The world’s attention remains fixed on the Strait of Hormuz as the United States enforces a blockade on the vital shipping lane at the direction of President Trump.
At the same time, policymakers warn that Iran and its proxies could unlock other choke points, notably in the Red Sea region through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.
Experts point to Bab el-Mandeb as a potential site for disruption.
“The Houthis are the ones who pioneered, in a way, this idea of using asymmetric capabilities to disrupt maritime traffic,” Mona Yacoubian, the director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in an interview. The warning is clear that pressure can extend beyond Hormuz if conditions allow.
Here's What They're Not Telling You About Your Retirement
If conditions align, they could target Red Sea shipping and vessels crossing Bab el-Mandeb and even influence the Suez Canal.
The possibility underscores a broader risk that Iran and its networks could escalate economic pressure across critical arteries of world trade.
Elisabeth Kendall, president of Girton College at the University of Cambridge, said that the Houthis’ restraint thus far should be seen as strategic patience, not avoidance.
“The reality is that asymmetric warfare suits the Houthis. They don’t need to be accurate or sophisticated. They just need to harass shipping to achieve their goal of disrupting trade and pressuring the U.S.,” Kendall said.
This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year
Her assessment highlights how a relatively unsophisticated actor can impose meaningful costs by exploiting vulnerabilities in major sea routes. The Houthis are seasoned fighters. They have been at war — on and off — for over 20 years.
Their battle logic is unlike our own inasmuch as war has become a way of life and they are relatively comfortable with absorbing casualties.
The strategic calculus around these threats is evolving as the administration sharpens its economic leverage. James Kraska, a professor of international law at the Naval War College, said that the approach essentially expands longstanding bipartisan sanctions targeting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
“The U.S. sanctions are so aggressive that it’s sanctioned other entities that aid or facilitate transactions that benefit Iran,” Kraska said.
He added that he sees the blockade and the American assertion of the right of visit and search as “simply a wartime extension of what we’ve been doing for a decade. It’s economic warfare.” The legal rationale is tied to a longstanding framework of pressuring Iran while attempting to avoid a direct, broad confrontation.
Trump’s blockade is expected to cost Iran roughly $435 million a day — or $13 billion a month — Miad Maleki, a former official with the Treasury Department, wrote in a post on X.
The administration argues that the measure is designed to squeeze Tehran’s economy while signaling resolve to Iranian leadership and its allies in the region.
Vice President JD Vance has argued that with this move, Trump has flipped the script on the Islamic Republic.
“What [the Iranians] have done is engage in this act of economic terrorism against the entire world,” Vance said in an interview with Fox News on Monday. “They’ve basically threatened any ship that’s moving through the Strait of Hormuz.
Well, as the president of the United States showed, two can play at that game.” The exchange reflects a broader belief among Trump supporters that the administration is applying maximum pressure to force a strategic shift.
The administration is leaning on a robust maritime posture, combined with economic pressure, to shape Iranian decisions without inviting a full-scale land conflict.
Under the leadership of a freshly articulated War Secretary, the administration is pursuing a credible, field-tested approach that leverages U.S. Navy presence and allied cooperation. The aim is to deter aggression, protect freedom of navigation, and keep critical trade routes open.
The strategy reflects a belief that economic tools, when applied decisively, can halt aggressive moves before they escalate into broader hostilities. In this view, deterrence is reinforced by a readiness to act decisively when red lines are crossed, and that is the essential logic guiding policy today.
These developments matter for global markets and for the security calculus of American allies. They also test the resolve of the United States to maintain a coalition-based approach that avoids unnecessary escalation while preserving essential American interests.
The questions now center on how long the current posture can hold, how resilient the Red Sea corridor will prove, and how quickly Iran’s leadership weighs the costs of continued confrontation versus returning to negotiations under terms favorable to American strategic goals.
The answer will shape not only the fate of oil prices but the credibility of American commitments across the region.
Join the Discussion
COMMENTS POLICY: We have no tolerance for messages of violence, racism, vulgarity, obscenity or other such discourteous behavior. Thank you for contributing to a respectful and useful online dialogue.