strikeMay 15, 2026

Reordering the Nuclear Regime in the Wake of the Iran War

Summary

Reordering the Nuclear Regime in the Wake of the Iran War The Iran war is accelerating a reordering of the global nuclear regime, with far-reaching implications for nonproliferation, civil nuclear trade, and nuclear security. The Iran war has delivered another hammer blow to an already crumbling global nuclear regime. The rapid and destabilizing technological and geopolitical changes of recent years have severely undermined the international order and sent shock waves that are reshaping nuclear energy, security, and weapons policy. Iran’s Nuclear Challenge The Iran war underscores the evolution of the nuclear regime. It has set a precedent for the forcible dismantlement of a sovereign nation’s active nuclear program. Military strikes on nuclear infrastructure are unusual in the history of containing nuclear proliferation, although Israel has preemptively struck non-operating research reactors in Iraq and Syria. The United States and Israel launched air strikes that incapacitated much of Iran’s hard and soft nuclear infrastructure with a focus on destroying its uranium enrichment and scientific capability. President Donald Trump has claimed the uranium enrichment capability has been “obliterated,” and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director, John Ratcliffe, has stated that the nuclear sites have been “severely damaged.” This has led to the loss of control of Iran’s fissile material. Iran has produced 400 kilograms of weapon-grade uranium that likely is buried under tons of rubble at the Isfahan nuclear complex. While mystery still shrouds its status, it is probable that Iran does not control this material. There is a historical precedent for uncertain control of weapons-grade material in the wake of the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). But that original “loose nukes” problem was remedied through cooperation among the United States, Russia, and the former Soviet states. Such cooperation seems unlikely in Iran, but joint activity with a common goal is perhaps not out of the question. Trump has claimed that Iran believes that only the United States or China could excavate and remove the buried uranium. And at various times, he has stated that Iran is willing to allow the removal of the material from the country. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, apparently with the agreement of the United States, has declared that the war will not be over until the enriched uranium has been “taken out of Iran” and “enrichment sites…dismantled.” It is dangerous, expensive, and complex for the United States or Israel to attempt to remove the uranium under hostile conditions. And the option of sending it to Russia (as was done under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) when President Vladimir Putin has pledged to Iran’s foreign minister that he will “do everything that serves your interests,” is unlikely to be appealing to the United States or Israel. However, there may be an acceptable third country that could hold the uranium if it is removed from Iran. For the foreseeable future, the United States and Israel may be satisfied to allow the uranium to remain buried under the rubble. Both seem to believe they can prevent the restitution of Iran’s uranium enrichment program through active monitoring and additional military strikes. In reference to the buried uranium, Trump stated, “We’ll get to that at some point. We have it surveilled…If anybody got near the place, we will know about it, and we’ll blow them up.” This approach has raised questions about how the international system of the future will respond to nations that skirt the fringes of their peaceful nuclear commitments as members of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). There is already significant pressure on the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to safeguard existing nuclear facilities, but as nuclear power expands, the number of new nuclear sites requiring oversight will grow. The agency’s mandate, structure, and budget may not be adequate for this task. If it cannot offer the necessary control and confidence that nuclear programs won’t morph into threats, coalitions of willing and powerful nations may act in concert to limit atomic transgressions and prevent new nuclear states outside of the traditional international diplomatic framework. Iran’s history here is instructive. Diplomacy restrained but did not end the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program. It offered cover for non-nuclear dangers, including a ballistic missile and a terrorist network build-up. Military strikes substantially rolled back the nuclear program. With its baseline now reset, it seems unlikely that the United States or Israel, after spending $25 billion plus to militarily eliminate Iran’s nuclear threat, will accept a solution that allows continued uranium enrichment in Iran. The Middle East’s Nuclear Energy Expansion The Iran war’s impacts are also rippling through a Middle East that is increasingly interested in nuclear power. The United Arab Emirates already operates three Korean reactors, Egypt and Turkey are building Russian reactors, and the United States and Saudi Arabia are on the path to nuclear energy cooperation that would result in the construction of one or more reactors. Other nations in the region are also interested in nuclear energy. The US-Saudi agreement is an important bellwether for how the parameters of civil nuclear energy cooperation will evolve. Because of its controversial content, this agreement could become a casualty, or it could set new precedents for how the United States engages in international commerce. A key concern about the Saudi agreement revolves around the nonproliferation conditions. Saudi Arabia has insisted on two red lines—preserving its right to enrich uranium and its unwillingness to accept the Additional Protocol to its IAEA safeguards agreement. A nonproliferation report that the Trump administration sent to Congress last November, supporting the Saudi agreement, stated that the United States would address the Additional Protocol by creating a “Bilateral Safeguards Agreement” to supplement the IAEA safeguards system. The details of that arrangement were not specified, but the report identified it as focusing on “sensitive areas of potential nuclear cooperation,” including uranium enrichment, conversion, fuel fabrication, and reprocessing. The agreement may also allow Saudi Arabia to preserve the right to enrich uranium, although the framework surrounding that activity has not been revealed. These provisions have triggered a congressional backlash, with some members insisting on a “Gold Standard” for this and future nuclear cooperation agreements. That standard requires a nation to forego enrichment and reprocessing if it wants US nuclear technology. But it is not a requirement under the US Atomic Energy Act, which governs bilateral US nuclear agreements, and it is enshrined in only a few nuclear cooperation agreements, including the US-UAE nuclear pact. Beyond Saudi Arabia, allowing uranium enrichment is also under negotiation between the United States and South Korea, as is the consideration of spent-fuel reprocessing. Potentially loosening the constraints on these components of US nuclear cooperation would reverse years of policy practice that sought to limit the expansion of sensitive nuclear activities. But new global energy security and geopolitical realities are intruding on the old nuclear frameworks. There are numerous advanced reactors that require higher enrichment levels (though not to weapon-grade levels) and that are designed to use plutonium as a fuel. These reactors have lower power levels and flexible deployment options that are appealing to developing economies with growing energy needs, as well as to established nuclear nations. While it is unlikely that the United States will undermine its commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation, the new global realities may result in creative partnerships and policies that supplement traditional IAEA safeguards practices. This could allow the agency to remain relevant but also offer expanded options that can accommodate the scale of the new reactor technology opportunity. Emerging Nuclear Challenges These tradeoffs will attract sharp criticism, but they may be necessary to claw back international nuclear market share and keep authoritarian nuclear export competitors, such as Russia and China, at bay. The United States lost its lead in nuclear export decades ago, and it is unlikely that it can regain that role using its old playbook. Russia offers an export package that is very appealing, but it is a political debt trap. It includes state financing, a relaxed repayment schedule, the ability to operate the reactor in-country, and the willingness to accept the spent fuel back. Once China completes its substantial domestic nuclear buildout by mid-century, it may enter the export market with force to keep its industrial supply chains active and to support its geopolitical goals. Its Belt and Road Initiative is formidable, with infrastructure projects in over 150 countries, including many developing economies that may seek small- and mid-sized reactors. It matters which nation dominates the export of nuclear technology in this century. It is important for geopolitical influence because it establishes a 100-year energy relationship that has many political and economic spillover effects. And it helps to cement allies, sustain strong nuclear governance, and rebuild domestic and trusted national supply chains. In addition to market competition and nuclear proliferation, the new nuclear regime will need to manage the vulnerability of civil and military nuclear reactors in conflict zones. The taboo against attacks on civil nuclear infrastructure has been repeatedly broken by Russia. Despite the IAEA having passed resolutions condemning these actions, Russia has extensively targeted Ukraine’s civilian nuclear power infrastructure. The United States and Israel, in keeping with IAEA guidance prohibiting attacks on operating nuclear plants, exempted the Bushehr nuclear reactor from strikes in June 2025 and in March 2026. But in the new geopolitical and technological environment, this example of restraint may not be enough. This emerging challenge now extends beyond traditional reactors to include the security of small reactors that can be transported to military forward deployment zones, disaster relief areas, or used to power a variety of civil and military installations. The US military has several programs supporting advanced reactor concepts that are slated for demonstration in the coming years. Other nations may follow the United States’ lead. Because many of these designs do not rely on water as a coolant, the reactors can be located in remote areas away from traditional security systems. Networked drone swarms are a particular concern for all nuclear reactors, but remote reactors are very vulnerable. These weapons have been used against military and economic targets in the Ukraine and Iran wars, and their capabilities are growing more powerful as a result. This creates a new dimension in the nuclear security threat environment for which there is not yet a good policy or technology response. About the Author: Kenneth Luongo Kenneth N. Luongo is a recognized innovator, entrepreneur, and leader in global nuclear energy and transnational security policy. He is the president and founder of the Partnership for Global Security (PGS). He has been a TEDx presenter, written over 100 articles, including in The New York Times and Foreign Affairs, and engaged extensively with global media, governments, and audiences around the world on nuclear energy and transnational security challenges and responses. He was formerly a senior advisor to the secretary of energy and a professional staff member on Capitol Hill.

Perspectives

Iranian Official

The US and Israeli aggression against Iran has flagrantly violated the Islamic Republic's sovereignty through unlawful strikes on its nuclear infrastructure, setting a dangerous precedent for the forcible dismantlement of a nation's legitimate nuclear rights under international law. This foreign assault, which has severely damaged enrichment facilities and led to the loss of control over Iran's fissile materials, exposes the crumbling hypocrisy of the global nuclear regime dominated by aggressor powers. Iran remains steadfast in its resistance, defending its sovereign capabilities against such imperialist encroachments.

Israeli

The Iran war underscores Israel's defensive imperative to neutralize Iran's existential nuclear threat, advanced through its vast proxy network of terror groups encircling the Jewish state. US-Israeli strikes on enrichment facilities and scientific infrastructure have severely damaged Tehran's breakout capacity, setting a necessary precedent against forcible dismantlement of a rogue program's fissile material—now including 400 kg of weapon-grade uranium at risk of loss of control. This reorders the nuclear regime around survival realities rather than failed nonproliferation norms.

Neutral

US and Israeli airstrikes targeted Iranian nuclear facilities, focusing on uranium enrichment infrastructure. President Trump stated that enrichment capabilities had been obliterated, while CIA Director John Ratcliffe reported severe damage to the sites. These developments have prompted discussion of shifts in global nuclear nonproliferation norms, with the status of Iran’s reported stock of weapon-grade uranium remaining unconfirmed.

Western

The United States and Israel conducted precision strikes on Iran’s uranium enrichment sites and nuclear infrastructure, neutralizing a direct proliferation threat and degrading its capacity to produce weapons-grade material. These targeted operations have severely damaged key facilities and disrupted fissile material control, advancing strategic objectives to prevent nuclear breakout by a destabilizing actor. The action strengthens the nonproliferation regime by enforcing accountability through decisive, limited military means.

Pro-Peace

The US and Israeli airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities have inflicted severe humanitarian costs, including risks of radioactive contamination to civilian populations and widespread disruption of essential infrastructure amid the fog of war. These military actions, which have scattered hundreds of kilograms of fissile material, prioritize force over diplomacy and set a precedent that undermines negotiated nonproliferation frameworks capable of averting such devastation. Civilian lives and long-term regional stability bear the brunt, highlighting the urgent need for renewed international talks to address nuclear concerns without further bloodshed.

Global South

The US and Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites mark a direct assault on national sovereignty, exposing how Western powers impose regime change under the guise of nonproliferation while shielding their own nuclear arsenals and allies. This bypass of IAEA oversight and multilateral norms reveals the institutional decay of a regime long skewed against Global South states pursuing independent technological development. With 400 kilograms of weapon-grade uranium now unaccounted for amid the rubble, non-aligned nations face heightened risks of selective enforcement and eroded rights to civil nuclear autonomy.

Actors involved

USIsraelIranRussiaChina

Sources

Kenneth LuongoBy Kenneth Luongo
Reordering the Nuclear Regime in the Wake of the Iran War The Iran war is accelerating a reordering of the global nuclear regime, with far-reaching implications for nonproliferation, civil nuclear trade, and nuclear security. The Iran war has delivered another hammer blow to an a…

See this event through different lenses

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

Compare Perspectives

Community Notes

Loading notes...

Related events

Jul 21, 2026strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranProxy

US strikes Iran for 10th consecutive night as Tehran strikes tanker in the Strait of Hormuz

○ 1 source

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Iran attacked a tanker in the Strait of Hormuz early Tuesday, forcing its crew to abandon the ship, while the United States conducted yet another round of airstrikes targeting the Islamic Republic as they struggle over control of the key waterway.

The 10 consecutive nights of U.S. airstrikes haven’t compelled Tehran to loosen its grip on the strait, through which about a fifth of all crude oil and natural gas traded once passed in peacetime. Even as the U.S. and Iran inch closer to all-out war again, Iran’s interior minister traveled to Pakistan, a key mediator in the conflict, for talks.

However, it remains unclear just what new deal could be reached to end the fighting. The interim deal signed last month that was meant to end the fighting has crumbled. Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has largely stalled. And as fighting intensifies, both sides have targeted civilian infrastructure relied on by millions of people.

“Iran and groups supportive of Iran may target other U.S. interests overseas or at locations associated with the United States and Americans throughout the world,” the U.S. State Department said in a new warning to Americans. The escalation has pushed oil prices higher in recent weeks.

Benchmark Brent crude traded Tuesday above $88 a barrel and regular gasoline in the U.S. climbed to an average of $4 a gallon, keeping pressure on Americans’ wallets ahead of midterm elections this fall. Meanwhile, the U.S. military identified two soldiers who were killed in Jordan in attacks that left a third person missing.

Separately, the military confirmed another death in Iraq on Saturday during the “controlled detonation” of a downed Iranian drone. President Donald Trump took to social media on Monday to warn that “Every time Iran kills an American Soldier they will pay for that killing many times over!

” Trump was planning to attend a ceremony on Tuesday evening at Dover Air Force Base, where at least one service member’s remains were due to arrive. US strikes come as ships attacked The U.S. military’s Central Command said Tuesday it targeted “Iranian military command centers, maritime capabilities, missile and drone launch sites and air defense systems.

” It released more footage of bombings that targeted sites in Iran. “American forces remain postured and prepared to hold Iran accountable for unwarranted aggression toward civilian mariners seeking to freely and openly transit the strait,” the command said.

Iranian state media reported that explosions were heard in Fars, Hormozgan, Ilam, Kerman and Sistan and Baluchistan provinces. However, traffic through the strait has slowed to a crawl during the latest violence. Lloyd's List Intelligence said only three ships transited the strait on Sunday.

The British military’s United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations center said a tanker came under attack early Tuesday in the strait off Oman, forcing the crew to abandon the vessel. Iran’s paramilitary Revolutionary Guard claimed the attack, as well as two other attacks on ships Monday in the waterway.

The route around Oman has been the one the U.S. military has encouraged ships to travel to avoid Iran’s control. The UKMTO separately reported Tuesday that another previously unknown attack on a ship took place early the previous day. Tehran also hit U.

S.-allied countries throughout the Middle East. Jordan military's said Tuesday that Iran targeted it with five drones and three missiles, all of which were shot down. Bahrain sounded its missile alert sirens Tuesday afternoon as another Iranian barrage targeted the island kingdom, which is home to the U.

S. Navy's 5th Fleet. Nearly 100 US injuries since early July The Pentagon’s chief spokesperson said nearly 100 U.S. service members have been injured since the U.S. restarted strikes on July 7, and 96% of them have returned to duty.

“The vast majority of injuries experienced were minor concussions,” Sean Parnell posted Monday on X in response to a New York Times report that the Pentagon has withheld information about troop injuries from Iranian strikes. He denied that the Pentagon was hiding data about injuries.

However, the Defense Casualty Analysis System, the military’s clearinghouse for reporting deaths and injuries in conflict, has not been updated as of Monday night with the latest attacks. Yemen rebels threaten attacks on other Mideast waterway Yemen’s Houthi rebels announced a maritime embargo against Saudi Arabia on Monday.

The Houthis, who are backed by Iran, said they would block shipping between the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden by targeting the Bab el-Mandeb, a maritime chokepoint like the Strait of Hormuz, in response to an attack on Sanaa International Airport last week that they blamed on Saudi Arabia.

With the Strait of Hormuz blocked, Saudi Arabia has been relying on a pipeline to the Red Sea to get millions of barrels of oil out to market. The Houthis earlier demonstrated their ability to disrupt shipping there when they targeted ships for months over the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, with over 100 vessels attacked.

Saudi Arabia’s military said it would keep the waterway open. “All Houthi threats against transiting vessels will be dealt with swiftly and firmly, as such threats are a blatant violation of international law and fall under acts of maritime piracy,” said Maj.

Gen, Turki al-Malki, a Saudi military spokesman. A glimmer of hope for diplomacy Pakistan has intensified diplomatic efforts in recent days to resuscitate the interim deal. Iranian Interior Minister Eskandar Momeni arrived in Islamabad on Monday for two days of talks with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and others.

On Sunday, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters that the U.S. is still open to negotiating with Iran but that “it has to be real.” “If the door opens to diplomacy — if the guys that want to do something productive for Iran win and take control of that system, or take control of the negotiations — that’ll be a very positive development,” Rubio said.

“That’s not where we are tonight, unfortunately.” Iranian authorities on Sunday said at least 50 people have been killed and 517 wounded in the latest rounds of U.S. strikes. Since the war began on Feb. 28, 17 U.S. service members have been killed.

JON GAMBRELL, Associated Press

Jul 21, 2026strikeUnverifiedUSIranRussiaChina

How the US-Iran conflict has thrown India’s Chabahar plans into doubt

○ 1 source

US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth posted social media images showing damage to a maritime control tower at Iran’s Chabahar port following reported US military strikes, accompanied by the caption “Iran does not control the Strait of Hormuz.” India’s Ministry of External Affairs stated that the Shahid Beheshti terminal operated by India at the port sustained no damage.

The ministry reiterated its position that civilian infrastructure should not be targeted during conflicts.

Location: Iran

Divya A

Jul 21, 2026strikeUnverifiedUSIranProxy

U.S. strikes Iran and Houthis threaten Saudi Arabia shipping as mediators push 10-day ceasefire

○ 1 source

U.S. strikes Iran and Houthis threaten Saudi Arabia shipping as mediators push 10-day ceasefire - The U.S. has carried out its tenth consecutive evening of attacks against Iran. - Iran attacked a tanker in the Strait of Hormuz early Tuesday, while Houthi militants in Yemen declared a maritime embargo against Saudi Arabia.

- Rystad Energy has warned about the risk of a significant rebound in oil prices. The U.S. completed a fresh round of strikes against Iran on Monday evening as Yemen's Iran-backed Houthis threatened to impose a naval blockade on Saudi Arabia, potentially opening a new front in the Middle East conflict.

The latest cycle of tit-for-tat strikes comes amid reports that regional mediators have presented Washington and Tehran with a proposal for a 10-day ceasefire, a pitch that could put last month's Memorandum of Understanding back on track. The U.S. Central Command said overnight that it had carried out another round of strikes on Iran at 9 p.

m. ET on Monday. "U.S. forces struck Iranian military command centers, maritime capabilities, missile and drone launch sites, and air defense systems to degrade Iran's ability to continue attacking commercial vessels flowing through the Strait of Hormuz," Centcom said in a statement.

It added that commercial vessel transits through the strategically vital waterway were continuing. Centcom forces, the statement said, had facilitated the transit of around 900 commercial vessels and 450 million barrels of crude oil through the strait since early May.

Iran, meanwhile, attacked a tanker in the Strait of Hormuz early Tuesday, forcing its crew to abandon the vessel as it seeks to tighten its control over the waterway, one that typically handles around 20% of the world's oil traffic. Houthi militants in Yemen on Monday declared a maritime embargo against Saudi Arabia effective immediately, a move that could substantially threaten Middle East oil supplies.

The Houthis have repeatedly threatened to close the Bab el-Mandeb Strait during the U.S.-Iran war. The strait is a choke point for commercial ship traffic that connects the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden and global markets. The militants, in a statement carried by state news, accused the Saudis of laying an "aggressive siege" against them.

Tensions escalated last week after they claimed that Riyadh had bombed Sanaa International Airport. The Saudi-led coalition in Yemen said that it would respond to the Houthis naval blockade with force, reportedly describing such threats as "a blatant violation of international law.

" 10-day ceasefire 'won't be an easy task' Oil prices rose briefly on news of the Houthi statement but later pared gains as energy market participants closely monitored the prospect of a diplomatic breakthrough. International benchmark Brent crude futures with September delivery were last seen trading 0.

5% lower at $88.77 per barrel, having surpassed $90 in the previous session. U.S. West Texas Intermediate futures with August delivery, meanwhile, stood 0.4% lower at $82.88. Strategists at ING said there's some hope of de-escalation between the U.S.

and Iran given the reports that mediators are proposing a 10-day ceasefire. "This won't be an easy task," ING's Warren Patterson and Ewa Manthey said in a research note published Tuesday. "Large divisions remain between the US and Iran. And President Trump said the US would retaliate following the deaths of several American troops," they added.

In a post on Truth Social on Monday, President Donald Trump said: "Every time Iran kills an American Soldier they will pay for that killing many times over!" He added that this directive had been passed on to every leader in the military. Saudi Arabia oil risk Jorge León, senior vice president and head of geopolitical analysis at Rystad Energy, said the Houthis' threat puts approximately 2.

5 million barrels per day of Saudi Arabian oil at risk at a time when traffic through the Strait of Hormuz is at a standstill. "With the Gulf's primary maritime outlet largely closed, the market is increasingly dependent on Saudi Arabia's East-West pipeline and Red Sea terminals to maintain export flows," León said Monday in a research note.

Saudi Arabia's East-West pipeline network, or Petroline, is a roughly 750-mile system that transports crude across Saudi Arabia, connecting Abqaiq on the oil-rich kingdom's eastern Gulf coast to the port of Yanbu on the Red Sea. "Any disruption at Bab el-Mandeb would therefore threaten not only Saudi shipments but one of the few remaining routes capable of compensating for the severe reduction in Hormuz traffic," León said.

"If a ceasefire does not materialize and Hormuz remains largely closed while the Houthi threat to Red Sea shipping intensifies, the risk of a significant rebound in oil prices would be substantial," he added. — CNBC's Chloe Taylor and Spencer Kimball both contributed to this report.

Location: Iran

Sam Meredith

Jul 21, 2026strikeUnverifiedIsraelIranProxy

How Houthi Red Sea blockade tightens Iran's grip on energy supplies

○ 1 source

Yemen's Iran-aligned Houthis announced Monday they would impose a maritime blockade on Saudi Arabia, further throttling a global energy market already greatly restricted by Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz. This is why it matters and what it means for the Iran war and the global energy crisis.

It is not clear how the Houthis would carry out a maritime blockade of Saudi Arabia, its northern neighbor along the Red Sea coast, or whether it would include a return to attacks on shipping. Yemen sits on the Bab el-Mandeb strait – the southern gateway to the Red Sea – and closing that would open up a new front in the energy crisis and Iran's overarching conflict with the U.

S. With the Strait of Hormuz already disrupted, the Red Sea has become a critical alternative outlet for Gulf oil and other products. A serious disruption would mean both of the Middle East's major oil export routes are shut simultaneously. Iran's partial blockade of the Strait of Hormuz after Israel and the U.

S. attacked it on Feb. 28 disrupted most oil and other exports from the Gulf, raising prices and delivering a global energy shock. Saudi Arabia responded by diverting more than 70% of its normal daily crude exports to the Red Sea port of Yanbu. Ships from Yanbu bound for Europe go north through the Suez Canal.

Those heading to Asia go south through Bab el-Mandeb. Shipments from Yanbu averaged 4 million barrels per day in recent weeks according to data from Kpler and Signal Ocean, up from around 973,000 bpd a year earlier. Total petroleum volumes transiting Bab el-Mandeb amounted to 7.

4 million bpd in June, or about 7% of global oil output, according to Kpler data, up from 4.2 million bpd last year. That has provided a lifeline for the energy market, helping to keep down global oil prices. Saudi Arabia is considering an expansion of its crude oil pipeline to the Red Sea coast, Reuters reported last week.

When the Houthis launched attacks on Red Sea shipping in November 2023, Gulf oil exports were flowing freely. The Houthis have been in a civil war against the Saudi-backed, internationally recognized government for more than a decade and have attacked Gulf neighbors with missiles and drones.

However, a 2022 truce between the country's warring sides largely held until last week, when Yemen's internationally recognized government said it had struck Sanaa airport to stop an Iranian plane landing. The Houthis said Saudi Arabia was responsible and, in response, fired missiles at Abha airport in the kingdom's mountainous southwest.

A senior Houthi official, politburo member Mohammad al-Farah, then warned in an interview on Iran's Press TV website that if the situation kept escalating, Bab el-Mandeb would be closed. The U.S. says Iran has armed, funded and trained the Houthis with help from Hezbollah.

The Houthis deny being an Iranian proxy and say they develop their own weapons. It is not clear how far the group's stance on Bab el-Mandeb and the Red Sea stems from its own strategic priorities or is being made on Iran's behalf. After Israel's genocidal campaign in Gaza, the Houthis began firing at Israel and on shipping in the Red Sea, saying they were doing so in support of Palestinians.

The attacks severely disrupted global shipping, prompting Maersk, Hapag-Lloyd and other major companies to divert around Africa – a far longer, more expensive route. Red Sea traffic has not recovered since, with traffic through the Suez Canal down 52% in 2025 versus 2023 levels and at its lowest in at least 50 years, Suez Canal Authority data shows.

A U.S.-led mission to restore free navigation in the Red Sea involved repeated strikes on Houthi targets and a campaign that shot down hundreds of drones and missiles. But some Houthi attacks continued until last summer, only ending completely with the Gaza cease-fire in October.

Last month, the Houthis said they would ban ships linked to Israel from the Red Sea after Israel renewed military attacks on Iran. However, that threat was never acted on and shipping groups Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd are resuming some Red Sea routes that they had abandoned during the Houthi attacks last year, Maersk said this month.

While Hezbollah and the Iraqi groups joined the war early with rocket and drone fire after the first U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran, the Houthis had been comparatively quiet. The group's leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi said on March 5: "Our fingers are on the trigger at any moment should developments warrant it.

" Iranian commanders have repeatedly warned that the Houthis could join the war. The Houthis launched a few missile and drone attacks on Israel in late March and early April. Revolutionary Guards Quds Force commander Esmaeil Qaani said on June 1 they could choke off the Red Sea.

That may now have changed with their announcement of the blockade on Monday against Saudi Arabia in retaliation for what they called the kingdom's siege of its ports and airports, including last week's strike.

Reuters