Connect with us

News

Ships shun Red Sea and Suez Canal despite reduced Houthi menace

Published

on

Ships shun Red Sea and Suez Canal despite reduced Houthi menace

US and UK air strikes have reduced the risk to vessels from attacks by Yemen’s Houthis in the Red Sea but there is little prospect of many shipping companies making a swift return to the Suez Canal, security experts and a senior executive have said.

They made the assessment during a slowdown in successful missile launches by the Houthis, who claim to be targeting commercial ships in solidarity with Gaza’s Palestinians.

The militant group has launched only four notable attacks on vessels since January 26 — one on January 31, two on February 6 and one on February 12. In all but the most recent attack, the missiles failed even to hit the vessel.

The frequency of Houthi attacks has fallen significantly since US and UK forces began nearly daily strikes on the group’s missile launch sites and aerial and sea drone capabilities on January 11.

The Houthis, who have backing from Iran, launched numerous attacks in November, December and January, including seizing the Galaxy Leader on November 19 and taking the car carrier and its crew to a Yemeni port. On January 26, they started a serious fire on the Marlin Luanda, a fuel tanker operating on behalf of commodities trader Trafigura.

Advertisement

You are seeing a snapshot of an interactive graphic. This is most likely due to being offline or JavaScript being disabled in your browser.

The recent lull prompted UK defence secretary Grant Shapps to tell the House of Commons last week that attacks on vessels had become “less sophisticated and more sporadic” following the bombing campaign.

However, the continued reluctance of many shipping companies to sail through waters off Yemen has raised questions about what change in conditions might prompt shipping companies to start braving the area, which is the gateway to the strategically vital Suez Canal.

They have instead been using the much longer and more expensive route between Europe and Asia via the Cape of Good Hope.

Jon Gahagan, president of maritime security company Sedna Global, said the campaign of air strikes seemed to have “degraded” the Houthis’ ability to launch frequent attacks.

Advertisement

But he added: “While the tempo of attacks has fallen, the threat to shipping remains.”

Jakob Larsen, head of maritime safety and security for Bimco, an international shipowners’ association, said he doubted it was “realistic” the US-UK coalition would entirely remove the Houthi threat.

“We’re concerned that it’s still possible for the Houthis to attack and hit ships,” Larsen said. “Although their capability to do so has been reduced, most shipping lines recognise that the threat has not been removed or neutralised.”

Houthi conflict threatens ocean trade through crucial shipping canal. Map showing shipping route from Shanghai to Rotterdam via the Suez Canal and Cape of Good Hope. A typical shipping journey from Shanghai to Rotterdam via the Cape of Good Hope takes up to two weeks longer than using the Suez Canal

According to figures from Clarksons, the London-based maritime business, in the week to February 5, arrivals by container ships in the Gulf of Aden were 92 per cent down on the average for the first half of December.

Car carrier arrivals were down 91 per cent, while traffic overall through the region was down 73 per cent. The figures show no drift back towards the Red Sea.

Even the relatively modest recent attacks have prompted new diversions. France’s CMA CGM, the world’s third-largest container shipping line, announced on February 5 that it was suspending transits of the region after missiles were launched at a ship operating one of its services. The line had been one of the few big international container lines still sailing through the area.

Advertisement

The missiles landed harmlessly in the sea, as did those launched on February 6 at the Star Nasia, a carrier for dry bulk commodities. A missile launched on February 6 at the Morning Tide, a general cargo ship, flew over the ship’s deck but caused only minor damage. Reports on February 12 said missiles were fired at a Greek-owned bulk carrier in two separate incidents and that one hit.

Jan Rindbo, chief executive of Norden, a Copenhagen-based operator of nearly 500 dry bulk carriers and tankers for oil products, said only a long pause in attacks would prompt shipowners to re-examine Red Sea options.

“It would take a prolonged period of stability with no attacks in the region and then we’ll start to make those assessments again.”

Larsen pointed out that certain shipping companies were continuing to use the Suez route. Among the companies that have stuck to the traditional routes are some Chinese container lines, which appear to be confident the close links between China and the Houthis’ backers in Iran make them immune from attack.

“If the Houthis say they would no longer attack shipping, I think a lot of shipping lines will resume the transit through the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea,” Larsen said.

Advertisement

Another possibility, he added, was that the attacks might cease, without a clear signal from the Houthis. “You’ll see more and ships transiting through, but a little later only,” Larsen said of such a scenario. “It will be a gradual increase.”

Gahagan, however, said the Houthis still wanted to strike international shipping, attributing the decline in attacks partly to a reduction in vessels with links to Israel, the UK and the US in waters off Yemen.

The risk remained that coalition forces would miss a Houthi missile fired at a ship and it would cause serious damage, he added.

“Unfortunately, as with all incidents of terrorism, the Houthis only have to be successful once, while the coalition naval force and other navies in the region have to be vigilant all the time,” Gahagan said.

Additional reporting by John Paul Rathbone

Advertisement

News

Trump claims US stockpiles mean wars can be fought ‘forever’; Kristi Noem testifies before Congress – US politics live

Published

on

Trump claims US stockpiles mean wars can be fought ‘forever’; Kristi Noem testifies before Congress – US politics live

Trump says US stockpiles mean “wars can be fought ‘forever’”

In a late night post on Truth Social, Donald Trump said that the US munitions stockpiles “at the medium and upper medium grade, never been higher or better”.

He added that the US has a “virtually unlimited supply of these weapons”, meaning that “wars can be fought ‘forever’”.

This comes after Trump said that the US-Israel war on Iran could go beyond the four-five weeks that the administration initially predicted. The president also did not rule out the possibility of US boots on the ground in Iran during an interview with the New York Post on Monday.

Advertisement

“I rebuilt the military in my first term, and continue to do so. The United States is stocked, and ready to WIN, BIG!!!,” he wrote.

Share

Key events

During his opening remarks, Senate judicicary committee chairman, Chuck Grassley, blamed Democrats for the ongoing shutdown Department of Homeland Security (DHS) but highlighted four agencies: the Secret Service, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and the Coast Guard.

Democrats are demanding tighter guardrails for federal immigration enforcement, but a sweeping tax bill signed into law last year conferred $75bn for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which means the agency is still functional amid the wider department shuttering.

Share
Continue Reading

News

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

The Supreme Court

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.    
  
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.  
  
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.  
  
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.   
 
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits. 
  
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices  summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.” 
 
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced. 
 
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor  said that  if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.” 

Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.  
  
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow.  Earlier last month  the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map.  California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.     
   
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district.  Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.    
     
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?    
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.   

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Published

on

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending