If raising war risk rates is the Houthis' plan, then reciprocity may be the answer
 Ships exposed to Houthi attacks are finding it hard to secure insurance coverage at any price. This reflects the unpredictable nature of risk in conflict zones like the Red Sea.
First, it must be understood that the Houthi ceasefire, brokered by Oman, does not cover ships doing business with Israel, or may at some future date do business with Israel. It only agrees to stop firing at ships with no known business with Israel.
At the same time Houthis have warned that it is free to attack shipping in out of Haifa, Israel's big port.
Such a situation has two relevant, yet contradictory dimensions. One is the unlikelihood of a Houthi attack having much impact on shipping in and out of Haifa as few missiles and drones they deploy have the range to hit targets accurately.
But while that is so, the threat is good enough to cause insurance rates against war risk to soar, making trade with Israel less economical and competitive than it would otherwise be.
Many insurers have been silent regarding the details of coverage, which underscores the sensitivity and complexities of offering insurance in such a volatile region, reports Dubai's Arabian Post. Willingness of major players to continue offering protection contrasts with smaller players who are increasingly unwilling to take such risks.
The situation has compounded concerns for global shipping, especially with the strategic importance of the Red Sea in connecting Europe, the Middle East and Asia. As attacks threaten to disrupt not just oil shipments but broader trade routes, the rising insurance costs may further exacerbate existing challenges for global supply chains.
But if the Houthis attempt to target Israeli-bound ships near Haifa, they would be operating at an unfeasible long range of 1,370 miles, far beyond the reach of short- and medium-range missile and drone systems they typically deploy. However, the Houthis have used Iranian-supplied drones (Samad-3) and cruise missiles (Quds2) that could cover those distances at the full extent of their range, but with doubtful accuracy.
While that may not be enough to do serious damage, as Houthi missiles and drones having also to cross hostile Saudi territory subject to Patriot missile defence, and Iron Dome attack over Israel itself, it is certainly scarifying enough to alarm marine underwriters into increasing the cost of insurance.
Raising war risk insurance rates is a very plausible strategic Houthi objective. This approach is a low-cost, high-impact tactic that leverages economic disruption rather than direct destruction, and it's consistent with asymmetric warfare doctrines used by non-state actors.
Quite how to regard the Houthis poses a difficulty. To their enemies they are "terrorists", but to the more neutrally-minded, they are "militants", yet to others, they are "rebels", which is the preferred term in the Western media. The term guerrilla, meaning little warrior, hardly fits a force that has occupied the national capital Sanaa of 3.5 million people for 11 years. Thus, one prefers the term "insurgent" as that has come to mean a non-state actor that governs and taxes territories it controls. Houthis are said to control 60 per cent of Yemen.
But the Houthis don’t need to sink ships off Haifa to achieve their goals. They just need to credibly signal that ships bound for Israel, or might be, could be attacked - anywhere along the route. That uncertainty can trigger insurance surcharges.
Marine insurers, especially those underwriting through Lloyd’s of London, adjust war risk premiums based on perceived - not just actual - threats. These premiums can increase dramatically even from a single incident or credible threat.
Houthis can weaponize perceived threat to inflate war risk insurance and discourage maritime traffic to Israel. Even without launching missiles into the Mediterranean, they can still inflict economic costs and exert geopolitical pressure - a classic asymmetric warfare move.
Restoring symmetry to asymmetric warfare appears to be the task at hand. One principle to be applied, familiar to all in the trade war is a desire for reciprocity. In the case of the war between the world, Asia to Europe, against those forces who wish to kill Jews and Islamize humanity, one must consider the application of reciprocity. If they kill our civilians, we kill theirs.
There's been international jurisprudence against this since the Geneva Conventions of 1907. But no Allied personnel was charged with crimes against humanity for firebombing Germany and nuking Japan. And all but the most obtuse agree that deliberately maximizing civilian casualties was the main aim of area, fire and atomic bombing in World War II and that it hastened the war's end as a result.
In the Middle East, those bent on destroying Judeo-Christian civilisation and bringing in theocratic Sharia law have succeeded to a large degree. Europe and the UK have acquiesced at their universities, the leftist media and government bureaucracy further the trend. To avoid trouble, leftists have accommodated measures which enervate forces that might defend western civilisation, introducing counter-intuitive doctrines like DEI and ESG, which encourage compliance with countless rules and regulations, most of which have the power of law, without the benefit of legislative input.
The United States has broken away from this python-like grip of the Deep State, and gone some way to dismantle it.
One task among many is to restore normality to the Red Sea and the Suez Canal. If the enemy, Hamas, Houthis and Hezbollah, targets civilians, then in the name of reciprocity one might do the same until that day comes when they want peace as much as we do.
|
