14APR

Bab el-Mandeb returns as second chokepoint

4 min read

09:22UTC

International Crisis Group's Yemen analyst Ahmed Nagi told PressTV Houthi forces are "very likely to escalate" in Bab el-Mandeb if the US blockade bites Iran. Brent has not priced a dual-chokepoint scenario.

← Back to Sanctioned tankers slip the blockade Jump to analysis ↓

ConflictDeveloping

Key takeaway

A Bab el-Mandeb closure alongside Hormuz would cut 25% of seaborne energy supply and neutralise Saudi Arabia's pipeline backup.

Ahmed Nagi, senior Yemen analyst at the International Crisis Group, told PressTV that Houthi forces are "very likely to escalate in Bab el-Mandeb" if the US blockade begins to bite Iran ¹. A Yemeni military official quoted by the same outlet in late March called closure of the Red Sea strait "among the primary options" if escalation continued. Ali Akbar Velayati, a former Iranian foreign minister with continuing influence in the Iranian establishment, told PressTV that "the unified command of the Resistance front views Bab al-Mandeb as it does Hormuz".

Bab el-Mandeb is the narrow strait at the southern end of the Red Sea, between Yemen and Djibouti, that every Gulf-origin cargo bound for Europe via Suez must pass through. If it closes at the same time as Hormuz, the two closures together remove roughly 25% of global seaborne energy supply from market. Every Gulf-origin cargo bound for Europe or Asia then needs a Cape of Good Hope detour, 10 to 20 extra days at sea, with freight rates rising sharply before any insurance uplift. The scenario exceeds any case modelled in IEA emergency-release protocols.

Saudi Arabia's East-West pipeline, Petroline, was restored to its full 7 million barrels per day capacity as the contingency backup if Hormuz closed. Petroline bypasses Hormuz. It does not bypass Bab el-Mandeb. The pipeline ends at Yanbu on the Red Sea coast, and a Red Sea chokepoint closure eliminates that alternative routing entirely. The dual-chokepoint scenario is the one contingency the published Saudi infrastructure cannot resolve.

Markets already treat the Hormuz operation as a partial action rather than a full closure on the pullback). The dual-chokepoint scenario has not yet been re-priced into Brent at all. The caveat from Nagi matters: Houthi operational capacity in the Red Sea was degraded by the 2025 US campaign, and "very likely to escalate" from a senior analyst is not the same as confirmed operational readiness. The separate development that Hezbollah has received a new jet-powered Iranian loitering munition (see event 11) suggests the resupply network is still partially functional, which tilts the probability towards the Houthis having more than rhetoric to deploy.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

There are two narrow sea passages that most of the world's oil and gas must travel through. One is the Strait of Hormuz, between Iran and the Gulf states, which the US is currently blockading. The other is the Strait of Bab el-Mandeb, at the southern end of the Red Sea, between Yemen and Djibouti. The Houthi movement in Yemen, which fought a successful campaign against shipping in the Red Sea in 2023 and 2024, is now signalling it might close the second strait as well, if the US blockade starts hurting Iran. If both straits were closed at the same time, roughly a quarter of the world's energy supply would have no sea route. The Saudi pipeline that was restored as a backup route for Hormuz ends on the Red Sea coast, so it would be useless if Bab el-Mandeb were also blocked. Oil and gas prices for European and Asian buyers would rise sharply. The important caveat is that the Houthis' ability to actually close Bab el-Mandeb is uncertain after the US degraded their forces in 2025. The threat is real but the capability is unconfirmed.

What could happen next?

Risk
A dual-chokepoint closure would cut roughly 25% of global seaborne energy supply and eliminate Saudi Arabia's Petroline alternative routing, exceeding any scenario modelled in IEA emergency-release protocols.
Consequence
Current Brent crude pricing reflects partial Hormuz closure only; a credible Bab el-Mandeb threat materialising would trigger a repricing well above the blockade-day $103 peak.

Source Landscape

This story draws predominantly on Iran state media, with sources from Iran

Iran

Primary parallel: The 1987-88 Tanker War provides the only historical case of simultaneous Iranian pressure on both Gulf chokepoints. Iran mined Hormuz and threatened Bab el-Mandeb transit simultaneously, forcing the Reagan administration's Operation Earnest Will tanker escort programme.

The dual-pressure model was ultimately broken not by military force alone but by the US Navy's destruction of the Iranian frigate Sahand and the oil platforms that funded the mine-laying operation in April 1988's Operation Praying Mantis.

Counter-parallel: The 2023-24 Houthi Red Sea campaign demonstrated that sustained Bab el-Mandeb interdiction is feasible for a non-state actor operating with Iranian support, but also that the US-UK Joint Maritime Force degraded Houthi anti-ship missile capacity significantly over a 14-month campaign. The question is which of these two cases is more predictive: Praying Mantis (state actor broken by kinetic response) or 2023-24 (non-state actor degraded but not stopped).

The dual-chokepoint scenario removes approximately 25% of global seaborne energy supply simultaneously. Saudi Arabia's Petroline restoration to 7 million barrels per day is the only physical bypass for Hormuz, but the pipeline terminates at Yanbu on the Red Sea coast. Bab el-Mandeb closure eliminates that alternative entirely, meaning the full Saudi production capacity has no viable export route.

Cape of Good Hope re-routing adds 10 to 20 extra days per voyage, raising freight rates and insurance costs before any commodity price effect. European LNG import infrastructure has no overland alternative to seaborne routes through both straits. Brent crude at $101.82 (13 April close) has not priced this scenario; the consensus price corridor assumes partial Hormuz closure only.

Consensus view: IISS Maritime Security Programme analysts assess that Houthi operational capacity in the Red Sea was meaningfully degraded by the US Red Sea campaign of early 2025, and that current Houthi rhetoric about closing Bab el-Mandeb is capability-aspirational rather than capability-confirmed. The phrase 'very likely to escalate' from International Crisis Group's Ahmed Nagi is an intent assessment, not a capability readiness certification.

Counter-view: Chatham House Gulf Initiative researchers argue the relevant variable is Iran's weapons resupply capacity, which appears more intact than Western defence ministries assessed after the Syrian route closed.

Hezbollah's confirmed operational use of a 2025-production Iranian drone (see event 11) suggests the resupply network has reconstituted via alternative pathways, which tilts the probability that Houthi stockpiles of anti-ship munitions are being refreshed on a similar timeline.

Key tension: Whether Houthi escalation in Bab el-Mandeb is constrained by the damage inflicted in the 2025 Red Sea campaign, or whether Iranian resupply has restored enough capability to make the dual-chokepoint scenario operationally plausible rather than merely rhetorical.

First Reported In

Update #68 · Sanctioned tankers slip the blockade

PressTV· 14 Apr 2026

Read original →

Causes and effects

Caused by

Saudi pipeline bypass restores 7 million bpd route

Saudi Arabia's restoration of Petroline to full capacity (ID:2288) bypasses Hormuz but terminates at Yanbu on the Red Sea, meaning Bab el-Mandeb closure would eliminate the only alternative routing for Gulf exports.

Occurred 12 Apr 2026

Read story →

Trump orders blockade on a tweet

Trump's blockade order (ID:2282) is the direct trigger cited by Houthi-aligned sources as the provocation for potential Bab el-Mandeb escalation.

Occurred 12 Apr 2026

Read story →

This Event

Bab el-Mandeb returns as second chokepoint

A second chokepoint closure would remove roughly a quarter of global seaborne energy supply at once, and the Saudi pipeline backup terminates on the Red Sea coast.

Different Perspectives

South Korean financial markets

South Korea, which imports virtually all its crude oil, is absorbing the war's economic transmission most acutely among non-belligerents. The second KOSPI circuit breaker in four sessions — with Samsung down over 10% and SK Hynix down 12.3% — reflects an industrial economy unable to reprice energy costs that have risen 72% in ten days. The market response indicates Korean industry cannot sustain oil above $100 per barrel without margin compression across manufacturing, semiconductors, and shipping.

Migrant worker communities in the Gulf

The first confirmed civilian deaths in Saudi Arabia — one Indian and one Bangladeshi killed, twelve Bangladeshis wounded — fell on communities with no voice in the military decisions that placed them in harm's way. Migrant workers live near military installations because that housing is affordable, not by choice. Bangladesh and India face the dilemma of needing to protect nationals who cannot easily leave a war zone while depending on Gulf remittances that fund a substantial share of their domestic economies.

Azerbaijan — President Ilham Aliyev

Aliyev treats the Nakhchivan strikes as a direct act of war against Azerbaijani sovereignty, placing armed forces on full combat readiness and demanding an Iranian explanation. The response is calibrated to maximise international sympathy while stopping short of military retaliation — Baku cannot fight Iran alone and needs either Turkish or NATO backing to credibly deter further strikes.

Oil-importing nations (Japan, South Korea, India)

The Hormuz closure is an existential threat. Japan, South Korea, and India receive the majority of their crude through the strait — they will bear the heaviest economic cost of a war they had no part in.

Global South governments (Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa)

Neutrality was possible when the targets were military. 148 dead schoolgirls made it impossible — no government can explain that away to its own citizens.

Turkey

Has absorbed three Iranian ballistic missile interceptions since 4 March without invoking NATO Article 5 consultation. Each incident narrows Ankara's political room to continue absorbing without Alliance-level response.