suez

The Suez is sea level, so there are no locks.

Because the Suez canal wouldn't be able to handle the 5th largest ship in the world anyway.

In this scenario, would it be realistic to damn the Strait of Gibraltar and the Suez Canal?

They have also been diplomatically setting up station in Yemen [2] and Somalia [3] along the Suez Canal trade route.

The Suez Crisis indicates that you have omitted at least one circumstance that should be mentioned...

Amazingly, there's no mention of the effects the Suez canal had on the Mediterranean.

There had been previous attempts at oil embargoes, particularly in 1967[1] and 1956[2] during the Six Day War and Suez Crisis, respectively.

The biggest limitation on Panamax size is whether a ship can fit into the Canal's locks, but the Suez canal is a sea-level waterway with no locks, so the limit is a lot higher.

Also curious that the Suez canal is wider than the Panama?

Edit: It turns out I am wrong, they can actually use the Suez Canal (even the Triple E mentioned in the article).

Besides having a huge oil/gas reserve and fishes, in term of economic impact, this sea is as important as or more than Panama Canal or Suez Canal.

Bear in mind that the US had not entered the war and England's collapse seemed inevitable (and if Rommel had taken the Suez that would have been it for Britain).

Lawrence termed "winning wars without battles."14 Even the much-lauded Egyptian crossing of the Suez in 1973 at its core entailed a masterful deception plan.

The Strait of Malacca (which is close by) would be on par with the Panama Canal or Suez.

This ship seems designed to just barely squeak through the much wider Suez.

The only reason the British didn't suffer a string of horribly embarrassing loses to insurgencies is because the British just gave up after Suez.