Iranian rhetoric now names two chokepoints, with DW reporting that Iranian state TV quoted IRGC threats to open new fronts and keep the Strait of Hormuz closed if Israel continued attacks on Lebanon, while the Times of Israel live file tied IRGC language to both Hormuz and Bab el Mandab over operations in Lebanon and Gaza. [1] [2]

That advances Monday's paper, which said Hormuz mine risk kept insurers ahead of diplomats and that an insurance receipt was still missing, because Tuesday adds a second waterway to the threat language but not the ship, insurer, or route receipt that would prove how traffic changed. [1] [2]

AP's Hormuz explainer supplies the scale, noting that the strait normally carries a large share of Gulf energy shipments and that closure fears move oil prices because narrow waterway risk becomes global fuel risk quickly. [3]

Bab el Mandab is not automatically the same story as Hormuz, since the first is Red Sea access and the second is Gulf export access, so a threat that names both creates regional alarm but does not by itself publish carrier guidance, war-risk premiums, convoy rules, or a daily ship count. [2] [3]

The discipline is ungenerous because shipping is ungenerous: captains and underwriters do not sail on adjectives, they need notices, routes, escorts, premiums, and ports, so until those arrive the practical story is not two closed chokepoints but two threatened chokepoints and one missing operating record. [1] [2] [3]

-- HENDRIK VAN DER BERG, Brussels