The disruption of oil shipping through...

Editor's note: ...the Strait of Hormuz may reflect more than a conventional military confrontation with Iran. Because most global tanker traffic depends on maritime insurance provided through the London market, especially institutions linked to Lloyd's of London and the International Group of Protection and Indemnity Clubs, the withdrawal of war-risk coverage can effectively halt shipping even without a physical blockade. In this interpretation, the crisis exposes a deeper financial dimension of geopolitics: if insurance markets shut down transit, energy flows stop regardless of naval activity, raising speculation among some commentators about whether a broader commercial or financial power struggle between London's insurance system and Washington's strategic interests could be unfolding behind the conflict. This is why the Trump administration offered naval escorts through the Strait of Hormuz, to reassure insurers tied to markets like Lloyd's of London that tankers could safely sail and keep global oil shipments moving. So, who is America's biggest enemy? Is it Iran? No, it is likely the UK is America's biggest enemy and Trump & Co. know this. Hopefully, the US military fully comprehends this.
________

The Invisible Siege: How Insurance Markets, Not Missiles, Closed the Strait of Hormuz

And Why the Disruption Will Last Four to Sixteen Months Longer Than Any Model on Wall Street Currently Prices

By Shanaka Anslem Perera | March 3, 2026

I. The Wrong War

You are pricing a military campaign. Four to five weeks, President Trump says. Brent at seventy-nine dollars reflects that assumption. Your models show a temporary supply disruption, a brief spike, and mean reversion by Q2. Your equity book is positioned for the dip-buying playbook that has worked after every geopolitical shock since the Gulf War. You are structurally mispriced. Not about the war. About what closed the Strait.

On March 1, 2026, Vortexa satellite tracking recorded four supertanker transits through the Strait of Hormuz. The day before, twenty-two had passed. By the time you read this, the number may be zero. Not because the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps mined the channel. Not because the United States Navy blockaded the waterway. Not because any sovereign authority declared the Strait closed. The Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately twenty million barrels of crude oil and petroleum products flow every day, representing roughly one-fifth of global consumption, shut down because seven insurance companies filed paperwork. 

Between March 1 and March 2, seven of the twelve clubs belonging to the International Group of Protection and Indemnity Clubs issued seventy-two-hour cancellation notices for war risk coverage in the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, and all Iranian territorial waters. Gard AS, NorthStandard, Steamship Mutual, Assuranceforeningen Skuld, the American Club, the Swedish Club, and the London P&I Club collectively insure approximately ninety percent of the world's ocean-going commercial tonnage. When they withdraw, ships do not sail. Not because they cannot. Because they must not. No P&I cover means no port will accept them, no cargo owner will load them, no bank will finance the voyage, no charterer will contract them. The vessel becomes a commercially unviable object adrift in a system that runs entirely on institutional trust.

Lloyd's List AIS tracking data confirms what the insurance circulars implied: Hormuz transits have collapsed approximately eighty percent from roughly one hundred and thirty-eight vessels per day to approximately twenty-eight. At least forty very large crude carriers, each carrying roughly two million barrels of oil, sit idle within the Gulf according to Kpler tracking data. Thirteen empty LNG tankers have diverted away from Hormuz entirely per Bloomberg ship-tracking analysis. The world’s most important energy chokepoint is not closed by force. It is closed by spreadsheet.

This distinction is not semantic. It is the entire thesis. Because a military blockade ends when the military operation ends. An actuarial blockade ends when the insurance market decides it has ended. Those are two fundamentally different timelines operating on fundamentally different logics. The market is pricing the first. The alpha is in the second.

Brent crude at seventy-nine to eighty-two dollars per barrel is consistent with a four-to-eight-week disruption followed by normalization. This pricing embeds the assumption that when the bombs stop falling, the oil starts flowing. It is the same framework that priced every Middle Eastern conflict since Desert Storm. The framework is correct for kinetic blockades. It is structurally mispriced for what is happening now.

Inside this analysis: the mechanism that makes an insurance withdrawal structurally stickier than a minefield, the specific timeline mismatch between what the market expects and what the evidence supports, the eight cascading vulnerabilities that compound the initial disruption into a systemic crisis, the institutional positioning that is most exposed, and the precise conditions under which this thesis is wrong. The positions are already being built by those who understand the difference between a military timeline and an actuarial one.

II. The Anatomy of an Actuarial Blockade

To understand why the Strait of Hormuz will remain functionally closed long after the last cruise missile finds its target, you must understand the architecture of the system that closed it.

The plumbing nobody models.

The global maritime insurance system is not a market in any conventional competitive sense. It is a concentrated oligopoly layered three deep. At the surface sit twelve P&I clubs organized through the International Group, a London-based association that pools claims above individual club retention levels. These twelve clubs provide the third-party liability cover without which no commercial vessel can operate. Beneath them sit perhaps five to ten active treaty reinsurers, predominantly London-based, who absorb the catastrophic tail risk that individual clubs cannot carry. And beneath those reinsurers sits the retrocession market, where reinsurers lay off their own excess exposure.

Here is the structural vulnerability that no energy analyst models, because no energy analyst is trained to see it: the retrocession market and the entire insurance-linked securities sector, totaling roughly forty-one billion dollars, systematically exclude war risk. The approximately sixty-billion-dollar retrocession market and the roughly sixty-one billion dollars in outstanding catastrophe bonds focus almost exclusively on natural catastrophe perils: hurricane, earthquake, wildfire. When a marine war risk reinsurer takes on Gulf exposure, that reinsurer bears it net. There is no deeper pool of capital behind the curtain. A single large vessel loss in the Hormuz approaches, conservatively two hundred to three hundred million dollars combining hull value, cargo, and third-party liability, could exceed the entire war risk premium pool for the region.

This concentration means the system has no shock absorber. When seven clubs withdraw simultaneously, they do not leave behind a competitive fringe that can step in and reprice. They leave behind a void. The remaining five clubs cannot absorb the risk because their own reinsurers face the same capital constraints. Lloyd's syndicates writing war risk cover face identical Solvency II capital requirements. The entire edifice stood on a foundation that could bear steady-state risk and marginal escalation, but not discontinuous regime shift.

Why it collapsed in seventy-two hours

Three structural preconditions made the speed of collapse inevitable, and each traces to a different domain that conventional energy analysis does not touch.

The first precondition is two years of Red Sea capacity depletion. Houthi attacks on commercial shipping beginning in late 2023 drove war risk premiums for the Bab al-Mandab strait from 0.05 percent to 1.0 percent of hull value, a twentyfold increase, within three months. Transit volumes through the southern Red Sea cratered sixty-five percent from 2023 levels by mid-2025. As vessels rerouted around the Cape of Good Hope, fewer premiums flowed into the war risk pool even as residual claims continued. By February 2026, the capital buffer supporting marine war risk underwriting globally was at its thinnest point in the modern era. The Hormuz crisis did not hit a robust system. It hit a system already hollowed out by twenty-six months of attritional bleeding.

The second precondition is regulatory architecture that rewards exit over risk-bearing. Solvency II, the European Union’s insurance capital framework, requires firms to hold capital sufficient to survive a one-in-two-hundred-year loss scenario, the 99.5 percent Value at Risk standard. As armed conflict escalates in the Gulf, modeled loss probabilities spike. The Solvency Capital Requirement increases mechanically. Reinsurers face a binary choice: raise additional capital, a process requiring months of negotiation with investors and regulators, or cut exposure immediately through cancellation clauses that permit withdrawal with as little as seven days’ notice. The regulatory architecture effectively mandates that reinsurers flee precisely when their presence matters most.

The third precondition is the absence of government backstop infrastructure. When aviation terrorism risk became commercially uninsurable after September 11, 2001, Congress passed the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. The legislative process took fourteen months. During that interval, terrorism coverage for commercial property was essentially unavailable in the private market. In the maritime domain, the equivalent backstop does not exist. The US Maritime Administration possesses dormant authority under Title 46, Chapter 539 to issue war risk insurance binders, but this requires Presidential activation and covers only US-flagged vessels, a negligible fraction of global tonnage. The United Kingdom's War Risks Club, government-reinsured since 1913, provides cover for UK-flagged vessels. Japan created a 7.6-billion-dollar sovereign guarantee during the 2012 EU sanctions-era insurance disruption, but the process took approximately two months.

No government has ever created a comprehensive marine war risk reinsurance facility from scratch during an active crisis in less than several weeks. The fastest precedent is MARAD activation, which could theoretically produce US-flagged vessel coverage within days. The slowest is new legislation, which requires months. The relevant question is not whether governments can act, but whether government action can replace the global reinsurance architecture that just withdrew. The answer, based on every historical precedent available, is that it cannot. Not within the timeline this crisis demands.

The mechanism the market is missing.

What has happened in the Strait of Hormuz is the precise maritime instantiation of a mechanism that operated with identical structural logic during the 2008 financial crisis. In September 2008, the interbank lending market did not freeze because banks were insolvent. It froze because the cost of verifying counterparty solvency exceeded the expected return of the overnight lending transaction. Banks that were perfectly solvent could not borrow, because no lender could afford to determine which banks were solvent and which were not. The verification cost inverted the transaction economics, and the market seized.

In the Strait of Hormuz in March 2026, the insurance market has not withdrawn because every vessel will be attacked. It has withdrawn because the cost of verifying whether any particular vessel will survive any particular transit now exceeds the premium income from insuring that transit. The tankers hit by Iranian fire, the IRGC's VHF broadcasts warning that no ship is allowed to pass, the GPS and GNSS interference blanketing the Gulf of Oman, and the confirmed fatality of a seafarer collectively establish a threat environment in which actuarial risk assessment becomes functionally impossible. When risk cannot be modeled, it cannot be priced. When it cannot be priced, cover is withdrawn. When cover is withdrawn, the system freezes regardless of whether the underlying risk has materialized for any specific vessel.

This mechanism transfers directly across domains because it shares the same structural architecture: a verification cost that exceeds transaction value, a concentrated market structure where withdrawal is systemic rather than idiosyncratic, a regulatory framework that incentivizes rapid exit, and an absence of government backstop capacity sufficient to replace the private market. The 2008 repo market required TARP, the Federal Reserve's alphabet soup of lending facilities, FDIC deposit guarantees, and ultimately three to six months of intensive government intervention before interbank lending normalized. Even then, full normalization required twelve to eighteen months. The maritime insurance market in March 2026 has none of these interventions in place, none under construction, and no institutional framework for creating them at the speed required.

Please go to Shanaka Anslem Perera's substack to continue reading.

________

Apparently, Spain is upset. Probably because of Spain's relationship with Britain. Who cares.

Economic Warfare – US v Spain

Spanish Prime Minister: Operation against Iran could lead to disaster for humanity

This war is versus the British Empire or aka the City of London. Iran-Israel, just a battlefield in a global conflict:

War

The people in Cyprus want the British out. Who launched the missile at this British base?

Inside the Cypriot Campaign to Kick Out British Bases

British Base Hit in Cyprus, U.K. Terror Threat Under Review as Iran War Spreads