Standing Watch · Demonstration scope

Gulf Energy & Maritime Risk

Commercial access, energy infrastructure and regional security conditions affecting Gulf maritime and energy exposure. A demonstration scope: it shows how Standing Watch organises existing Vigil monitoring around a defined exposure, on the public record, with no organisation represented.

How Standing Watch works

Questions: 5
Module: Iran–Gulf
Cadence: Weekly
Scope reviewed through: 2026-09-13
Current cycle: 2026-09-13
Material changes: 2

Exposure

An organisation whose operations, cargoes, cover or supply run through the Strait of Hormuz, the southern Red Sea or the Gulf's fixed energy nodes — a charterer, an underwriter, an energy trader, a corporate security or country-risk function with Gulf exposure. The questions it has to keep checking are not whether an incident occurred this week, which reporting answers, but whether the conditions that govern usability, restoration and protection have moved — and whether a competent review found that they had not.

Why these questions together

The five questions are one coupled system read from five sides. The strait is closed by the insurance market rather than by a navy, so the first question is whether cover is written on terms charterers take up. The Red Sea route is the Gulf's principal Hormuz alternative and the second question keeps physical access, declared targeting and observed interdiction apart. The fixed energy nodes are what both routes carry, and the third question reads their restoration against the tempo at which they are re-struck. The last two ask whether the protection of all of that is becoming institutional — inside the GCC, and through the Makkah Agreement outside it. Each rests on a canonical Watch record with its own ledger; the scope adds the exposure, the relevance and the portfolio state, and nothing else.

Watch on Iran–Gulf 5 of the module’s active questions are in scope; membership is an editorial decision, recorded on the scope.

Latest review Cycle of 2026-09-13. Outcomes are the questions’ own review outcomes, counted; a question not reviewed in the cycle is shown as pending.

Questions reviewed: 5 of 5
Movement observed: 2
No material change: 2
Baseline: 1

Every active question was reviewed in the cycle of 2026-09-13. 2 questions recorded movement, 2 recorded no material change, and 1 established its baseline.

What changed 2 questions recorded material movement — new evidence, a named observable met, or a changed assessment. Each finding is the review’s own; the link is the canonical record.

02Red Sea access
Is Bab el-Mandeb still usable, and for whom?
Movement observed2026-09-13
Observed
First weekly review after the baseline. The shore changed hands on 10 and 11 September and the waterway did not close: no independently observed interference with non-Saudi shipping from the new positions has been read, the movement’s own statement continues to except Saudi-linked vessels by declaration, and the fall in transits is a change in what shipowners chose to do. The distinction the object exists to hold — physical access, declared targeting, observed interdiction — held through the week that tested it.
Evidence
Brief itemThe Yemeni side of the second strait changed hands, and the strait stayed open
01Maritime access
Is the Strait of Hormuz commercially usable again?
Movement observed2026-09-13
Observed
No war-risk cover is being written on terms charterers accept, which is the observable, and nothing this week changed it. Commercial tracking put transits at seven on 9 September against a ten-day average of fourteen and a pre-war norm above a hundred. A ministerial meeting on navigation is set for Muscat on 14 September, after this cutoff; Iranian statements about what it will produce are contradictory and no text has been published.
Evidence
Brief itemThe strait did not change, and the week's two developments were about everything else

No material change: 04 Does Gulf air and missile defence become institutionally integrated?05 Does the Makkah Agreement become an operational defence mechanism?
Baseline: 03 Are the Gulf's fixed energy nodes being restored faster than they are re-struck?Opened this cycle; its first review against the baseline is due in the next.

Questions under watch 5 canonical Watch questions, in scope order, spanning Maritime access · Red Sea access · Energy infrastructure · Regional protection · Defence mechanism. The record is the question’s own; the relevance note is the scope’s.All Watch questions

Maritime accessLogistics
Is the Strait of Hormuz commercially usable again?
Cover written on terms charterers take up, the IMO's navigational assessment and the legal régime — three accesses that have moved independently.
Movement observed2026-09-13Moderate confidence
Brief itemThe strait did not change, and the week's two developments were about everything else
Current condition as of 2026-09-04
A market closed rather than a waterway: protection-and-indemnity clubs issued 72-hour notices terminating war-risk extensions in March 2026 and commercial transits fell by more than 80 per cent while the strait remained physically passable.
Observables 6 named
1. War-risk cover written for Hormuz transits at rates charterers accept
2. Commercial transit counts against the pre-war rate
3. A revised IMO navigational assessment
All 6 observables
1. 2026-09-04: Baseline
2. 2026-09-13: Movement observed
2026-09-042026-09-132 reviews since 2026-09-04
Relevance to this scope
The strait's usable state is set by the war-risk market, not by whether a vessel can physically pass, and every export and bypass chain in the Gulf runs through that one condition. For this exposure the observable that matters is cover written on terms charterers actually take up — not an announcement that cover exists and not a single voyage — because that is the point at which routing, rate and shut-in decisions change.
View question Open in Explore
Red Sea accessLogistics
Is Bab el-Mandeb still usable, and for whom?
Observed interference and what actually transits — kept apart from territorial presence on the Yemeni shore and from declared targeting.
Movement observed2026-09-13Moderate confidence
Brief itemThe Yemeni side of the second strait changed hands, and the strait stayed open
Current condition as of 2026-09-12
A declared blockade, a changed shore, no established closure.
Observables 7 named
1. Independently observed interference with a vessel at or near the strait
2. A sustained change in transits through the strait
3. War-risk terms for Bab el-Mandeb transits
All 7 observables
1. 2026-09-12: Baseline
2. 2026-09-13: Movement observed
2026-09-122026-09-132 reviews since 2026-09-12
Relevance to this scope
Saudi crude leaves the Red Sea coast at Yanbu because the east–west pipeline exists to avoid Hormuz, so the southern strait is the Gulf's principal alternative route and its usability decides whether the bypass arithmetic holds. The question keeps three things apart that reporting collapses — territorial presence on the Yemeni shore, declared targeting of Saudi-linked shipping, and independently observed interdiction — and this exposure turns on the third.
View question Open in Explore
Energy infrastructureInfrastructure
Are the Gulf's fixed energy nodes being restored faster than they are re-struck?
Restart and repair announcements at the named terminals, refineries and pipelines read against the recorded strike tempo — never the strike tally alone.
Baseline2026-09-13Moderate confidence
Current condition as of 2026-09-13
Reached repeatedly, restored unevenly, and the alternatives now reached too.
Observables 6 named
1. Restart, resumption or repair announcements at struck nodes
2. The Ras Laffan repair estimate
3. The east–west pipeline's restart
All 6 observables
Relevance to this scope
A terminal that resumes loadings the next day has absorbed a strike; a liquefaction train under a five-year repair estimate has not; a pipeline shut with no restart date sits between. For an exposure that depends on what the routes actually carry, the restoration layer — restart announcements, repair estimates, loadings resumed at the bypass outlets — is the state that matters, read against the recorded strike tempo rather than the tally alone.
View question Open in Explore
Regional protectionMilitary
Does Gulf air and missile defence become institutionally integrated?
Formal GCC machinery — a joint early-warning system, a shared air picture, common rules of engagement — not a joint exercise or parallel procurement.
No material change2026-09-13Moderate confidence
Weekly BriefIran–Gulf developments — 13 September 2026
Current condition as of 2026-09-04
An institution without an operational command.
Observables 6 named
1. A formal GCC decision creating a joint early-warning system
2. A shared air picture in service
3. Common rules of engagement adopted
All 6 observables
1. 2026-09-04: Baseline
2. 2026-09-13: No material change
2026-09-042026-09-132 reviews since 2026-09-04
Relevance to this scope
Six national air defences engaged by one adversary's missile and drone force are six separate pictures unless an institution joins them, and the nodes this scope depends on sit under those six pictures. The change that counts is an institutional act — shared early warning, a common air picture, common rules of engagement, or a US access instrument signed or ended — because that is what alters the protection of the infrastructure rather than the story of one intercept.
View question Open in Explore
Defence mechanismDiplomatic
Does the Makkah Agreement become an operational defence mechanism?
A published procedure, an activated Secretariat, or a contribution named as made under the Agreement — not a bilateral deployment or a maritime-coalition act.
No material change2026-09-13Moderate confidence
Weekly BriefIran–Gulf developments — 13 September 2026
Current condition as of 2026-09-12
A commitment and an institution, without a demonstrated procedure.
Observables 9 named
1. A signatory formally invokes the Agreement after an attack
2. An implementing protocol or response mechanism is published
3. The Saudi-based Secretariat is activated
All 9 observables
1. 2026-09-12: Baseline
2. 2026-09-13: No material change
2026-09-122026-09-132 reviews since 2026-09-12
Relevance to this scope
Saudi Arabia is defended through several arrangements at once, and only one of them — the Makkah Agreement — carries a collective-defence undertaking with no demonstrated procedure. Whether it acquires one decides whether the Gulf gains a second security architecture with a decision mechanism of its own, which bears directly on the recovery and protection of the Red Sea coast this exposure runs through. The observables are institutional acts, never a deployment or an intention.
View question Open in Explore

Activity context The recorded series the questions sit beside — a count of dated, sourced occurrences at published markers, per week, never an effect or a live picture. The Map surface carries the full series, the key developments and the inspector.Map — Iran–Gulf

Maritime disruption activity
Reported attacks, seizures and strikes on vessels and maritime nodes at the sea-area and port markers this module publishes — a count, never the IMO's total.
1. 22 Jun 2026 to 28 Jun 2026: 2 records.
2. 29 Jun 2026 to 05 Jul 2026: 0 records.
3. 06 Jul 2026 to 12 Jul 2026: 4 records.
4. 13 Jul 2026 to 19 Jul 2026: 1 record.
5. 20 Jul 2026 to 26 Jul 2026: 2 records.
6. 27 Jul 2026 to 02 Aug 2026: 1 record.
7. 03 Aug 2026 to 09 Aug 2026: 2 records.
8. 10 Aug 2026 to 16 Aug 2026: 4 records.
9. 17 Aug 2026 to 23 Aug 2026: 1 record.
10. 24 Aug 2026 to 30 Aug 2026: 3 records.
11. 31 Aug 2026 to 06 Sep 2026: 4 records.
12. 07 Sep 2026 to 13 Sep 2026: 2 records.
22 Jun 202613 Sep 2026
Recorded events · each resolves to a source · weekly bins · 28 Feb 2026 → 13 Sep 2026
Newest week
2
12 weeks
26
Full series
45
Reviewed
2026-09-13
Bears on01 Is the Strait of Hormuz commercially usable again?02 Is Bab el-Mandeb still usable, and for whom?
Open on the map
Energy infrastructure strike activity
Reported strikes and strike effects at the terminal, refinery, processing and pipeline markers this module publishes — never damage, duration or effect.
1. 22 Jun 2026 to 28 Jun 2026: 0 records.
2. 29 Jun 2026 to 05 Jul 2026: 0 records.
3. 06 Jul 2026 to 12 Jul 2026: 0 records.
4. 13 Jul 2026 to 19 Jul 2026: 0 records.
5. 20 Jul 2026 to 26 Jul 2026: 1 record.
6. 27 Jul 2026 to 02 Aug 2026: 0 records.
7. 03 Aug 2026 to 09 Aug 2026: 1 record.
8. 10 Aug 2026 to 16 Aug 2026: 0 records.
9. 17 Aug 2026 to 23 Aug 2026: 0 records.
10. 24 Aug 2026 to 30 Aug 2026: 0 records.
11. 31 Aug 2026 to 06 Sep 2026: 0 records.
12. 07 Sep 2026 to 13 Sep 2026: 2 records.
22 Jun 202613 Sep 2026
Recorded events · each resolves to a source · weekly bins · 28 Feb 2026 → 13 Sep 2026
Newest week
2
12 weeks
4
Full series
29
Reviewed
2026-09-13
Bears on01 Is the Strait of Hormuz commercially usable again?02 Is Bab el-Mandeb still usable, and for whom?03 Are the Gulf's fixed energy nodes being restored faster than they are re-struck?
Open on the map
Attacks on US and partner military positions
Reported attacks with an impact at the US and partner base markers this module publishes — interception-only nights are not counted, and effect is never graded.
1. 22 Jun 2026 to 28 Jun 2026: 0 records.
2. 29 Jun 2026 to 05 Jul 2026: 0 records.
3. 06 Jul 2026 to 12 Jul 2026: 0 records.
4. 13 Jul 2026 to 19 Jul 2026: 3 records.
5. 20 Jul 2026 to 26 Jul 2026: 0 records.
6. 27 Jul 2026 to 02 Aug 2026: 0 records.
7. 03 Aug 2026 to 09 Aug 2026: 0 records.
8. 10 Aug 2026 to 16 Aug 2026: 0 records.
9. 17 Aug 2026 to 23 Aug 2026: 0 records.
10. 24 Aug 2026 to 30 Aug 2026: 1 record.
11. 31 Aug 2026 to 06 Sep 2026: 1 record.
12. 07 Sep 2026 to 13 Sep 2026: 1 record.
22 Jun 202613 Sep 2026
Recorded events · each resolves to a source · weekly bins · 28 Feb 2026 → 13 Sep 2026
Newest week
1
12 weeks
6
Full series
16
Reviewed
2026-09-13
Bears on04 Does Gulf air and missile defence become institutionally integrated?05 Does the Makkah Agreement become an operational defence mechanism?
Open on the map

0
1–2
3–5
6–10
10+

System access The questions are not floating text. They run through records the module maintains, and they are read on four surfaces. Listed below: the surfaces, and every record at least two of the scope’s questions share.

Records the scope’s questions share named by two or more questions

Parties and forces 10

Means and systems 6

Logistics

Impact chains

Ground 7

Arrangements and events 7

Relationships

Events

Vigil analysis 2

Meaningful-change notice What a notice between weekly reviews would contain, composed from this cycle’s own material changes. An example of the concept — nothing here is sent, and no delivery system exists.

ExampleGulf Energy & Maritime Risk2026-09-13Issued only on movement observed, observable met or assessment changed. A quiet review stays in the weekly state.

Movement observed2026-09-13
Is Bab el-Mandeb still usable, and for whom?
First weekly review after the baseline. The shore changed hands on 10 and 11 September and the waterway did not close: no independently observed interference with non-Saudi shipping from the new positions has been read, the movement’s own statement continues to except Saudi-linked vessels by declaration, and the fall in transits is a change in what shipowners chose to do. The distinction the object exists to hold — physical access, declared targeting, observed interdiction — held through the week that tested it.
Brief itemThe Yemeni side of the second strait changed hands, and the strait stayed open
Movement observed2026-09-13
Is the Strait of Hormuz commercially usable again?
No war-risk cover is being written on terms charterers accept, which is the observable, and nothing this week changed it. Commercial tracking put transits at seven on 9 September against a ten-day average of fourteen and a pre-war norm above a hundred. A ministerial meeting on navigation is set for Muscat on 14 September, after this cutoff; Iranian statements about what it will produce are contradictory and no text has been published.
Brief itemThe strait did not change, and the week's two developments were about everything else

What this demonstrates This public scope shows how Vigil organises a defined set of standing questions around one exposure. The records under it remain part of the public corpus.

Public Vigil

Vigil chooses the questions and publishes the corpus freely.

Every Watch question, its observables, its ledger and its sources stay public, including the reviews that found nothing moved. Nothing shown in a scope is withheld from Watch.

Professional monitoring

The organisation defines which questions matter to its exposure. Vigil maintains that scope.

The value is the customised scope, the sustained attention, a defined review responsibility, interpretation relevant to the exposure, and delivery of the material changes between reviews. Not access to information already published.

Exists: The public demonstration scope. The weekly review that already produces every figure on it. This contact channel.
Under validation: Organisation-specific scopes and their delivery, cadence beyond weekly, pricing, and questions that are not public. None is built, priced or sold.
Not built: Accounts, billing, automated notices, private workspaces, an API. Each waits for actual demand, not for a roadmap.

Define a Standing Watch scope

Tell Vigil which geopolitical questions your organisation has to keep under review. A written reply from the editor; no form, no call booking, no price list.

Standing Watch All Watch questions How Watch works