Everything, Everywhere, All at Once: A Tense Start to 2026

Stacked geopolitical frictions are becoming a single operating environment for value chains 

Two weeks into January 2026 and the year is already off to a tense geopolitical start. While the temptation is to analyze discrete events and specific geographies for value chain–related risks and impacts, the year so far can better be defined by stacked constraints tightening at the same time: more assertive maritime enforcement, more aggressive use of export controls and trade remedies, and a higher baseline of political instability in regions that sit astride critical shipping lanes and energy flows. 

For boards and chief executive officers, the practical implication is straightforward: the operating environment is converging. Geopolitics, sanctions compliance, export licensing, shipping risk, insurance, and bank de-risking used to be treated as separate issues but increasingly make up one blended system. The constraints show up in the same places: schedule reliability, cost of capital, the ability to move goods across borders, and the friction budget (meaning the delay and cost the organization can absorb before it starts missing customer commitments). 

A useful way to frame the start of the quarter is by the constraint layer that hits the value chain, not by a list of hotspots. The core issue is the convergence of enforcement, licensing friction, and economic measures into a single operating environment. The examples below are illustrative rather than exhaustive. 

What changed in early 2026: the constraint is increasingly operational, not rhetorical

In late 2025 and the first days of 2026, governments leaned harder into tools that change outcomes without always changing the headline legal framework: interdictions and service denials, licensing and documentary throttles, and targeted economic measures, including trade remedies, that can be deployed quickly through established procedures. 

This matters because a company can be legally compliant and still operationally constrained: for example, cargo delayed in transit, a bank holding a payment pending enhanced due diligence, an insurer narrowing coverage, or a regulator turning a license process into a queue with unpredictable cycle times. These are not abstract compliance issues. They are delivery risk, cash-flow risk, and customer risk. 

Physical enforcement and interdiction are back on the table

The sharpest signal in early January is the willingness of the United States and United Kingdom to use allied coordination and maritime authorities to interdict vessels tied to sanctions evasion networks. 

On January 7, the UK Ministry of Defence stated it had provided enabling support at US request to interdict the vessel Bella 1—also reported as renamed Marinera—linking the action to Russian shadow-fleet activity and Iran sanctions breaches. 

On January 7, US Southern Command announced the interdiction of a stateless “sanctioned dark fleet” tanker, the M/T Sophia, operating in international waters in the Caribbean, with the US Coast Guard escorting the vessel for disposition. 

Operational implications 

From a value chain risk management (VCRM) perspective, interdiction activity is not only a shipping risk. It can become a contracting issue through detention, diversion, and demurrage allocation. It can become a finance issue when payment flows slow under higher documentation thresholds. In addition, it increases the likelihood of service friction as insurers, ports, and other providers tighten requirements when enforcement posture hardens. 

These enforcement signals also affect legitimate operators when insurers, banks, ports, and carriers tighten standards across an entire lane. 

Considerations for executives and boards 

Seizures typically target shadow-fleet activity but often raise scrutiny and tighten service-provider behavior for everyone operating nearby. For legitimate firms, the risk is second order: delay, higher documentation demands, and service denial from banks, insurers, and ports. The practical control is governance: clear decision rights and tested playbooks for rerouting, documentation escalation, and time-sensitive shipment triage in higher-scrutiny corridors. 

Export controls and licensing: where geopolitics becomes operational friction

The China–Japan dispute demonstrates how quickly export controls can be used as a bilateral instrument and how licensing mechanics can become the real constraint. 

In early January, China tightened controls on dual-use items to Japan. The measure prohibits exports of dual-use items to Japanese military end users, military end use, and other end uses deemed to enhance Japan’s military capabilities; and extends compliance expectations to third-country transfers and diversion risk. 

More broadly, export controls are increasingly applied through licensing and enforcement posture, which can constrain trade flows even where the written rule appears stable. 

Licensing mechanics and throughput risk 

In export controls, the core issue often is not whether trade is permitted in principle, but whether it can move reliably under heightened scrutiny. Throughput is determined by the clarity and credibility of end-use and end-user substantiation and the strength of distributor controls and downstream traceability. It is also shaped by regulator workload, review cadence, and the posture taken on diversion and third-country transfer liability. Even when legal requirements are clear, organizations can lose weeks or months to documentary gaps and iterative rework, with direct effects on delivery performance, customer confidence, and competitive position. The constraint is rarely the rule; it is the queue. 

A practical VCRM discipline is to manage licensing as an operational performance variable. For example, enterprises can track license latency and documentation quality using a small set of indicators: (1) cycle time from submission to decision or request for additional information, (2) share of submissions returned for clarification or supplement, and (3) share of shipments delayed pending enhanced documentation by regulators, banks, or logistics providers. These indicators provide early warning of when permissible trade is becoming operationally unreliable. Where export controls are increasingly used as bilateral instruments, process capacity and documentary consistency become a durable advantage. 

If export controls determine what can move, trade remedies often determine what remains commercially viable. They translate geopolitical pressure into landed-cost volatility and customs friction without requiring broad prohibitions. 

Economic coercion and trade remedies are accelerating, not receding

When geopolitics rises, trade remedies often follow because they offer a legally structured path to pressure a counterpart without announcing a sweeping embargo. Recent China actions illustrate this pattern, including the initiation of an anti-dumping investigation into dichlorosilane, an upstream input used in semiconductor manufacturing. 

Trade remedies are a VCRM problem, not simply a legal problem 

Trade remedies introduce operational risk by creating duty and cash-deposit uncertainty, prompting supplier repricing and contract renegotiation and increasing the likelihood of customs-related delays. They can also compress decision timelines because qualifying alternate sources typically requires extended lead times, particularly for upstream inputs with limited substitutability. 

For boards, this cost-shock layer frequently compounds existing shipping and licensing frictions, turning manageable disruption into sustained margin pressure and schedule instability. 

While every industry and individual enterprise will vary, remedy risk is best managed through liquidity capacity, contract design, and import/sourcing optionality. Holding more operating cash can help, but boards build more resilience per dollar by pairing targeted liquidity backstops with mechanisms that shorten and shrink the cash hit—for example, through pricing clauses, duty deferral options, and prequalified alternates. 

Chokepoint stacking: why the sum is worse than the parts

Most organizations can absorb a single major constraint at a time through rerouting, substitution, or temporary buffering. The 2026 risk—concurrent tightening of multiple constraint layers—reduces available options and threatens to turn manageable disruption into sustained performance degradation. 

In practice, stacking occurs when maritime enforcement and inspection activity increase in key corridors, export-control administration becomes slower and less predictable, and trade remedy actions introduce sudden cost and clearance friction in parallel. When these pressures coincide, the outcome is typically not a single headline failure but a persistent decline in schedule reliability. Lead times extend, buffer requirements rise, working capital increases, and the cost of maintaining continuity leads to structural change. 

This is also why a board-level discussion focused only on identifying hotspots can miss the business effect. The relevant question is not simply where risk exists, but where multiple constraints can compound quickly and restrict the organization’s ability to adapt. 

Key dynamics shaping value chain risk in 2026

Several dynamics are easy to underestimate when viewed through a traditional policy-change lens. Enforcement capacity is increasingly functioning as a policy instrument. Coordinated interdiction activity and allied support can lower the practical threshold for action against sanctions-evasion logistics, and the resulting scrutiny can spill beyond the intended targets into adjacent routes and service networks. Operationally, this shows up as more-frequent inspections, longer port dwell times, and delayed sailings when carriers and ports apply heightened screening across an entire lane. 

At the same time, the private-sector “plumbing” of trade is becoming a primary constraint layer. Banks, insurers, ports, carriers, and other intermediaries are tightening standards in response to geopolitical risk, often through enhanced documentation requirements, narrower coverage, and selective service denials. Operationally, this looks like payment holds pending additional documentation, insurer exclusions or higher premiums for specific corridors, and refusals to load, bunker, or berth when risk thresholds are triggered. 

Administrative process remains a decisive variable in export controls. Measures that extend diversion and third-country transfer expectations beyond national borders shift risk into distributor models, routing decisions, and downstream traceability. In practice, the constraint is throughput and predictability, including the ability to produce consistent evidence packages that stand up to scrutiny across regulators and counterparties. Operationally, this appears as license-cycle slippage, repeated regulator requests for clarification, shipment releases conditioned on supplemental end-use evidence, and internal rework that converts “permitted” trade into missed delivery windows. 

A further dynamic involves the continued use of industrial policy and targeted economic measures to reshape trade economics. Expressions of this include not only trade remedies but also procurement preferences, local-content requirements, and selective support for strategic sectors. These tools can alter sourcing incentives and compress decision timelines, especially where qualification lead times are long and substitution options limited. Operationally, this shows up as duty and cash-deposit shocks, abrupt landed-cost changes, contract repricing, and accelerated qualification workstreams that divert engineering and supplier-management capacity. 

Finally, noneconomic shocks continue to produce economic consequences. Political instability, unrest, communications disruptions, and cyber incidents can impair local operations and logistics even without new formal measures. Persistent maritime friction in strategic waterways raises the baseline probability of delay through inspections, rerouting, and heightened operational caution, reinforcing the broader shift from episodic disruption to sustained operating friction. Operationally, this looks like degraded shipment visibility; inconsistent communications with suppliers and forwarders; temporary port, road, or waterway access constraints; and increased schedule variance that forces higher buffers and working capital. 

A practical VCRM posture for the next thirty to ninety days

Boards do not need an exhaustive catalogue of every tension point. They need a repeatable operating model that preserves throughput when frictions stack across shipping, controls, and cost. 

• Start with governance. Define decision rights in advance for rerouting, substitution, and shipment holds in time-sensitive categories; and set objective escalation triggers that activate those authorities. In parallel, tighten controls for higher-scrutiny corridors by strengthening vessel and counterparty diligence and preparing a standardized response package for detention-related disruptions, including insurer coordination, documentation templates for financial institutions, and a clear escalation path. 

• Treat export controls as a throughput discipline and compliance obligation. Standardize end-use and end-user evidence packages, align downstream attestations with distributor obligations, and monitor licensing cycle time and rework rates as operational metrics. Where third-country routing or distributor models are central to go-to-market strategy, stress-test them against diversion and re-export liability expectations. 

• Finally, plan explicitly for trade remedy cost shocks. Identify products where a duty or cash-deposit change would have immediate margin and pricing implications, update contracting language to address duty-driven repricing, and prioritize alternate qualification in categories where switching lead times are longest. 

As a management exercise, run one integrated scenario that assumes simultaneous pressure across these layersand forces clear choices on service levels, working capital, and margin. The goal is not precision forecasting; it is clarity on where the organization is most sensitive and which decisions require executive authorization. 

What would change our call

We assess the current environment as one of elevated and compounding friction rather than an inevitable move to sustained, systemwide disruption. Our assessment would shift materially if we observe a clear step-change in any of the mechanisms that most directly constrain throughput. 

Repeated interdictions or detentions in the same corridor would be a meaningful signal that enforcement activity is becoming routine rather than exceptional, with higher likelihood of delay and service denial for adjacent traffic.  

We would take a more acute view if service-provider restrictions broaden beyond a small set of high-risk vessels or counterparties, particularly if insurers, ports, classification societies, or banks begin applying tighter exclusions or enhanced documentation standards across wider networks. 

A measurable deterioration in licensing throughput would also change our call. Specifically, longer review cycles, higher rates of documentary rework, or more aggressive application of diversion and third-country transfer liability would indicate that export controls are being operationalized as a volume constraint, not simply a compliance requirement.  

We would reassess if trade remedy activity expands across parallel upstream categories, creating faster and more widespread duty and customs friction than organizations can offset through pricing and sourcing adjustments. 

Finally, our view would become more concerned if chokepoint pressures begin to stack across two or more corridors at the same time, reducing rerouting flexibility and forcing a sustained increase in buffers and working capital. In that scenario, the risk shifts from localized disruption to a broader deterioration in schedule reliability and cost structure. 

Bottom line

The defining feature of this early 2026 environment is not a single incident or announcement but the accumulation of constraints that tighten at the same time: maritime enforcement and corridor scrutiny, export-control administration that affects licensing throughput, and targeted economic measures that add cost and clearance friction. When these pressures stack, organizations lose flexibility. The business impact shows up as reduced schedule reliability, higher working-capital requirements, and a greater likelihood of service denial across shipping, insurance, and payments. 

A board-level focus on “the next headline” can be misleading. The more useful questions are whether the operating environment is becoming more restrictive in practice; and whether the company has the governance, documentation discipline, and response playbooks to sustain throughput when frictions compound. 

---

Sources

Ali, Idrees, and Phil Stewart, “Exclusive: US seizes Venezuela-linked, Russian-flagged oil tanker after weeks-long pursuit,” Reuters (January 7, 2026). https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-seizing-venezuela-linked-oil-tanker-after-weeks-long-pursuit-2026-01-07/  

Council of the European Union, “Statement by the High Representative on behalf of the EU on the alignment of certain countries concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities” (December 15, 2025). https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2026/01/07/statement-by-the-high-representative-on-behalf-of-the-eu-on-the-alignment-of-certain-countries-concerning-restrictive-measures-in-view-of-russia-s-destabilising-activities/  

International Trade Commission, “Lightweight Thermal Paper From China; Determinations,” FR Doc. 2026-00177 (January 7, 2026). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/01/08/2026-00177/lightweight-thermal-paper-from-china-determinations  

Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China, “Ministry of Commerce Announcement No. 1 of 2026: Announcement on Strengthening Export Controls on Dual-Use Items to Japan” (January 6, 2026). https://www.mofcom.gov.cn/zwgk/zcfb/art/2026/art_8990fedae8fa462eb02cc9bae5034e91.html  

———, “The Ministry of Commerce announced in Announcement No. 2 of 2026 that it has initiated an antidumping investigation into imported dichlorosilane originating from Japan” (January 7, 2026). https://www.mofcom.gov.cn/zwgk/zcfb/art/2026/art_a7609f764b354909892ae21c0d301cb7.html  

UK Export Control Joint Unit and Department for Business and Trade, “Training on export control compliance” (updated January 7, 2026). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/export-control-training-bulletin  

UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, HM Revenue & Customs, National Crime Agency, Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation and Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation, “Sanctions enforcement action” (updated January 6, 2026). https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/sanctions-enforcement-action  

UK Ministry of Defence and The Rt Hon John Healey MP, “Defence Secretary statement on US interception of BELLA 1 and Coalition of the Willing meeting” (January 7, 2026). https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/defence-secretary-statement-on-us-interception-of-bella-1-and-coalition-of-the-willing-meeting   

US Bureau of Industry and Security, “Federal Register Notices” (refreshed January 12, 2026). https://www.bis.gov/regulations/federal-register-notices  

US Office of Foreign Assets Control, “Issuance of Amended Russia-related General License; Publication of Amended Russia-related Frequently Asked Questions” (January 6, 2026). https://ofac.treasury.gov/recent-actions/20260106  

———, “Russia-related Designation Update and Designation Removal” (January 8, 2026). https://ofac.treasury.gov/recent-actions/20260108  

US Southern Command, “UTD/CTD for MAP/CAP 112-24(I), Miscellaneous Corrections” (December 26, 2024). https://www.southcom.mil/MEDIA/NEWS-ARTICLES/Article/4016762/southcom-interdicts-venezuela-linked-sanctions-evasion/  

———, “Maritime Interdiction Operation” (January 7, 2026). https://www.southcom.mil/News/PressReleases/Article/4372191/maritime-interdiction-operation-jan-7-2026/  

Watson, Eleanor, and James LaPorta, “U.S. military seizes 2 Venezuela-linked oil tankers in North Atlantic and Caribbean, officials say,” CBS News (January 7, 2026). https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-operation-seize-venezuela-linked-oil-tanker-marinera/