INTELLIGENCE BRIEF + ACTION PLANNER

Iran conflict escalation

Implications for global – and especially EU – manufacturing supply chains,
and how to respond

Insurance – Capacity – Data / ETA

Talk to an expert

Watch recorded Webinar

At a glance

Signals

Strait of Hormuz risk elevated: MARAD recommends vessels “keep clear” where possible; heightened military activity since 28 Feb 2026.
Electronic interference is a live hazard: UKMTO flags elevated disruption risk to AIS/navigation/comms in Gulf/Hormuz areas.
Carrier network actions are constraining capacity: Maersk is rerouting ME11/MECL via Cape and suspending Hormuz crossings “until further notice.”
Airline traffic down: Airports in Qatar and UAE are closed, impacting up to 20% of EU–Asia air cargo capacities.
Freight cost adders are now explicit: CMA CGM applies an Emergency Conflict Surcharge from 2 Mar 2026 ($2,000/20′, $3,000/40′, $4,000 reefer).

Implications

Re-baseline lead times + buffers: assume higher ETA variability (Cape reroutes/port calls) and increase node-specific safety stock for constrained SKUs.
Increasing seafreight cargo prices and “structural” logistics inflation: cargo rates likely to increase; Cape diversions require up to ~40% more fuel vs Suez (fuel + ETS + surcharges).
Air cargo stuck: air cargo under way is stuck on routes between Europe and Asia, breaking the most time-critical transport.
Tighten compliance screening immediately: EU “snapback” reintroduces restrictions including crude oil/natural gas/petrochemicals and certain metals/equipment; OFAC continues vessel/entity designations tied to Iran petroleum.

0–90 Day Priorities

Stand up a single execution cockpit (Day 0–1).
Map risk events to critical materials and deliveries (Day 1–3).
Run a structured supplier impact pulse with escalation rules (Day 1–7).
Stabilize commitments using exception-based collaboration (Week 1–3).
Make transport visibility actionable with milestone thresholds (Week 1–6).
Create optionality: reroute, buffer, allocate, or re-source with governance (Week 2–12).

EXHIBIT 0

4 pillars towards a resilient supply chain

Risk Awareness

Identify, assess, and monitor supply chain risks continuously

Preparedness

Predefined response plans, escalation rules, and crisis playbooks

Collaboration

Multi-enterprise coordination across suppliers, LSPs, and buyers

Visibility

End-to-end tracking from order to delivery with milestone governance

Foundation → Maturity → Resilience

A resilience operating model: risk awareness → preparedness → collaboration → visibility.

Situation intelligence: what’s happening from a supply-chain lens

The pattern to recognize: disruption as a reliability shock

In corridor crises, supply chains rarely fail first because a corridor is formally “closed.” They fail because reliability collapses:

Risk is repriced (insurance and carrier behavior changes first)
Signals degrade (partial updates, delayed milestones, AIS disruption)
ETAs widen and become probabilistic
Exceptions accumulate faster than teams can resolve them
Premium freight becomes the fallback

Why electronic interference changes operational reality

When AIS and related systems are disrupted, two things happen immediately:

Transport visibility becomes less deterministic—especially across multi-leg shipments
Exception load rises because teams must reconcile missing or conflicting updates

This changes the operating requirement from “visibility” to actionable control: milestone governance, exception queues, and faster interventions.

EXHIBIT 1A

The reliability shock chain

How corridor risk propagates through supply-chain operations — and where to intervene

A flowchart shows six stages of freight risk, from risk escalation to premium freight or missed SLAs, with intervention points at data degradation and milestone drift.

EXHIBIT 1B

Risk management objectives → SCM control points

How corridor risk propagates through supply-chain operations — and where to intervene

A timeline showing supply chain stages from sourcing and allocation at week -12 to goods receipt at day 0, with lead time, risk identification, and execution control noted.

The goal is not ‘risk awareness’—it is faster control at execution points.

Why EU manufacturers feel the impact quickly: transmission pathways

Even without direct sourcing through the Gulf, EU manufacturers are affected through four interconnected transmission pathways.

Pathway A: Energy & feedstock volatility

Energy chokepoints transmit into manufacturing as fast-changing cost inputs (power, fuel surcharges, and petrochemical-linked inputs). The operational response is to protect continuity decisions from being made too late—because cost shocks arrive before shortages.

Pathway B: Ocean schedule integrity and capacity displacement

Carrier networks react globally: rerouting changes transit time distributions, port rotation shifts congestion, and equipment imbalance reduces booking reliability. Plan with wider lead-time bands and pre-approved alternate routings.

Pathway C: Premium freight and air capacity constraints

When ocean reliability drops, demand shifts to air. If airspace constraints exist, the result is an “expedite trap”: higher cost, lower availability, and late interventions.

Pathway D: Compliance friction and counterparty screening

A stricter posture increases document scrutiny and onboarding lead time. Treat compliance readiness like a flow KPI, not a legal afterthought.

EXHIBIT 2

Transmission pathways: corridor risk → manufacturer impact

Infographic showing four sources of corridor risk: energy & feedstock volatility, ocean schedule & capacity, air capacity constraints, and compliance friction, leading to various manufacturer outcomes.

TRANSPORT PLANNING

Volume forecast → Carrier capacity decisions

Line graph showing actual volume rising from January to April, with a red NOW marker at May; forecasted volume continues rising from May to August.

Geopolitical risks are reshaping global supply chains – are you prepared?

Watch recorded Webinar

What breaks first inside manufacturers: a diagnostic

Most organizations detect disruption too late because they track lagging indicators (missed deliveries) rather than leading indicators (plan stability and exception load).

Leading indicators that predict continuity risk

Five leading indicators that predict continuity risk:

EXHIBIT 3

Leading indicators

Dashboard showing five performance metrics: commitment stability (72%), exception velocity (+14), milestone drift (2.4d), premium freight (24%), and supplier response (26h), with status indicators.

Root cause behind firefighting: fragmented reference chains

Transport execution tends to break down first where master data quality is low and data platforms are decoupled—creating fragmented reference chains and poor forwarder data quality.

Firefighting anti-patterns

Parallel email/spreadsheet workflows
Multiple portals and mismatched IDs
Late confirmation changes without governance
Milestone drift not tied to material criticality

The immediate goal: consolidate execution into a controlled loop—detect → prioritize → assign → resolve → learn.

Scenario set: next 4–12 weeks

Rather than betting on a single geopolitical outcome, manufacturers should manage an operational portfolio of scenarios. Each scenario should have trigger indicators and pre-approved actions. Note: thresholds are illustrative—tune to your baseline.

EXHIBIT 4

Scenario matrix

Plan for volatility, not a single forecast

A chart showing short-term and sustained disruptions divided by severity (medium, high), with trigger indicators and pre-approved actions for elevated risk, reduced throughput, corridor stress, and compliance issues.

Action planner (0–90 days): run the response in SupplyOn

This action planner is structured to be operational—not feature-led. Each phase includes: Objective → Trigger → How to run → Outputs → Cadence → Success measures.

EXHIBIT 5 – ROADMAP OVERLAY