ConflictClarifier

متتبع أزمة إيران-الخليج 2026
CC
Events Archive
strikeApr 14, 2026

What is the ‘Gate of Tears’? Key shipping route that could be attacked by Houthis

Summary

What is the ‘Gate of Tears’? Key shipping route that could be attacked by Houthis and disrupt global economy The Bab al-Mandab strait has been a vital shipping route for Saudi Arabia since the closure of the Strait of Hormuz Donald Trump’s threats to blockade the Strait of Hormuz have sparked fears Iran could counterattack by urging its Houthi allies in Yemen to halt sea traffic through another major shipping corridor in the Middle East. The entry of the Houthi rebels into the Iran war at the end of March sparked concerns that the group, known for its attacks on shipping, could block the vital Bab al-Mandab strait to oil tankers, causing further economic chaos. Like the Strait of Hormuz, the strait, also known as the “Gate of Tears”, is a chokepoint in the region through which large volumes of petroleum and liquefied natural gas pass. Crucially, it’s a vital strategic link in the maritime trade route between the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean, via the Red Sea and the Suez Canal. The Strait of Hormuz usually accounts for the transit of around a fifth of the world’s oil and gas. But most Western commercial shipping has been effectively halted by Iran since the outbreak of war. Meanwhile, Iran has still been able to sell oil to its allies – particularly China – through the use of so-called “dark transit” vessels, which have turned off their location transponders. Meanwhile. Bab al-Mandab sees around 12 per cent of global oil shipments pass through it, as well as other goods, meaning an escalation that results in its closure would deliver yet another blow to the economies relying on imports from the Middle East. ”If the US proceeds with its plan to blockade the strait [of Hormuz], Iran’s escalation strategy could dictate that it ensures Gulf countries can’t export, either,” Mona Yacoubian, an expert at the US's Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Fox News. ”This could translate to further attacks on Gulf energy infrastructure or even deploying the Houthis to blockade the Bab al-Mandeb,” she added. Iran’s control of the Strait of Hormuz has meant that around 20 per cent of the world’s oil supply has been constrained since the beginning of the war – a far larger figure than the 1973 oil crisis, during which around just 7 per cent of the world’s oil supplies were brought to a halt in the Middle East. Brent crude, the global oil benchmark, soared back past $100 a barrel on Monday, rising by more than 7 per cent to $102 (£76) in morning trading and sparking fears of a worsening global energy crisis. Oil had fallen back below the psychological $100 barrier last week after the US and Iran had agreed on a two-week ceasefire deal, which included reopening the Strait of Hormuz. Before the war in Iran, it cost $78 (£58) per barrel. Where is the strait? The Bab al-Mandab strait, also known as the “Gate of Tears”, resides between Djibouti and Yemen. The route, around 50km long and 16km wide, is where vessels travel between the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea. The strait provides access to a number of vital ports, such as Saudi Arabia’s Yanbu, Djibouti’s Doraleh, Eritrea’s Assab, as well as Somalia’s Kismayu and Somaliland’s Berbera. How important is it economically? Between 2020 and 2023, Bab al-Mandab saw a growing number of barrels transit the strait daily, peaking at 9.3 million a day, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). This dropped drastically to 4.1 million in 2024 after the Houthis launched systematic attacks on commercial ships associated with Israel using the strait. The International Monetary Fund said that trade through the Suez Canal fell by 50 per cent in the first two months of 2024 compared to the year before, while trade through the Panama Canal fell by 32 per cent. As traffic fell, insurance costs surged. Major shipping firms rerouted vessels to go past the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa instead, adding an additional 10-14 days to journeys. What impact would closing it have? Closure or disruption to two of the world’s main strategic waterways could be catastrophic for global trade, with energy supplies from the region potentially cut off. Bab al-Mandab has allowed a trickle of oil to leave the Middle East through circumvention. Saudi Arabia has used the strait strategically to export crude through its vital Yanbu port. Yanbu is on the west coast of Saudi Arabia, receiving oil through the country’s east-to-west pipeline. Matthew Wright, a freight analyst for Kpler, told The Independent earlier this month that the pipeline was “being pushed to the maximum”. “While all the attention is rightly on what’s happening in the strait, Yanbu is significant in that it’s the most active port out of the Middle East gulf at the moment, and if anything were to happen there, it would be a massive blow to continued crude exports from the Middle East,” he said. According to analysts, as of April 2026, Saudi Arabia was exporting around 4.6 to 5 million barrels per day of crude oil from Yanbu, with 80 per cent of exports bound for Asian markets. Mr Wright warned that potentially losing this, on top of the loss of shipments through Hormuz, would be a “major problem”. Join our commenting forum Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their repliesComments

Actors involved

USIsraelIranProxyChina

Sources

  • Bryony GoochBy Bryony Gooch

    What is the ‘Gate of Tears’? Key shipping route that could be attacked by Houthis and disrupt global economy The Bab al-Mandab strait has been a vital shipping route for Saudi Arabia since the closure of the Strait of Hormuz Donald Trump’s threats to blockade the Strait of Hormuz

See this event through different lenses

Compare how Western, Iranian, Israeli, Global South, and Pro-Peace perspectives frame this event.

Compare Perspectives

Community Notes

Community Notes

Loading notes...

Related events

strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranUN
1 source

The US and its allies Britain, France and Germany are pushing other countries on the UN nuclear watchdog's board to pass a resolution next week reporting Iran to the UN Security Council for the first time in 20 years, diplomats said on Friday. If passed, the resolution would follow up on one adopted on June 12 of last year declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for not fully cooperating with an investigation into uranium traces found at undeclared sites.

The US launched an air war against Tehran on February 28 in which, together with Israel, it destroyed or badly damaged Iran's uranium-enrichment facilities. Iran has not let International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors return to the bombed sites since then or verify what remains of its stocks of enriched uranium, some of which was enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.

Resolution would be culmination of standoff over IAEA's access to nuclear sites A resolution by the IAEA's 35-nation board reporting Iran to the Security Council would also be the culmination of a standoff over IAEA access to those sites, since the board has passed two resolutions in the past year demanding Iran declare its enriched uranium stocks and grant the IAEA full access to verify them.

A draft text for the resolution has yet to be formally submitted to the board and negotiations between countries over the exact wording are ongoing, diplomats said. A draft is usually formally submitted early in the week of a board meeting. As a party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology, including enrichment, for peaceful purposes.

Iran says it would never produce nuclear weapons. It is, however, the only country to enrich to 60% without making a bomb. The amount it has enriched to that level is "a matter of serious concern" to the IAEA. The IAEA believes well over 200 kg of that highly enriched uranium has survived the bombardments and is held in a tunnel complex at Isfahan and at the Natanz facility.

Location: Jerusalem
strikeUnverifiedUSIranChina
1 source

The U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions on the Turkish bank Golden Global Yatirim Bankasi Anonim Sirketi, alleging it facilitated the transfer of Iranian oil revenues into cash and gold. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated these measures are part of "Operation Economic Outcast," an initiative launched following more than six months of conflict to pressure Iran.

Location: Iran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranEURussiaChinaUkraineHamas
1 source

Rabobank reported that geopolitical developments, including Russian statements regarding potential peace talks in Ukraine and US-Iran hostilities, continue to dominate market sentiment, though analysts noted these claims remain unverified. The bank also cited unconfirmed reports that South Korea may deploy forces to the Strait of Hormuz and that Israel has stated regime change in Tehran is a primary objective, while noting that Ukrainian media reports of an impending northern Russian offensive lack independent verification.

Location: Tehran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranRussiaUkraine
1 source

The White House is now apparently using Russian tactics to convince the American public that the war in Iran is not, in fact, a war. When asked by reporters at the White House on Thursday whether the most intense sustained air campaign by American forces since the invasion of Iraq would be over by the midterms, Vice President JD Vance replied: “I wouldn’t call it a war.

” Vladimir Putin said much the same thing when he invaded Ukraine. Russia was not fighting a war either, the Kremlin insisted; it was merely conducting a “special military operation.” If that comparison strikes you as shocking, consider the contours of the two conflicts.

A vastly more powerful military launched a punishing offensive against a smaller, less well-equipped adversary, inflicted enormous damage without achieving a decisive resolution, and then found itself drawn into a longer, grinding conflict with no clear way out.

The motivations behind the wars may be different, and they’re playing out in different theaters, but the pattern is eerily similar. Now, so too is the attempt by those in power to control how the public understands, and even what it is allowed to call, the obvious war unfolding in front of them.

If This Isn’t a War, What Is? Let us take a moment to assess what exactly has happened since February 28, when the U.S. launched Operation Epic Fury. The opening U.S.-Israeli attack killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, along with the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the defense minister and various other senior officials.

According to the U.S. military’s own accounting, the first 38 days of major combat operations involved more than 10,200 sorties and 13,500 strikes. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) says those attacks damaged or destroyed more than 85 percent of Iran’s ballistic missile, drone and naval defense industrial base, while knocking out 82 percent of its air-defense missile systems.

The U.S. sent carrier strike groups and warships into the region, later imposing a military blockade on Iranian ports. Meanwhile, American and allied air defenses intercepted more than 6,000 Iranian attack drones and 1,500 ballistic missiles fired at U.

S. forces, Israel and American partners across the Middle East. More than 50,000 U.S. service members remain deployed across the region. The fighting has killed 18 U.S. service members and at least 8,000 people across Iran, Lebanon, Israel and the Gulf states.

More than 750 U.S. service members have been wounded. Last month, during a lull in the fighting, the U.S. Treasury unveiled a sanctions package likened to an “economic D-day” that is designed to make Iran an “economic outcast” and cut the adversary off from all available forms of economic support.

In the announcement, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent openly declared that Iran had been “at war against America” for 47 years. This week, the shooting resumed; the U.S. hit targets in and around the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran blasted missiles at targets in Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan and Iraq.

All this from an administration that almost exactly a year ago launched a rapid rebrand of the Defense Department into the “Department of War”. No boots on the ground, though, so it’s not a war, right? Tell It Kind of Like It Is Even the very best snake-oil salesman would have a hard time convincing people that the war in Iran isn’t a war.

So why is JD Vance even trying? Well, if there’s one thing politicians understand better than anyone, it’s the importance of language and rhetoric. Words have immense power; a well-written speech can unite millions of people, and a catchy slogan like Make America Great Again can come to represent an entire political philosophy.

But war is a pesky word. For one, it implies there will eventually be a winner and a loser. It also brings with it certain expectations—and some very difficult questions. What is the objective? How many people will die? When will it end? And, perhaps most dangerously of all: was it worth it?

Those are not questions the White House wants Americans to be asking. Trump built a substantial part of his political identity around ending, rather than beginning, America’s “endless wars.” When Washington and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding in June, the White House presented it as proof that Trump’s America First approach could deliver peace without another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict.

Then the hostilities started again. Earlier this week, Trump shared a Truth Social graphic declaring that “Hormuz Oil Volumes are BACK!”, saying 18 million barrels a day were once again leaving the Strait, compared with 20 million before the war. No independent commodity tracking company or energy analyst appeared to verify Trump’s claims.

But most Americans won’t be checking tanker-tracking dashboards. What they’ll care about is the cold, hard fact that diesel hit a new record price this morning, soaring to an average of $5.85 a gallon for the first time ever. Gasoline is $4.15 a gallon on average, compared with $3.

20 at this time last year, according to AAA. The numbers on the sign at the gas station and the price on the grocery receipt aren’t affected by Trump’s tall tales, but they’ll surely affect how Americans vote at the midterms. When viewed in this light, Vance’s attempt to discourage reporters from “call[ing] it a war” begins to make sense.

A war is something that we want to end. It tends to result in a winner and a loser. And its worth is up for debate at all times. A different kind of engagement that doesn’t quite meet the threshold of war—say, a special military operation—is not exposed to the same kind of scrutiny.

Vance effectively made that case himself. “When you ask, ‘When will this end?’ You’re asking me a question like, ‘When will the Iranians stop shooting at ships?’” he said. By that logic, there is no American war—only recurring Iranian provocations that require American military responses.

That’s exactly the logic applied by Putin to Ukraine and supposed expansion of NATO. Putting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube U.S. lawmakers have repeatedly invoked the War Powers Resolution to challenge Trump’s authority to keep fighting Iran without specific congressional authorization.

The law generally gives a president 60 days after U.S. forces enter “hostilities” to secure congressional approval or bring those hostilities to an end. That makes the pauses in fighting hugely important. When the original 60-day deadline arrived in May, Trump told Congress that the temporary ceasefire reached in April meant the hostilities that began on February 28 had ended.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued that the War Powers clock could “pause, or stop” when the shooting did. That position is disputed by legal experts, but its political utility is obvious. If every new outbreak of fighting can be treated as a separate skirmish, rather than part of one continuous war, the administration can argue that a fresh 60-day clock starts each time.

Vance’s insistence that there is no continuing “war” fits neatly for an administration that has already tried to divide six months of conflict into separate periods of hostilities, interrupted by ceasefires and pauses. This brings us back to Moscow.

The Kremlin’s own linguistic trick was also about making one sprawling war sound smaller, more limited and more manageable than it really was. From the very beginning of the invasion, Putin described the war as a special military operation. Only after two years of grinding warfare did Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov openly declare Russia to be in a “state of war”—and even then, he said the transformation had occurred because the “collective West” had joined the fight against Russia.

Vance is playing a similar game, but in reverse. Only now—with soaring fuel prices, mounting casualties, concerns over the military’s munitions stockpiles, and midterm elections on the horizon—is the conflict no longer a war. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle, though, and the American people aren’t stupid.

Vance and the White House may discover in November that voters are perfectly capable of recognizing a war, even when the vice president doesn’t want to call it one.

Location: Iran