GEORGE Orwell once observed that too many people play with fire without even knowing that fire is hot. More than 80 years after he wrote those words, the Houthis took up his aphorism with full-on abandon.

Two weeks to the day since the damn fools deliberately set fire to Sounion (IMO: 9312145), the stricken suezmax and its cargo of 150,000 tonnes of crude oil continues to burn off the coast of Yemen.

Salvors have been engaged and tugs are in attendance. But as of last report, unspecified “technical issues” were holding them back from starting their task.

Let us hope that these are mere glitches. Where there are technical issues, there is generally a technical fix.

Only limited pollution has ensued to date and the chance of a major spill appears to be receding. Touch wood, but it looks as if shipping, surely the world’s ultimate Houdini industry, has got away with it again.

This has already been a less-than-great year for our reputation with the wider public. The boxship-induced collapse of the bridge over Baltimore harbour in March has seen to that.

If Sounion had resulted in Exxon Valdez on steroids, with nobody putting their hands up for responsibility to meet the clean-up bill, the media furore would have exceeded anything witnessed in decades.

For their pains, the insurgents can expect further rounds of the US and UK bombardments, which have been occurring since last January.

Operation Poseidon Archer will have cost hundreds of millions of dollars over the past eight months and will have claimed innocent lives by way of collateral damage.

But it has clearly done little to quell Houthi capacity to launch drone and missile strikes against merchant shipping. The rationality of continuing this initiative must be open to debate.

Marine insurers come out of all this (almost) smelling of roses. London-based Brit, which had a 100% line on the  Sounion’s hull war risk, has done its duty and arranged the salvage.

The niche as a whole has already taken a number of losses to date, including True Confidence (IMO: 9460784), Tutor (IMO: 9942627) and Rubymar (IMO: 9138898).

But insurers don’t act from altruism, or because they rank among life’s natural good guys, or from the sheer love of lending a helping hand.

Back-of-an-envelope calculations suggest underwriters have raked in a nine-figure US dollar windfall in unexpected breach premiums since the Houthi onslaught started last November.

Where there is a valid claim, they must of course live up to their side of the bargain.

But the pricing has been such as to ensure that the hostilities are strongly revenue-positive.

It is also the case that vessels with perceived ties to the UK, US or Israel have had to pay more for cover.

Matters have now reached the point where insurance for such ships may not be available at all, at least not at rates economically viable for operators.

No opprobrium should arise from any of these considerations. Marine insurance is unapologetically a for-profit business and has the primary purpose of facilitating trade. This it has achieved admirably.

The more pertinent real question is, how much trade should marine insurers facilitate? That in turn depends on the readiness of owners to keep accepting Red Sea fixtures.

As we have argued previously, Red Sea transits now come at a risk to crews’ lives, and a quick buck is no reason to put them in harm’s way unnecessarily.

As lawyers have made clear this week, owners do have the right to refuse orders and masters do have the right to deviate.

The seriousness of the situation post-Sounion does very clearly top the “reasonable judgement of danger” threshold laid down in the relevant BIMCO charterparty clauses.

There may be extraordinary circumstances in which Red Sea transits remain justified. It’s just difficult to think of what might constitute them right now.

We conclude by wishing the best of luck to the brave crews of the salvage tugs at the scene of the Sounion casualty. Whatever snags are encountered, may they be speedily resolved, so that the professionals can set to work.

To do what the Houthis did — despite the obvious possibility of environmental devastation adding to the woes of a country already on the cusp of famine — suggests at best an inability to think straight. At worst, it points to monumental stupidity.

Culpability certainly does not lie with the owners, their insurers, the salvors or the oil industry-funded clean-up scheme that would automatically have stepped in in normal circumstances.

Moral blame for this entire episode instead attaches solely to those with causal responsibility. Orwell would have had words for them.