From “Bharat” to a Multipolar World: Jaishankar’s UNGA 2026 Doctrine of Peace and Reformed Multilateralism

on
0

The Red Sea Crisis: Indirect Strategy, Sea Power Theory, and the Geopolitics of Maritime Chokepoints

on


 The Introduction

  • The contemporary strategic landscape of the Middle East has been shaped by a series of historical and geopolitical developments that began with the "Balfour Declaration of 1917" and culminated in the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. Israel's creation (a) transformed the regional balance of power and (b) triggered decades of wars, political disputes, and armed resistance. For many Arab states and political movements, the "Palestinian" question became a "defining regional issue," while Israel has regarded repeated calls for its destruction by some governments and armed groups as "an existential security threat." These competing narratives have profoundly influenced Middle Eastern geopolitics for more than seven decades.
  • Over time, however, the regional landscape gradually evolved. Several Arab countries normalized diplomatic relations with Israel, beginning with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994), followed by the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan under the "Abraham Accords, Signed at White  house on September-15-2020." At the same time, discussions over possible Saudi-Israeli normalization highlighted-
  1. emerging geopolitical divisions within the region, 
  2. reflecting changing national interests alongside the 
  3. unresolved Palestinian issue.


  • A second strategic dimension is the broader competition for influence in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia has long been one of the region's leading Arab powers, while Iran has emerged as a major regional military and political actor. Their rivalry extends across (a) political influence, (b) regional security, (c) ideology, and (d) strategic partnerships, shaping conflicts in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere.
  • Within this geopolitical environment, regional alliances have become increasingly significant. The United States remains Israel's principal strategic ally and has developed close security partnerships with several Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. From the perspective of many analysts, Iran views Saudi Arabia not only as a regional competitor but also as a key partner in the U.S.-led "security architecture" in the Gulf. This overlapping network of rivalries, alliances, and strategic interests provides the broader geopolitical context for understanding the significance of the Red Sea and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, where regional competition increasingly intersects with- 
  1. global trade, 
  2. maritime security, and 
  3. energy transportation.
  • This strategic backdrop helps explain why developments in the Red Sea have become central to contemporary geopolitical competition and why they are best understood within the broader framework of (a) indirect strategy, (a) regional rivalries, and (a) energy security.


The Doctrine of the Indirect Strategy & The Red Sea

  • "The doctrine of Indirect Strategy," developed by the British military historian and strategist "B. H. Liddell Hart," argues that the most effective way to challenge a militarily superior adversary is often not through direct confrontation, but by applying pressure on its "strategic vulnerabilities." Rather than engaging the strongest opponent in conventional warfare, a weaker state may seek to influence the broader strategic environment by targeting (a) regional allies, (b) critical maritime chokepoints,  (c) military logistics,  (d) supply chains, and  (e) economic dependencies.
  • The underlying logic is that the influence of a great power rarely depends solely on its military strength. Instead, it is sustained by an extensive network of (a) allied states, (b) overseas military bases,  (c) international trade routes,  (d) strategic partnerships, and  (e) secure lines of communication. By increasing the political, economic, and military costs borne by these supporting pillars, a weaker actor may constrain the freedom of action of a stronger power without engaging in a full-scale conventional conflict. The objective is therefore to impose costs rather than to achieve decisive battlefield victory.
  • Many analysts interpret aspects of contemporary Middle Eastern geopolitics through this strategic lens. Rather than confronting the United States directly, Iran has sought to expand its regional influence through a network of regional partners while exerting pressure on strategically important maritime corridors, including "the Bab el-Mandeb Strait." 
      

  • The above infograph show the the strategic importance of Res sea -&- Ba-El-Mandev strait which connect, through the shortest route, from Asia (Indian Ocean) to Europe with utmost instrumentality as an energy corridor. Activities by the Houthis in and around the Red Sea have affected (a) maritime security, (b) commercial shipping, and (c) regional partners of the United States, including Saudi Arabia.
  • Viewed through the framework of the Indirect Approach, the strategic significance of such actions lies not necessarily in achieving a direct military victory over the United States, but in raising the economic, political, and operational costs associated with maintaining regional influence. 
  1. Disruptions to shipping, 
  2. increased insurance premiums, 
  3. the diversion of naval assets, and 
  4. heightened uncertainty in global energy markets can collectively complicate the strategic environment for both the United States and its regional partners. In this sense, the Red Sea illustrates how (a)  strategic geography, (b)  maritime chokepoints, and (c)  economic interdependence can become "instruments of indirect competition" in contemporary geopolitics. As explained in the next heading.


Sea Power Theory and the Strategic Importance of Maritime Chokepoints

  • As illustrated in the above infographics, "the Sea Power Theory," developed by the American naval strategist "Alfred Thayer Mahan" in "The Influence of Sea Power upon History (1890)", argues that control of the seas is fundamental to achieving and maintaining geopolitical dominance. Mahan contended that great powers derive their strength (a) not only from military capabilities but (b) also from their ability to secure "Sea Lines of Communication (SLOCs)," strategic maritime chokepoints, and global trade routes. Since (a)  international commerce, (b)  energy transportation, and (c)  naval mobility depend heavily on these maritime corridors, any state capable of protecting—or threatening—them gains significant strategic leverage over the international system.


The Red Sea: A Strategic Maritime Corridor for Global Trade and Energy Security


  • The above infographic illustrates the "strategic importance" of the Red Sea and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait as one of the world's most critical maritime corridors for global trade and energy security, where it highlights that-
  1. approximately 25–30% of overall seaborne trade and 
  2. around 18–20% of normal energy exports (under normal conditions) transit through this route, connecting (a) Asia, (b) Europe, and (c) Africa via the Suez Canal. The reason for the discussion is illuminated when it explains that any disruption in the Strait of Hormuz could significantly increase reliance on the Red Sea corridor, making Bab el-Mandeb an even more vital chokepoint. By combining (a) geographical mapping, (b) trade statistics, (c) commodity flows, and (d) geopolitical implications, the infographic demonstrates how stability in the Red Sea is essential for-
  • maintaining global supply chains, 
  • energy markets, 
  • economic growth, and 
  • international maritime security when the Strait of Hormuz is disturbed.
  • Now, in this context, the strategic relevance of Mahan's theory is evident in the contemporary Middle East. The Strait of Hormuz and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait are among the world's most critical maritime chokepoints, carrying a substantial share of (a) global oil, (b) liquefied natural gas (LNG), and (c) commercial shipping. 
  • Iran has repeatedly warned that it could disrupt or close the Strait of Hormuz during periods of heightened tensions, while the Houthis' attacks on shipping in the Red Sea and Bab el-Mandeb have demonstrated how disruptions to maritime corridors can affect global trade and energy markets. From a "Sea Power perspective, the ability to influence these chokepoints is not merely a military capability but a form of geopolitical leverage, as it can increase economic costs, disrupt supply chains, and compel major powers to divert diplomatic and naval resources to safeguard the freedom of navigation.

Why the United States Cannot Ignore the Red Sea

  • So, with this understanding, in this whole gamut, for the United States, the Red Sea is not merely a regional waterway but a strategic maritime corridor that underpins the stability of the international economic and security order. As the world's leading naval power and the principal security partner of Israel and several Gulf states, the United States has enduring interests in safeguarding- 
  1. freedom of navigation, 
  2. ensuring the uninterrupted flow of global trade and energy supplies, and 
  3. maintaining the credibility of its alliance commitments, thereby preserving the credibility of U.S. strategic commitments and reinforcing its position as the principal guarantor of maritime security in the Middle East."
  • A prolonged disruption of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait would not only increase transportation costs and energy price volatility but also weaken confidence in the U.S.-led maritime security architecture. Consequently, preserving the security of this chokepoint is viewed not simply as a regional objective but as an essential component of maintaining (a) strategic influence,  (b) protecting allied interests, and (c) sustaining the rules-based maritime order, particularly during periods of heightened regional tensions and attacks on U.S. military facilities by Iran-aligned armed groups."

We are trying to conclude.

  • When the "strategic competition" in the Middle East is increasingly shifting from (a) territorial confrontation to (b)  the control and (c) security of critical maritime chokepoints, then, in the context of, the perspectives of Liddell Hart's Indirect Strategy and Mahan's Sea Power Theory, the "Strait of Hormuz" and the "Bab el-Mandeb Strait" have become strategic instruments through which states and non-state actors can exert geopolitical influence far beyond the battlefield. Many analysts interpret Iran's use of pressure around these waterways, including through aligned regional actors, as part of a broader strategy to challenge-
  1. Israel's security environment and 
  2. increase the costs of the U.S.-led regional security architecture. Looking ahead, as global dependence on maritime trade and energy corridors continues, competition over these international waterways is likely to become an even more decisive dimension of twenty-first-century geopolitics, where control of strategic chokepoints may (a) increasingly shape regional stability, (b) energy security, and (c) the global balance of power.



Thanks.
Critical comments are welcome.








 

Comments

Post a Comment