MARITIME 4105: International Maritime Security – Assessment 2: Strategic Analysis Report

Write a 2,500–to 3,000‑word strategic analysis report examining the maritime industry impacts of Israel-Iran war on commercial vessel transits through the Strait of Hormuz, Bab el-Mandeb, and Suez Canal, including analysis of vessel attack incidents, force majeure declarations, war-risk insurance surges, and naval de-confliction measures in high-traffic maritime corridors.

Assessment Context

This assessment forms the second of three written submissions in MARITIME 4105: International Maritime Security, a Level 4 undergraduate module within the BSc Maritime Studies and Logistics programme. The task requires you to analyse a live geopolitical scenario with immediate operational consequences for global shipping, building upon foundational knowledge of chokepoint geography and maritime law developed in Assessment 1.

The February 2026 eruption of direct military conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran has fundamentally disrupted commercial navigation through the Persian Gulf and Red Sea corridors. Within days of the initial strikes, Iran announced closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the vital chokepoint through which approximately one-fifth of global oil consumption transits daily [^18^]. Maritime traffic through Hormuz has slowed to a trickle, with hundreds of vessels stranded or rerouted, and war-risk insurance premiums increasing manyfold for vessels attempting transit [^11^]. Simultaneously, Houthi forces signalled readiness to resume attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea and Bab el-Mandeb Strait, shattering prospects for container shipping returning to Suez Canal routes [^13^].

Your analysis must evaluate how this conflict cascades through energy supply chains, container logistics networks, and port operations across the GCC region. This assessment directly supports Module Learning Outcomes 2, 4, and 6.

Module Learning Outcomes

Upon successful completion of this assessment, you will be able to:

• Analyse the operational and economic impacts of armed conflict on commercial maritime routes, including vessel diversion patterns, port congestion, and supply chain disruptions.
• Evaluate the role of war-risk insurance markets and force majeure declarations in maritime crisis response.
• Assess naval de-confliction measures and international coalition operations in contested waterways.
• Synthesise real-time shipping data, industry reports, and geopolitical analysis into coherent strategic recommendations for maritime stakeholders.

Task Instructions

Your strategic analysis report must address the following components in a structured format:

1. Conflict Overview and Immediate Maritime Impacts (700–900 words): Analyse the February 2026 military escalation and its immediate effects on commercial shipping. Address: (a) the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its effect on tanker and LNG carrier transits; (b) vessel attack incidents in Gulf waters and the Indian Ocean; (c) force majeure declarations by Qatar and Bahrain on energy exports; (d) the operational status of key GCC ports including Ras Tanura, Ras Laffan, and Jebel Ali; and (e) the strategic decision by container lines to avoid Persian Gulf calls.
2. Insurance Markets and Risk Pricing (600–800 words): Evaluate the response of marine insurance markets to the conflict. Analyse war-risk premium adjustments for Hormuz and Red Sea transits, the withdrawal of coverage by major underwriters, and the US announcement of a USD 20 billion reinsurance plan. Discuss how insurers differentiate risk between vessels with US or Israeli commercial connections versus neutral-flagged shipping.
3. Alternative Routing and Supply Chain Adaptations (700–900 words): Assess the operational trade-offs associated with Cape of Good Hope routing versus canal transits. Include analysis of: (a) capacity absorption by extended sailing distances; (b) fuel cost and transit time implications; (c) port congestion at alternative hubs including Durban and Colombo; (d) the viability of Saudi Arabia’s Yanbu Red Sea port and UAE’s Fujairah as alternative export terminals; and (e) impacts on Asia-Europe container trade and Middle East energy exports to Asian markets.
4. Naval Operations and De-confliction (300–500 words): Analyse coalition naval operations including CTF-150 and CMF activities, the challenges of escorting commercial traffic through contested waters, and the limitations of military protection against asymmetric threats such as mines, drones, and small boat attacks.
5. Strategic Recommendations (200–300 words): Based on your analysis, provide evidence-based recommendations for shipping companies, charterers, or port authorities operating in or dependent upon Gulf and Red Sea routes.

Formatting and Submission Requirements

• Word count: 2,500–3,000 words (excluding references, tables, and appendices).
• Format: 12pt Times New Roman or Arial, 1.5 line spacing, 2.5cm margins.
• Referencing: Harvard referencing style required. Minimum 12 academic and industry sources including Lloyd’s List, BIMCO, UKMTO, CENTCOM statements, and peer-reviewed maritime security literature.
• Structure: Include executive summary (150–200 words), table of contents, numbered headings, and conclusion.
• Submission: Via Turnitin on the LMS by 23:59 on the due date. Late submissions incur standard faculty penalties.

Marking Criteria

Example Student Response

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz in February 2026 following US-Israeli strikes on Iran triggered immediate and severe disruptions to global energy supply chains. According to analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Iranian attacks damaged oil and gas facilities across Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iraq, and Bahrain, causing loadings from key Gulf ports to plummet from 10–19 million barrels per day to just 3 million barrels per day within the first week of conflict [^17^]. Qatar declared force majeure on LNG exports while Bahrain suspended operations at its Bapco refinery, demonstrating how rapidly maritime conflict cascades into contractual disruptions. The effective blockade forced vessel operators to make immediate routing decisions: approximately half of tankers still attempting Hormuz transit belonged to the shadow fleet linked to Russia and Iran, while Western-flagged vessels largely diverted via the Cape of Good Hope or sought refuge in neutral territorial waters [^11^]. Research published in the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering demonstrates that conflict-induced vessel detours increase shipping costs through extended route distances, with the London-to-Mumbai route via Cape of Good Hope adding approximately 7,000 kilometres and 10 days compared to Suez Canal transit [^14^]. These operational adjustments absorb approximately 2.5 million TEU of global container shipping capacity and sustain elevated freight rates on Asia-Europe trades.

The insurance market response to the Israel-Iran conflict reveals structural vulnerabilities in maritime risk pricing mechanisms. War-risk premiums for Hormuz transits increased fourfold following the June 2019 tanker attacks, and the 2026 conflict has reportedly pushed rates higher with widespread withdrawal of coverage for vessels with US or Israeli commercial connections [^11^]. The US announcement of a USD 20 billion reinsurance plan attempts to address market failure but does not eliminate the fundamental deterrent effect of physical risk to crews and vessels. Historical precedents from the Tanker War of the 1980s suggest that even limited mining or drone attacks can sustain high insurance costs long after active hostilities cease. The failure of international naval coalitions to restore confidence in Red Sea transits during the 2023–2024 Houthi campaign illustrates the difficulty of protecting commercial shipping against asymmetric threats; despite hundreds of interceptions by coalition forces, container traffic through Bab el-Mandeb fell by roughly 90 per cent [^20^]. This pattern suggests that military escorts alone cannot guarantee safe passage when adversaries possess large inventories of low-cost drones, missiles, and naval mines.

 References

• Calabrese, J. (2020) ‘The Strait of Hormuz: Assessing the Threat to Global Energy Security’, Middle East Institute Policy Paper, 2020-04. Available at: https://www.mei.edu/publications/strait-hormuz-assessing-threat-global-energy-security
• Guilfoyle, D. (2019) ‘Maritime Confidence-Building Measures in the Persian Gulf’, Naval War College Review, 72(2), pp. 45–62.
• Kraska, J. (2019) ‘Sanctions and Maritime Security in the Middle East’, Ocean Development and International Law, 50(4), pp. 301–320. DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2019.1652578
• McNally, T. (2024) ‘The Red Sea Crisis: Impacts on Global Shipping’, International Transport Forum. Available at: https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/repositories/red-sea-crisis-impacts-global-shipping.pdf
• Zhang, L. et al. (2025) ‘Assessing the Impacts of the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict on Global Sea Transportation’, Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 13(2), 311. DOI: 10.3390/jmse13020311

Assignment: Assessment 3

MARITIME 4105: Assessment 3 — Policy Brief and Risk Simulation

Building on your strategic analysis from Assessment 2, prepare a 1,800–2,000‑word policy brief addressed to a Chief Operating Officer of a major container line or energy trader recommending operational protocols for navigating sustained conflict in the Gulf and Red Sea regions. The brief must include: (a) a risk assessment matrix categorising threats by probability and impact; (b) three specific operational recommendations with implementation timelines; and (c) a contingency plan for sudden Strait of Hormuz closure. Additionally, participate in a 60‑minute simulated crisis management exercise during Week 11 seminar sessions, where groups will respond to evolving conflict scenarios including port closures, insurance market withdrawals, and naval incident escalations. Submit the written brief via Turnitin by 23:59 on Friday of Week 12; simulation performance assessed via peer evaluation and tutor observation rubric.