Red Sea Intelligence Brief #4

Red Sea Futures provides strategic intelligence currently for law firms, financial institutions, NGOs, and investors. Our process integrates open-source and proprietary data and verified AI context with deep insight from a pool of 230+ distinguished regional / sub regional and technical specialists focused on the Red Sea states and their broader regional and geopolitical context. We produce weekly summaries via Substack and detailed, tailored monthly reports (also available via Substack subscription). To learn more, about our work and custom investigations and consulting, visit redseafutures.com or contact us at info@redseafutures.com.

Subscribe now

PART I — THE WEEK IN BRIEF

We are tracking the impact of the US-Israel war on Iran on the Red Sea’s shipping lanes, basin states, chokepoints, and the humanitarian systems that depend on them. This week’s coverage spans March 30 to April 6, 2026, the sixth week of the conflict.

Key developments include Iran’s categorical rejection of a 45-day ceasefire, Trump’s Easter Sunday ultimatum threatening to bomb Iranian civilian infrastructure by Tuesday April 8, and the expiration of the April 6 deadline without resolution. Iran’s IRGC ‘straits toll regime’, through which it is charging “permitted” flag ships for Hormuz transit, payable in yuan, remains operative but fragile. The Houthis have not activated a Bab al-Mandeb closure routine, but their posture has shifted materially: on April 5 Ali Akbar Velayati, a key adviser to Iran’s new Supreme Leader, explicitly named the Bab al-Mandab a potential next target. Whether the Houthis have either or both the capability and intent to do so is not clear. So far the nightmare two-straits closure has not occurred.

Hormuz: The Toll Regime Under Threat

The Strait of Hormuz has not been physically closed since February 28, rather, It has been coercively blocked, and selectively reopened under terms fantastical before the war. Iran’s IRGC escort system, involving clearance codes and yuan or crypto payment, enables a trickle of 15 to 20 vessels per day against the 138 that transited before the conflict. This has become the de facto passage mechanism for a small number of nations willing to accept Iran’s terms.

Last week, three Japan-affiliated tankers completed Hormuz transits, the first confirmed energy shipments by a US-allied commercial fleet since the closure. Japan’s dependence on Middle East crude is not abstract: 73.7 percent of its oil imports move through Hormuz, and Tokyo is not in a position to refuse passage on principle when its economy is at stake.

The toll regime is a sophisticated Iranian maneuver. It offers selective commercial relief to the nations Iran most needs (China, Russia, India, Iraq, and Pakistan under the March 26 authorization, now extended tacitly to Japan) while reframing what Tehran has done as sovereign regulatory authority rather than illegal interdiction. It fractures the coalition demanding full reopening by giving each member a commercial reason to negotiate bilaterally rather than hold a united front. The EU demonstrated last month that it lacks the strategic consensus to expand Eunavfor Aspides to cover Hormuz.

If US strikes on Iranian infrastructure proceed on April 7, this architecture collapses. The IRGC escort mechanism depends on IRGC capacity. A $100 million VLCC transiting the Gulf is now paying an effective insurance premium measured in millions per voyage — or, in the growing category of “dark Hormuz transits,” accepting IRGC escort as de facto protection in place of war-risk cover altogether. Lloyd’s List has documented vessels operating without insurance in the Gulf. There is no actuarial precedent for this since the 1988 Tanker War.

Trump’s Easter Sunday Ultimatum: Power Plants, Bridges, and the Red Sea Consequences

On Easter Sunday morning, April 5, at 8:03 a.m. ET, President Trump posted a blunt utlimatum on Truth Social promising massive retaliation on Tuesday if Iran did not immediately open the strait. A follow-up post set the deadline at Tuesday April 8 at 8 PM ET. The post drew immediate condemnation from human rights organizations — Amnesty International’s secretary general described it as “revolting” — and legal experts noted that under international humanitarian law, attacks on objects indispensable to civilian survival are prohibited and may constitute war crimes. Trump, in a Wall Street Journal interview, said he was not concerned about civilian impact.

For the Red Sea, the ultimatum matters in two direct ways. First, if US strikes on Iranian power infrastructure proceed and Iran retaliates by activating the Houthis and the Bab al-Mandeb strait closes — the Saudi Yanbu bypass collapses with it, and the Red Sea becomes a second front in the energy war.

Second, and more immediately, the response from Tehran’s side was pointed: Ali Akbar Velayati, a senior adviser to Iran’s new Supreme Leader, posted on the same day that Iran could close the Bab al-Mandab Strait. “If the White House thinks of repeating its stupid mistakes,” he wrote, “it will quickly realize that the flow of global energy and trade can be disrupted with a single signal.” The dual-chokepoint threat is no longer an analytical scenario. It is stated Iranian policy, timed to Trump’s ultimatum.

There is a further complication for the legal and diplomatic framework. At a White House press conference on April 6, Trump suggested for the first time that the US might want to charge its own tolls on Hormuz transit, a remark that, as Danial Kaysi’s analysis in Part II makes clear, simultaneously undermines the UNCLOS-based legal case against Iran’s toll regime and signals to every government watching that the US may be less committed to freedom of navigation as a principle than as a tactical position.

Yemen’s Houthis: The Trigger That Has Not Fired

Since entering the war on March 28, the Houthis have launched at least six missile and drone attacks on Israel all intercepted or landing in open areas, but have not activated Bab al-Mandeb. On April 3, the IRGC announced joint Houthi-Iranian operations targeting the USS Abraham Lincoln, the fifth such debunked claim since March 1; according to Abo Alasrar, the ‘joint operations’ framing appears designed to inflate Houthi capabilities at a moment when the group’s actual capacity is degraded, and its supply lines are cut.

Four weeks after entering the war with missile strikes on Israel, the Houthis have not activated the Bab al-Mandeb “option”. The posture however has shifted materially this week. Hizam al-Asad, a Houthi political bureau member, was interviewed by issued a the sharpest dual-chokepoint statement to CGTN and stated that yet:

“[The Houthis have] so far entered only a very small part of this battle” and that “escalating operations and different phases” would follow as long as aggression continues — framing Bab al-Mandeb activation as a matter of timing, not intent.Whoever wants escalation to open Hormuz will find themselves stuck in other straits as well.” This followed Velayati’s explicit naming of Bab al-Mandab in response to Trump’s Easter ultimatum. Muhammad Ali al-Houthi told CNN Arabic on April 6 that the Houthis have “no intention” of targeting Saudi ports — conditional, notably, on Saudi de-escalation. The conditionality is new. The restraint is no longer unconditional.

The mechanism that has kept the strait open is the Saudi-Houthi back-channel, now strained. Saudi Arabia has been diverting crude to Yanbu via the East-West Petroline, approaching 5 million barrels per day.

Suez, Egypt, and the Austerity Signal

The Suez Canal is running at roughly 20 to 25 transits per day, approximately 62 to 72 percent below the 2023 peak. The container segment is down 86 percent from peak. CMA CGM’s Q2 2026 plan for a Suez return is under active reassessment. All eight major carriers remain on full Cape diversion for Asia-Europe services. Egypt’s gas import bill reached $2.5 billion per month in March, up from $1.2 billion in January. Moody’s affirmed Egypt at Caa1 on April 3, but that rating reflects the IMF program buffer, not the underlying shock. Interest payments are consuming roughly 63 percent of government revenue for fiscal year 2026.

The Suez-Mediterranean Pipeline (SUMED), half owned by Egypt, the rest by Aramco and other Gulf interests, has reached its 2.5 million barrel-per-day capacity ceiling, up roughly 150 percent since the war began. All of SUMED oil flows through the Red Sea and Bab Al Mandeb to Asia. The fiscal offset is real but substantially less than headline throughput figures suggest. The compound dynamic — losing foreign currency precisely as import bills requiring foreign currency surge — has no clean solution within the current framework.

The Food Security Window Is Closing

India placed an emergency 2.5-million-tonne urea tender on April 6, ahead of the kharif monsoon planting season. This is the first major government policy action directly attributable to the fertilizer chain reaction driven by the Hormuz closure. DAP fertilizer prices have crossed $700 per metric ton.

Global nitrogen prices have surged 26 percent as Iran’s urea exports, roughly 30 percent of global supply, have been disrupted. The WFP Sudan supply chain remains critically disrupted, adding 9,000 kilometers and 25 days per delivery. The Somalia operation has been halved. Yemen operations in Houthi-controlled areas are suspended entirely. The June planting season is a fixed deadline. If fertilizer is not in place by approximately May, the 2026 harvest shortfall in Sudan, Somalia, and Ethiopia becomes locked in regardless of subsequent diplomatic developments.

PART II — ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION

The following reflects the views of a subset of Red Sea Futures Sr. Analysts and 230+ expert pool. Not all inputs are named or directly cited. All contributors speak in their own capacity.

On What the Zarif Article Actually Said

Fatima Abo Alasrar’s April 5 analysis in The Ideology Machine, published the same morning as Trump’s Easter ultimatum, offers an important analytical corrective to the week’s dominant framing. The prevailing assumption in much Western commentary is that Iran’s ideological architecture makes genuine negotiation structurally impossible: the revolutionary identity is too fused with the state, the commitment to resisting the United States too embedded to permit any form of compromise. Abo Alasrar argues this is wrong, citing a close reading of ex Iranian FM Javad Zarif’s Foreign Affairs article — a document that, she notes, could not appear without insider blessing.

Abo Alasrar:

“Buried in his triumphalist framing is a detailed concession list, including nuclear limits, reopening Hormuz, and a nonaggression pact. An article like this does not appear in Foreign Affairs without some kind of blessing from inside the system, and Zarif’s writing said more about where the regime’s internal conversation is headed than anything its officials are willing to say publicly.” — Fatima Abo Alasrar

Abo Alasrar’s core argument is that in movements like the Islamic Republic and that of the Houthis, ideology functions as a “performance layer” rather than a structural limit — a mythology used to maintain internal cohesion and project inflexibility, not a set of instructions the regime actually follows. The historical evidence she marshals is precise: Khamenei’s doctrine of ‘heroic flexibility’ that gave the IRGC theological permission to sign the JCPOA; the Houthis’ formal alliance with Ali Abdullah Saleh, the man responsible for killing the movement’s founder; the Houthi ceasefire with the United States in 2025, reframed in Houthi media by quietly recasting the US from ‘Great Satan’ to ‘pragmatic country.’

Abo Alasrar:

“Tehran’s national security decisions are guided by interests rather than ideology. The Islamic Republic has survived for over four decades not because it refuses to bend, but because it bends toward whoever holds the leverage and away from whoever doesn’t.” — Fatima Abo Alasrar

For the Red Sea, this reading has a direct implication. The Houthi restraint on Bab al-Mandeb that has persisted for six weeks is not evidence of ideological commitment to the Saudi back-channel. It is evidence of strategic calculation. It can be reversed the moment the calculus shifts — as Abo Alasrar documented in her earlier work on the Houthis’ 2025 ceasefire, the narrative infrastructure adjusts after the fact.

Abo Alasrar:

“The danger is not that the regime will never negotiate. The danger is that it will, and that Washington will call it peace while the people who marched under ‘Woman, Life, Freedom’ discover that the grand bargain was never about them. The leverage has never been held by Iranians.” — Fatima Abo Alasrar

On Houthi Autonomy and the Fuel Constraint

Captain Roy Facey offers supporting empirical grounding for understanding Houthi decision-making this week:

“Despite the conflict environment, Yemeni ports are handling more cargo than a year ago: total cargo at Salif is up 118 percent year-on-year through March, driven by food imports; Aden is at 146 percent of 2025 tonnage; Hodeidah at 94 percent, with food imports at 112 percent of prior-year levels. The port infrastructure has not collapsed. The Houthis have every incentive to keep it that way — Salif and Hodeidah’s berths are their primary leverage in any Saudi compensation negotiation.”

Facey notes that war-risk rates for Red Sea passages have increased since the Houthis attacked Israel, from around 0.6 percent to 0.65–0.75 percent of hull and machinery value — though 25 to 50 percent of this charge may be refunded as a no-claims bonus. These remain well below rates for Hormuz transit. As Abo Alasrar has argued in her article “Houthis are running on Fumes” for the Beiruter, the binding constraint on Houthi action is material, not simply ideological.

Facey:

“The Houthis are reported to be weaker than they were two years ago, and the berths at their two main ports are vulnerable to damage from air attacks that could severely restrict their ability to import food and other goods. Fuel imports via Ras Issa so far in 2026 are sharply down — running at only 36 percent of 2025 volumes through end-March.” — Capt. Roy Facey

On Deadlines, Diplomacy, and the Islamabad Track

Theros identifies the most significant but least visible diplomatic subtext of the week: the India-Pakistan competition for influence over the Iran exit ramp. India’s concerns are not principally about the war itself but about who gets credit for ending it.

Amb. Theros:

“Indian journalists…are concerned about Pakistan’s mediation efforts with the Iranians. They are concerned that if Pakistan gets credit for any progress toward giving Trump an exit ramp from this war, it will draw Trump closer to Islamabad and further erode US-Indian relations. Indian media have become more hostile to Trump for starting a war that is causing India great harm.”

Theros also flags the Russian resupply question, largely absent from Western coverage. His assessment is that Russian resupply of Iran via Caspian channels is almost certainly occurring — the logic is compelling — but that direct evidence has not been presented publicly.

Theros:

“If Russia is resupplying anybody in this war, it is the Iranians. They have easy channels into Iran across the Caspian Sea. I would be amazed if it is not happening. What better way to force the expenditure of irreplaceable THAAD or Patriot missiles badly needed on the Ukrainian front?” — Amb. Patrick Theros

Red Sea Futures’ own analysis of the Islamabad track, published March 31, argues that the binary framing dominating Washington — escalate until Iran capitulates, or accept a ceasefire that leaves the underlying architecture intact — misses the structural logic of what is actually available. The key insight is that the IRGC’s institutional identity is built on resistance to the order that Israel and the US represent; any framework explicitly descended from normalization with Israel may be the one architecture Iran cannot join without ideological self-destruction, regardless of material incentives. A third set of parties is required. See Chorin’s piece here:

Chorin:

“An indirect swap-- at least in theory – could be useful:: Iran does not make nuclear concessions to Washington; it makes them within a regional security framework, to Gulf partners who are simultaneously completing the Abraham architecture. The Gulf states are the load-bearing actors in both transactions simultaneously, which is precisely why they can make it work.”….

“No deal of this magnitude closes unless both sides can claim victory. Iran can tell its people: our resistance forced a reshaping of the entire regional map. We did not surrender to Washington. We negotiated with our neighbors as equals. For a regime whose founding identity is resistance to exclusion, being included on terms it can frame as having been extracted through force is not defeat. By its own logic, this is vindication.” — Dr. Ethan Chorin

The question for the coming week is whether the April 7 deadline and its aftermath close off this track or create the conditions under which it becomes the only viable path remaining.

On Base Vulnerability, Sea Power, and What Markets Have Priced

Michael Brill flags two pieces of analysis this week that have received less attention than they deserve, both bearing directly on the Red Sea corridor’s exposure to the current crisis.

The first is a Wall Street Journal investigation into the failure to relocate or build up US military bases in the western parts of Saudi Arabia — away from the Gulf and closer to the Red Sea — in response to longstanding recommendations to do so. The consequence of that failure is now operational: by remaining concentrated at Prince Sultan Air Base and other Gulf facilities, US assets have been forced to redeploy eastward, toward Jordan and Israel, exposing the Red Sea corridor to greater risk precisely when it carries the most strategic weight it has since the Suez crisis.

Brill:

“Along with forcing the US to base more assets in Jordan and Israel, the failure to pay heed to this recommendation has exposed the Red Sea corridor to much greater risk.” — Michael Brill

The second is Prof. Samuel Helfont’s Hoover Institution essay on naval power vs. sea power — a distinction that cuts to the heart of why the world’s most powerful navy has been unable to reopen a strait Iran has closed with relatively modest means. Helfont’s argument is that sea power is commercial before it is military: it requires not just warships but a national merchant fleet, shipbuilding capacity, and the institutional infrastructure to compel or incentivize civilian mariners to sail through hostile waters. The United States has the first and has allowed the rest to atrophy to near-zero. As of 2025, US-flagged commercial ships carried 0.55 percent of global shipping by gross tonnage; a single Philadelphia shipyard is currently building large ocean-going vessels for the US Merchant Marine. The Trump administration’s attempt to substitute the US Development Finance Corporation for Lloyd’s as a war-risk insurer (an executive order displacing a centuries-old underwriting ecosystem) illustrates the depth of that gap.

On Japan, Asian Energy Strategy, and the Macron Initiative

Dr. Romaric Jannel provides context for Japan’s actual strategic posture which i more complex than either “compliance” with Tehran or “solidarity” with Washington. Tokyo is pursuing a diversification strategy along with limited use of Iran’s toll regime.

Jannel:

“The Japanese government expects to secure about 60 percent of last year’s crude oil volume by May through alternative routes — UAE via Fujairah, Saudi Arabia via Yanbu and the Red Sea, the United States, and Azerbaijan — while avoiding the Strait of Hormuz. Tokyo believes that by combining these routes with large-scale releases from national and private stockpiles, it can ensure an adequate oil supply until 2027. The Hormuz transits are a hedge, not a pivot.” — Dr. Romaric Jannel

Jannel also flags the most substantive European initiative of the week, which has received limited coverage in English-language media:

Jannel:

“In an NHK interview, President Macron said France could help establish a framework to safeguard freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz in collaboration with Asian, Middle Eastern, and European countries. It is the most substantive European initiative on the Strait since the EU failed to expand Eunavfor Aspides in March. Whether it moves faster than the toll regime normalizes is the critical question.” — Romaric Jannel

On Egypt’s Fiscal Position

Prof. Robert Springborg provides a structural corrective to the SUMED offset narrative. The pipeline’s surge in throughput is real — up roughly 150 percent, at maximum capacity — but Egypt’s ownership stake limits the fiscal benefit substantially.

Springborg:

“SUMED is 50 percent owned by Aramco and other Gulf interests, so Egypt derives only half the revenue generated by the pipeline. That revenue is in any case substantially less than what the Canal was generating — $14 to 15 million daily back in 2021, and substantially more when Houthi interdiction ended and traffic returned to normal in early 2026. The fiscal arithmetic for Egypt is worse than the bypass narrative implies.” — Prof. Robert Springborg

On The Toll Booth and International Law

Danial Kaysi’s analysis addresses the question that will outlast the current conflict: whether Iran’s de facto control of Hormuz can be converted into a permanent governance framework, and whether the international legal order can contain it.

His core legal finding is precise and largely absent from mainstream coverage: the internationally recognized shipping lanes through Hormuz do not pass through Iranian waters. They pass through Oman’s. Iran has no jurisdiction under UNCLOS to charge a toll or restrict passage in those lanes, and transit passage through international straits cannot be suspended under either treaty or customary law.

Kaysi:

“Iran’s fifth condition for ending the war — international recognition of its sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz — is not merely unprecedented but territorially incoherent. The demand hasn’t appeared in any prior negotiation in modern history. Nevertheless, Iran is not just making a legal claim, It is creating facts. The Iranian parliament approved draft transit regulations on March 31. Iran and Oman are co-drafting a bilateral monitoring protocol. Nearly a dozen countries have already agreed to passage terms. With each passing day, Iran’s military enforcement is transformed into a long-term governance framework.” — Danial Kaysi

Kaysi draws the historical analogy that gives the situation its true scale:

Kaysi:

“The last time the world faced a comparable situation — a state actor demanding payment for safe passage, discriminating by origin, and threatening violence for non-compliance — was in the early 1800s, when the United States fought its first two international wars against the Barbary States to establish the very rights now under pressure. Just as today Iran’s toll would not survive without Chinese acceptance, the Barbary system did not survive on its own. Britain and other European powers paid tribute and actively encouraged the Barbary States to target US and competitor ships, driven by commercial and strategic considerations. The tribute system survived because the Europeans found it politically expedient.” — Danial Kaysi

On China’s structural role and American ambivalence — and a new wrinkle added on April 6:

Kaysi:

“China almost certainly pays preferential or zero rates. The toll system operates in yuan, advancing Chinese de-dollarization interests directly. Every day American willingness to enforce freedom of navigation appears questionable, China’s position in the South China Sea becomes easier to sustain. Trump’s public statements — dismissing the closure as ‘a problem for other countries to resolve,’ floating the idea of calling it the ‘Strait of Trump’ — send signals that the United States may be ambivalent about enforcing the navigational norms it created. The threat is now bifurcated: a deal that accepts Iran’s demand legitimizes it; a US exit that leaves Iranian de facto control unaddressed does the same. If the law is bypassed here, it is undermined everywhere.” — Danial Kaysi

Kaysi’s analysis gains an additional dimension from Trump’s April 6 press conference, at which the president suggested the US might itself charge tolls on Hormuz transit. The remark was likely improvised, but its effect is precise: it makes it harder for Washington to argue that Iran’s toll regime is illegal while simultaneously floating an American version of the same arrangement. For any government watching — in Beijing, in Muscat, in the capitals of every state with a contested maritime claim — the signal is that freedom of navigation is a negotiating position, not a principle.

CONTRIBUTORS · ISSUE 03

Red Sea Futures synthesizes reporting from a pool of 230+ regional experts. Contributing analysts write in their own capacity. Not all inputs are named or directly cited; some sources are held in confidence.

Fatima Abo Alasrar

Founder of The Ideology Machine, a publication on authoritarian information systems. Her work examines the intersection of ideology, conflict, and great-power competition, with particular attention to how Iranian-aligned movements interact with broader geopolitical currents across the Middle East. Previously, Alasrar was a senior analyst at the Arabia Foundation in Washington, DC, MENA Director at Cure Violence, and a research associate at the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington. She writes The Ideology Machine on Substack.

Michael Brill

PhD candidate in Near Eastern Studies, Princeton University; MA in Arab Studies, Georgetown University. Global Fellow, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars’ History and Public Policy Program (2024–2025); Non-Resident Fellow, US Air Force Academy’s Institute for Future Conflict. Visiting Scholar in Middle East Studies at Smith College and Visiting Lecturer in Political Science at Westfield State University. Research focuses on Iraq under Ba’th Party rule. Published in the International Journal of Middle East Studies, Middle East Journal, Foreign Affairs, and War on the Rocks.

Dr. Ethan Chorin

Founder and CEO of Red Sea Futures. Former US diplomat posted to Libya and the UAE, he has spent more than 20 years in senior corporate and government positions touching the Red Sea and Indian Ocean. Author of five books including Benghazi: A New History (Hachette, 2022) and the forthcoming Red Sea Rising (Harvard University Press). A two-time Fulbright Fellow, Chorin wrote his PhD dissertation at UC Berkeley on port competition in the Red Sea. His Substack is The Middle East —Told Slant.

Capt. Roy Facey

More than 40 years as lead advisor on port master plans, feasibility studies, concession tender documents, accident investigations, and dredging assessments throughout the Red Sea and Gulf region. A master mariner, Facey’s expertise covers commercial port operations, shipping route planning, supply chain risk, and tariff optimization. MSc in Offshore Technology and Marine Structures; BS in Engineering Maritime Studies.

Dr. Romaric Jannel

Specializes in ethics, AI, and comparative philosophy, with research interests spanning trust, responsibility, agency, and the conceptual frameworks shaping social and technological systems. Program Director at the Collège International de Philosophie in Paris and Visiting Researcher at the Research Center for Intercultural Phenomenology at Ritsumeikan University in Japan. PhD from the École Pratique des Hautes Études–PSL University. His Substack is Philosophy And Beyond.

Danial Kaysi

Danial Kaysi is a strategic advisor based in Riyadh with over 15 years of experience across the Middle East, East Africa, the United States, and Europe. Formerly at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington DC, he has also advised the G20 Secretariat, USAID, FCDO, Global Affairs Canada, the World Bank, and others. He holds an MA in International Affairs from Yale University and a BSc in Conflict Analysis and Resolution from George Mason University. He currently advises on market strategy, geopolitical risk, foreign policy, and strategic communications.

Amb. Patrick Theros

Former US Ambassador to Qatar and career diplomat with deep experience in Gulf political economy, US-Arab relations, and Iranian affairs. Senior fellow and former president of the US-Qatar Business Council. Extensive advisory experience across government, think tanks, and private sector clients.

Prof. Robert Springborg

Research Fellow at the Italian Institute of International Affairs and Adjunct Professor at Simon Fraser University. Has held senior academic positions including the MBI Al Jaber Chair in Middle East Studies at SOAS, Director of the American Research Center in Egypt, and professorships at the Naval Postgraduate School and Macquarie University. Consulted on Middle East governance for USAID, the US State Department, UNDP, and UK government departments. Author of Egypt (2018) and Political Economies of the Middle East and North Africa (2020).

Standard subscription: $15/month · $150/year

Premium (Weekly Brief + Monthly Intelligence Report): $85/month · $850/year

Inquiries: info@redseafutures.com

Red Sea Futures / Perim Narrative Arts LLC · redseafutures.com

Subscribe now