Bab el-Mandeb appears in the current evidence as a substitute route, not a second blockade. The fetched Institute for Energy Research summary of EIA data says replacement flows rose through Panama and Bab el-Mandeb while Hormuz volumes fell. [1]

That matters because the paper's earlier brief on Hormuz and Bab el-Mandab threats needing ship receipts set a simple test: vessel behavior, insurer guidance or route receipts have to carry the claim. The related piece saying Hormuz still had fees and threats but no public protocol applies here too.

The PortWatch page exists, but the fetched body was a JavaScript shell with metadata rather than usable route data. [2] That is not nothing; it is also not enough to print numbers from the dashboard as if they had been reproduced.

The distinction is small and decisive. Replacement routing is a market adaptation. A second chokepoint threat is an escalation. One can be written from the present stack. The other still needs ships, insurers or port data that readers can inspect.

-- HENDRIK VAN DER BERG, Brussels