Back to Flash News

Iran-backed Houthis claim to have attacked two Saudi oil tankers in the Red Sea

Houthi attack on two Saudi oil tankers pushes Brent above $100

The Iran-backed Houthi forces claimed to have attacked two Saudi Arabian oil tankers in the Red Sea.

A Houthi military spokesperson identified the targets as the tankers Encelia and Layla, which were allegedly violating a blockade, following the Houthis' announcement of a maritime embargo against Saudi Arabia.

Brent crude oil subsequently surged above $100 per barrel for the first time in two months, driven by a rush for safe-haven assets, putting pressure on the energy supply chain and benefiting oil-producing countries and arms-related funding.

Source: Public information

ABAB AI Insight

The Houthi forces have been continuously attacking commercial vessels in the Red Sea since the end of 2023, escalating to a clear blockade against Saudi Arabia after the outbreak of the Iran war in 2026, continuing their long-term tactic as Iranian proxies to disrupt global shipping.

In terms of capital flow, the attacks directly increase insurance and rerouting costs, forcing crude oil trade to divert around the Cape of Good Hope, with funds shifting from shipping and downstream refining to upstream producers and military industries, while reinforcing Iran's strategy of maintaining energy leverage through proxies.

Similar cases can be seen in 2019 when Houthi attacks on Saudi Aramco facilities caused a single-day spike in oil prices, and the 2024 Red Sea crisis prompted shipping giants to massively reroute; currently, the Red Sea is transitioning from intermittent harassment to systematic blockade.

Essentially, this represents a transfer of pricing power: the security premium of key waterways is directly priced by non-state armed groups, with the mechanism being that low-cost missiles and drones can create high global energy uncertainty, forcing the market to reprice for risk.

ABAB News · Cognitive Law

  1. Choke points disrupted, oil prices rise first

  2. Proxy costs are far lower than direct warfare

  3. Shipping risks are ultimately borne by global consumers