The importance of maritime insurance becomes most visible during crises. When conflict escalates, insurers reassess risk almost immediately. If coverage is withdrawn or premiums rise sharply, ships often stop sailing even without a physical blockade. Current tensions involving Iran and the Strait of Hormuz illustrate this mechanism clearly. The waterway carries roughly one-fifth of global oil and gas shipments. When tensions surge, insurers quickly reassess their exposure. For Indonesia, this dynamic is not a distant geopolitical story. It recently affected Indonesian shipping operations directly. Kompas (March 4, 2026) reported that two oil tankers operated by PT Pertamina International Shipping were temporarily caught in the disruption around the Strait of Hormuz as tensions escalated. Indonesian authorities monitored the situation closely while pursuing diplomatic channels to ensure the vessels could pass safely through the corridor. Eventually, both ships managed to leave the high-risk area unharmed. This incident revealed how swiftly geopolitical shocks thousands of kilometers away can reverberate through Indonesia’s energy supply chain. What has already changed, however, is the perception of risk. In moments like this, risk premiums tend to surge, and the cost of maritime insurance climbs accordingly, a burden that will persist unless tensions ease in the near future. For Indonesia, the exposure is unavoidable given the country’s dependence on maritime routes for energy imports. The risk becomes even more acute when the government itself acknowledges that national oil reserves cover only about 20 days of consumption, leaving little buffer if disruptions in shipping or insurance markets persist. The real constraint is rarely the physical closure of a sea lane; it is the repricing of risk. Without valid insurance, vessels cannot secure bank financing, enter many ports, or obtain charter contracts. In practical terms, a ship without insurance cannot operate commercially even if the sea route itself remains physically open. Consider the case of a very large crude carrier (VLCC), a class of vessel that Pertamina itself operates, and one of the largest tankers used in global energy transport. A VLCC typically carries around two million barrels of crude oil and costs roughly $150 million to build. If insurance premiums increase by just 1 percent, the additional insurance cost alone could reach about $1.5 million for a single voyage. These cost increases propagate quickly through the global economy. Higher war-risk premiums raise freight rates and transportation costs for energy shipments. In extreme cases, shipping companies may suspend voyages entirely if insurance becomes unavailable. For countries like Indonesia that rely on imported crude and petroleum products, the impact can be immediate. Higher insurance premiums translate into higher freight costs, raising the landed price of energy imports. The additional burden can ripple through the domestic economy, putting pressure on fuel subsidies, widening fiscal deficits, weakening the rupiah through higher import bills and contributing to inflation. The broader lesson is that maritime insurance markets act as a real-time risk-pricing mechanism for geopolitical tensions. Military confrontation may create the initial threat, but the actual disruption to global trade often occurs through financial channels. Once insurers judge that risks have become too high to insure, or premiums become prohibitively expensive, shipping activity slows dramatically. In this sense, underwriters and reinsurers have become pivotal actors in the functioning of global trade routes. Their decisions determine whether energy continues to flow through strategic choke points such as the Strait of Hormuz and whether global supply chains remain stable during periods of geopolitical conflict. Missiles dominate headlines during geopolitical turbulence. But in the global trading system, it is often the insurance market that quietly decides whether ships sail at all.