US hits three Iranian oil tankers after saying its warships were targeted
Developing story first seen 3 hours ago
The US military says it struck three Iran-linked oil tankers on Saturday, hours after Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) fired ballistic missiles at a US aircraft carrier and a guided-missile destroyer in the region. US Central Command (Centcom) said both warships evaded the attacks with no American casualties, and it retaliated by hitting Iran's tanker fleet, marking a sharp escalation nearly a week after hostilities resumed following a period of relative calm and days after the two nations' 60-day ceasefire formally expired.
Centcom said it "permanently disabled" tankers near Kharg Island and the Strait of Hormuz and "completely destroyed" a third in the Gulf of Oman, describing them as part of a shadow network funding the IRGC; Iranian state media confirmed a tanker was struck off Kharg Island but Tehran did not acknowledge the attacks on US ships. Centcom commander Admiral Brad Cooper warned that hitting US vessels would bring "an even higher economic cost", vowing to "destroy Iran's limited and exposed oil fleet" if necessary. The exchange follows a week in which the US said it was investigating Iranian claims that American strikes killed four people, including two children, at a wedding in Sirik, which Tehran called a "war crime", and comes as President Trump faces domestic pressure over the war's cost to consumers ahead of November's midterms.
- US destroyed or disabled three Iranian tankers after missiles targeted its warships
- Both US warships evaded IRGC attacks; no American casualties reported
- Escalation follows expired ceasefire and deadly wedding strike controversy
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.
Full account
The United States has struck three oil tankers linked to Iran after accusing Tehran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) of firing ballistic missiles at two American warships in the Gulf region. US Central Command (Centcom) said the exchange took place on Saturday, when an aircraft carrier and a guided-missile destroyer came under repeated attack while patrolling regional waters but evaded every missile fired at them, with no American personnel hurt.
In retaliation, Centcom said it had "permanently disabled" one tanker close to Kharg Island and a second in the vicinity of the Strait of Hormuz, while a third vessel, unladen at the time, was "completely destroyed" in the Gulf of Oman after being struck until its crew abandoned ship. Centcom's commander, Admiral Brad Cooper, framed the response as a deliberate message to the IRGC, warning that any attack on US ships would be met with disproportionate damage to Iran's tanker fleet, which he described as limited and exposed.
Iranian state media confirmed that one of its oil tankers had come under fire near Kharg Island, the terminal through which the bulk of Iran's crude exports pass, though accounts of the strike's scale varied. The clash extends a conflict that has run intermittently for roughly six months, since the US and Israel launched extensive strikes on Iran on 28 February. Iran responded at the time by attacking Israel, American bases and Gulf allies, and by effectively shutting the Strait of Hormuz to shipping. The latest exchange came after roughly a month of comparative quiet was broken by renewed hostilities in the preceding week.
The strikes followed remarks by President Trump only a day earlier in which he sought to play down the severity of the confrontation, even as talks between the two sides have stalled and both have continued to pursue military and economic pressure against the other. Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz remains sharply reduced, with the US military reportedly assisting vessels through the waterway as Iran seeks to assert control and continues to target some ships passing through it.
Where outlets differ
One outlet gives only a general location for the second disabled tanker ("near the Strait of Hormuz"), while the other specifies it was near Jask and names the destroyed vessel as the M/T Kylo, noting it was unladen and that its crew was ordered to abandon ship.
One report describes Iranian state media coverage only in general terms, whereas the other cites a more specific Iranian TV claim that four US missiles struck the tanker roughly six miles from Kharg Island.
Only one account mentions President Trump's prior description of the conflict as "small potatoes", the collapse of negotiations, and details about reduced Strait of Hormuz traffic and US assistance guiding ships through it — context absent from the other report, which instead emphasises the timeline of renewed attacks after a month of calm.
More coverage