ADVERTISEMENT
while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu framed them as a preemptive move to neutralize the “existential threat” posed by the Iranian regime.Reports from Israeli sources claimed the strikes may have killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, though Iranian state media countered that he was “safe and sound.” The attacks represent a shift from previous limited exchanges to what analysts describe as regime-change rhetoric, with Trump urging Iranians to “take over your government” and end decades of theocratic rule.
Most alarmingly, Iran’s IRGC Navy escalated by issuing urgent warnings via VHF Channel 16 to commercial vessels in the Persian Gulf. Multiple ships reported receiving explicit broadcasts declaring: “No ship is allowed to pass the Strait of Hormuz,” with messages labeling passage “not allowed,” “unsafe,” or “banned for all ships of any type.” The EU’s Operation Aspides naval mission and UK’s Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) confirmed these reports, describing them as the IRGC effectively claiming the strait closed. Iranian state-linked media, including Tasnim News Agency, stated the waterway was “practically closed” due to the “insecure atmosphere” from U.S.-Israeli aggression and Iran’s retaliatory actions.
While Tehran has not issued a formal, nationwide blockade decree—likely to avoid self-inflicted economic damage—the IRGC’s actions have already disrupted maritime traffic. Tanker tracking data from firms like Kpler and Bloomberg show vessels making U-turns, slowing, stopping, or rerouting around the strait. Major oil companies, trading houses, and LNG shippers—including some of the world’s largest—have suspended shipments through the passage. Some owners instructed fleets to avoid Hormuz entirely, while others advised proceeding with extreme caution. The U.S. Navy issued advisories that it could not guarantee commercial vessel safety in the Persian Gulf, prompting widespread hesitation.
The Strait of Hormuz is no ordinary waterway
Historically, Iran has repeatedly threatened to close the strait during crises—most notably in 2019 amid U.S. “maximum pressure” sanctions, and again in 2023-2025 amid proxy conflicts—but never fully executed a prolonged shutdown. Partial harassments, seizures of tankers, or mine-laying exercises have occurred, but a complete blockade remains unprecedented. Analysts note Iran’s asymmetric capabilities: swarms of fast-attack boats, anti-ship missiles, naval mines, submarines, and shore-based launchers could impose severe risks without needing a traditional naval dominance. However, U.S. strikes reportedly targeted Iranian naval assets in the Gulf, potentially degrading Tehran’s enforcement ability. Trump has vowed to “obliterate” Iran’s navy if needed, with U.S. Fifth Fleet forces on high alert to escort shipping or forcibly reopen the route.
The immediate market reaction underscores the gravity. Oil markets were closed Saturday (weekend), but Brent crude settled Friday at around $72 per barrel after weeks of risk premiums. Analysts anticipate sharp spikes when trading resumes Sunday evening—potentially $5-20+ per barrel initially, with Barclays forecasting a test of $100 if disruptions persist. In worst-case scenarios involving prolonged closure or attacks on Gulf oil infrastructure, prices could surge to $120-150+ per barrel, per estimates from Kpler, Rapidan Energy, and others. Even partial enforcement—say, 20-30% flow reduction via harassment—could add substantial war-risk premiums.
Such spikes would ripple far beyond energy
The broader geopolitical context is explosive. This marks the second major U.S. strike on an oil-producing nation in 2026 (following Venezuela operations), but Iran’s strategic position amplifies risks. Iran’s proxies—Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah, and others—have threatened renewed attacks on shipping and Israel. Gulf states hosting U.S. bases face direct exposure. Diplomatic channels appear frozen; nuclear talks collapsed prior to the strikes.
