passengers, who are guests, seafarers are employees with enforceable legal rights, and their employers face mounting liability with every passing day. When contract limits are reached, a ship's captain has a legal duty to seek the nearest safe port regardless of geopolitical conditions — creating a separate, rolling series of crises that cannot be resolved commercially.

Deep Analysis
Synthesis

The IMO figure of 35,000 is almost certainly an undercount: IMO tallies depend on flag-state voluntary reporting that lags reality by days and excludes undocumented vessels and informal maritime workers prevalent in Gulf dhow and offshore supply-boat sectors. The true stranded figure is likely materially higher.

Root Causes

Global shipping's crew rotation infrastructure is concentrated in four Gulf hub airports — Dubai, Doha, Bahrain, and Abu Dhabi — that collectively handle the majority of international seafarer transit flights. This geographic concentration was a documented systemic risk that the industry never redundancy-planned for a simultaneous multi-port closure scenario; no alternative hub network was developed despite multiple prior Gulf tension episodes.

Escalation

Vessels that departed before 28 February are approaching the outer limits of standard crew contract durations. As those limits are reached in batches over the coming three to five weeks, the maritime crisis will generate a cascade of individual legal emergencies requiring state-level diplomatic intervention — each one a potential trigger for new incidents independent of the conflict's trajectory.

What could happen next?
  • Meaning

    The IMO Secretary-General's public warning signals that the organisation's internal assessment has concluded voluntary commercial resolution is insufficient and that state-level intervention is required — a threshold the IMO did not cross until week three of the COVID crew change crisis.

    Immediate · Assessed
  • Consequence

    Vessels reaching maximum contract durations will create a rolling series of crew change emergencies over the next three to five weeks, each requiring individual diplomatic resolution between flag states, port states, and conflict parties.

    Short term · Assessed
  • Risk

    If the crisis extends beyond six weeks, recruitment pipelines for seafarers will contract as the profession becomes acutely dangerous, prolonging the maritime labour shortage well beyond the conflict's eventual resolution.

    Medium term · Suggested
  • Precedent

    This event may drive IMO to establish a formal conflict-zone crew rotation protocol — analogous to the COVID 'key worker' framework — specifying state obligations to facilitate crew changes during armed conflicts affecting international shipping lanes.

    Long term · Suggested
First Reported In

Update #22 · IRGC drones hit Azerbaijan; CIA link cut

The National· 5 Mar 2026
Read original
Different Perspectives
Gulf shipping and insurance markets
Gulf shipping and insurance markets
With Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb both hostile at once, war-risk underwriters face their first dual-chokepoint pricing problem; the rerouting hedge that absorbed one closure is gone for Israeli-linked hulls. Any deal that reopens Hormuz without a Houthi stand-down clause delivers only partial shipping relief.
Russia and China
Russia and China
Russia and China met IAEA chief Grossi jointly in Geneva on 5 June to coordinate an advance blocking position against Washington's censure resolution, the first documented instance of proactive pre-session obstruction rather than reactive post-vote dissent. Beijing's move came four days after OFAC designated Shanghai Qianye Energy under Iran energy sanctions.
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia was left out of the emergency $4.01 billion Patriot waiver Qatar received on 2 May as its own PAC-3 stocks ran near-empty from intercepting Iranian salvoes over Aramco facilities. Riyadh is on a standard 18-month FMS queue behind a production line booked through 2030, with no equivalent priority to Qatar's Al Udeid basing role.
Houthis (Ansar Allah)
Houthis (Ansar Allah)
The Houthis declared a complete ban on Israeli Red Sea navigation on 8 June and struck Jaffa, their first attack on Israeli territory since April, seven days after the Tasnim authorisation to activate other fronts including Bab el-Mandeb. The declaration put both chokepoints under hostile authority simultaneously.
Iran
Iran
Iran agreed the 9 June mutual halt after the Mahshahr exchange and coordinated with Russia and China to block Washington's IAEA censure resolution, using the Board as a second front while the bilateral pause held on the military one. Tehran's acceptance of the Lebanon carve-out contradicts the linkage position it stated on 1 June.
Benjamin Netanyahu and the IDF
Benjamin Netanyahu and the IDF
Israel struck the Karun Petrochemical plant at Mahshahr on 8 June over Trump's explicit objection, then agreed a halt with Iran the following day scoped on Israeli terms with Lebanon carved out. Netanyahu's posture is that the IDF will not accept Iranian missile factories as off-limits regardless of US diplomatic timelines.