US hits three Iranian oil tankers after saying its warships were targeted

← Back to the feed

US hits three Iranian oil tankers after saying its warships were targeted

Developed over time first seen 1 day ago

BBC World · 1 day ago

The US and Iran traded further blows at sea, escalating their six-month conflict after a week of renewed fighting following a month of relative calm. The US military said it "permanently disabled" two Iran-linked oil tankers and "completely destroyed" a third, while US Central Command said it acted after Iranian forces fired on an American aircraft carrier and guided-missile destroyer, both of which evaded the attacks unharmed with no US casualties. Iran retaliated by striking six vessels in total, according to state media, prompting Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth to warn that further Iranian attacks on US ships would be met with more tanker strikes.

Iranian outlet Irib reported no casualties from the US strike near Kharg Island, the terminal handling roughly 90% of Iran's crude exports, where onboard systems reportedly extinguished the resulting fire within an hour; crews from two further tankers hit in the Gulf of Oman were evacuated by lifeboat. Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps said it hit three oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz for using an "unauthorised" route, plus three vessels described as US-affiliated. The strait, vital to global oil and gas supplies, has been effectively closed since the war began, though President Trump insisted it remained "open" and downplayed the conflict as "small potatoes". Iran had already struck US-linked targets in the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait and Jordan earlier in the week, while separate Iranian claims that a US strike killed civilians, including two children, at a wedding remain under investigation by Washington.

  • US and Iran exchanged tanker and warship strikes amid escalating six-month war
  • US disabled/destroyed three Iran-linked tankers; no casualties reported
  • Iran hit six vessels in response, including three near Strait of Hormuz

New here? Start with this

Iran and the United States are meant to be observing a ceasefire after months of confrontation, but the truce has been fraying for a week and formally expired just days ago. The two countries have clashed over Iran's nuclear programme and wider regional tensions, with the US maintaining a large naval and military presence in the Gulf, an area through which much of the world's oil passes. Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, an elite branch of its military, controls significant firepower in the region, including missiles and a fleet of vessels.

The latest flare-up matters because it involves direct military contact between the two sides rather than proxy skirmishes, raising the risk of a wider war. It also touches oil supplies: the US says the tankers it targeted were shipping Iranian crude to fund the Revolutionary Guard, while Iran depends heavily on oil exports for its economy. Any disruption in the Gulf, particularly near the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow channel used for a large share of global oil shipments, could affect energy prices worldwide.

The dispute is unfolding against a backdrop of civilian casualties and domestic politics. Iran has accused the US of killing civilians, including children, in a strike on a wedding, a claim Washington says it is investigating, while President Trump faces pressure at home over the economic cost of the conflict ahead of the November midterm elections.

Both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Supporters of the US response argue that a sovereign nation's warships being targeted with ballistic missiles constitutes an act of war that cannot go unanswered, and that striking the tanker fleet funding the IRGC is a proportionate, calibrated way to impose costs while avoiding direct casualties. They contend that allowing such attacks to pass unpunished would invite further aggression, and that hitting the economic lifeline of a paramilitary organisation, rather than population centres, reflects restraint alongside resolve. From this view, deterrence requires visible consequences, and Centcom's warning of further action is a legitimate signal meant to prevent, not provoke, wider conflict.

The case against

Critics warn that this exchange marks a dangerous escalatory spiral at a moment when de-escalation was still possible, coming just days after a ceasefire lapsed and amid unresolved, contested allegations that earlier US strikes killed civilians, including children, at a wedding. They argue that targeting oil tankers risks destabilising energy markets and drawing in other regional and global actors, with consumers already bearing rising costs. Sceptics also note the coincidence of timing with domestic political pressure ahead of the midterms, questioning whether military escalation is being weighed against diplomatic alternatives, and cautioning that each side's competing, unverified claims about who struck first make an off-ramp harder to find.

More coverage

Americas Middle East World

Read the full article at the source →