Iranian gunboats open fire on tanker in Strait of Hormuz as Tehran reimposes restrictions

Iranian gunboats open fire on tanker in Strait of Hormuz as Tehran reimposes restrictions

the-express.com

15 minutes ago

Iranian gunboats opened fire on a tanker in the Strait of Hormuz on Saturday after Tehran reimposed restrictions on the critical waterway

Two Iranian gunboats opened fire on a tanker attempting to transit the Stair of Hormuz on Saturday, according to the British military.

The tanker and crew were reported safe following the fire from Iran’s Revolutionary Guard boats, the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations Centre said. They did not identify the vessel or its destination.

The incident comes after Iran backtracked on its decision to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, mere hours after Donald Trump announced that Tehran had "agreed to never close the Strait of Hormuz again." On Saturday, Iran reinstated restrictions on the vital shipping channel following the US declaration that it would maintain its blockade of Iran-linked vessels.

https://www.the-express.com/news/world-news/205170/iran-closes-strait-hormuz-again-us-blockade-fuels-escalating-tensions/amp

These are the Iranian gun boats Trump claimed the US had sent to the bottom of the sea?

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

These are the Iranian gun boats Trump claimed the US had sent to the bottom of the sea?

No, they're very small boats Iran still has. The US sunk all the larger navy vessels. These small boats will be sunk also if this continues, shooting at innocents trying to do a job. No one is on their side when they do this.

Posts with derogatory nicknames, intentional misspellings, or personal remarks will be removed. Spell names correctly for all sides of the debate.

Two cruise-ships (without passengers) managed to escape.

At least one was fired at without damage/casualty.

Commercial ships passing through needs a security detachment with mounted 50 cals to deal with the Iranians. Just blow them out of the water.

13 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Commercial ships passing through needs a security detachment with mounted 50 cals to deal with the Iranians. Just blow them out of the water.

I always thought the same thing, especially after watching Captain Phillips, but many ports don't allow guns when docking, and the security would have to be dropped off at stops, which wastes a lot of time. Also the worry is arms smuggling. Liability issues also, and most of those that go after the large boats are after ransom and not to hurt sailors.

3 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

Commercial ships passing through needs a security detachment with mounted 50 cals to deal with the Iranians. Just blow them out of the water.

That will definitely quiet the qualms of the insurance companies.

4 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

No, they're very small boats Iran still has. The US sunk all the larger navy vessels. These small boats will be sunk also if this continues, shooting at innocents trying to do a job. No one is on their side when they do this.

A truce is called and Trump promptly launches an act of war against them. The Iranians are fighting with what tools they've got.

1 minute ago, Alan Zweibel said:

A truce is called and Trump promptly launches an act of war against them. The Iranians are fighting with what tools they've got.

I thought it was Iran's boats firing at civilians. That's not fighting but more of the same from them.

4 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

I thought it was Iran's boats firing at civilians. That's not fighting but more of the same from them.

Firing at civilians or firing at ships? I don't know if those ships were warned or not, but from now on they certainly know.

4 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Firing at civilians or firing at ships? I don't know if those ships were warned or not, but from now on they certainly know.

Firing at tankers is firing at civilians. Iran is slowly shooting itself in the foot, and should just surrender and give in to demands. They have no chance of coming out of this besides demolished and broke, and their money is their most important asset. The whole world's watching and wanting them to change their regime. Keeping the good part and dismissing the evil.

3 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Firing at tankers is firing at civilians. Iran is slowly shooting itself in the foot, and should just surrender and give in to demands. They have no chance of coming out of this besides demolished and broke, and their money is their most important asset. The whole world's watching and wanting them to change their regime. Keeping the good part and dismissing the evil.

Really? But all the reports I've seen said that it was Trump seeking negotiations, not the Iranians. Maybe the way they see it as that they have the upper hand. They've got a weapon that is wreaking havoc on the world economy. The clock is ticking. Electoral pressure is growing on Trump. Should the US and the Israelis launch another attack the Iranians are going to take a lot of the oil and gas infrastructure of the Gulf down with them. Maybe Trump will commit electoral suicide. The Iranians are betting that he won't.

9 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Firing at tankers is firing at civilians. Iran is slowly shooting itself in the foot, and should just surrender and give in to demands. They have no chance of coming out of this besides demolished and broke, and their money is their most important asset. The whole world's watching and wanting them to change their regime. Keeping the good part and dismissing the evil.

As for firing on civilians. The iranians can carry some pretty hefty weapons on those swift boat. It sounds like the shots fired were warnings, not serious attempts at destruction.

2 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Really? But all the reports I've seen said that it was Trump seeking negotiations, not the Iranians. Maybe the way they see it as that they have the upper hand. They've got a weapon that is wreaking havoc on the world economy. The clock is ticking. Electoral pressure is growing on Trump. Should the US and the Israelis launch another attack the Iranians are going to take a lot of the oil and gas infrastructure of the Gulf down with them. Maybe Trump will commit electoral suicide. The Iranians are betting that he won't.

Which is exactly why Iran should think of their future and not suicide. If they cared for their people more, this wouldn't have happened in the first place. Iran's people deserve better.

1 minute ago, Alan Zweibel said:

As for firing on civilians. The iranians can carry some pretty hefty weapons on those swift boat. It sounds like the shots fired were warnings, not serious attempts at destruction.

Those small boats can be destroyed many different ways, from close by to miles away. They start up this crap, they'll have missiles up their keister withing minutes.

4 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Which is exactly why Iran should think of their future and not suicide. If they cared for their people more, this wouldn't have happened in the first place. Iran's people deserve better.

But is it suicidal? And aren't you ignoring something? What about the effect this war has had on people all over the world? Particularly in developing nations where a shortage of fertilizer and high priced fossil fuels can result in starvation?

I do agree that Iran's people deserve better. But what's that got to do with the strategic outcome?

1 minute ago, Alan Zweibel said:

But is it suicidal? And aren't you ignoring something? What about the effect this war has had on people all over the world? Particularly in developing nations where a shortage of fertilizer and high priced fossil fuels can result in starvation?

I do agree that Iran's people deserve better. But what's that got to do with the strategic outcome?

If prices go up for everyone for awhile and Iran's people have a democracy, or at least not killed if they speak, wouldn't it be worth it?

6 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Those small boats can be destroyed many different ways, from close by to miles away. They start up this crap, they'll have missiles up their keister withing minutes.

You sure about that? Why hasn't the US taken them out already

Why Iran’s ‘Mosquito Fleet’ Remains a Potent Threat in the Strait of Hormuz

Separate from the regular Iranian Navy, with boats that often go more than 115 miles per hour, it’s what a retired U.S. official calls a “disruptive force.”

https://archive.ph/J2nSJ#selection-4497.0-4501.156

36 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

That will definitely quiet the qualms of the insurance companies.

When the Iranians stop attacking then yes it will.

2 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

If prices go up for everyone for awhile and Iran's people have a democracy, or at least not killed if they speak, wouldn't it be worth it?

Will you be facing starvation in this scenario? And even if dying for the people of Iran is worth it to you, do you think most people on the planet would agree with that sentiment?

2 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

When the Iranians stop attacking then yes it will.

Or when the American forces go away.

2 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

You sure about that? Why hasn't the US taken them out already

Why Iran’s ‘Mosquito Fleet’ Remains a Potent Threat in the Strait of Hormuz

Separate from the regular Iranian Navy, with boats that often go more than 115 miles per hour, it’s what a retired U.S. official calls a “disruptive force.”

https://archive.ph/J2nSJ#selection-4497.0-4501.156

2 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

They don't need to destroy everything to get them to negotiate. It's ego and stupidity, much like japan did towards the end of the war. There comes a time when you have to think about what's best for your country, or be replaced.

2 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Will you be facing starvation in this scenario? And even if dying for the people of Iran is worth it to you, do you think most people on the planet would agree with that sentiment?

Losing a little money isn't dying, but Iranians have surely been slaughtered for nonsense.

2 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

They don't need to destroy everything to get them to negotiate. It's ego and stupidity, much like japan did towards the end of the war. There comes a time when you have to think about what's best for your country, or be replaced.

Well, not long ago they thought that decapitating the regime would do the trick? How did that pan out? And the clock keeps on ticking. And the longer it keeps on ticking the greater the damage grows. And the closer it gets to the midterm elections in America.

2 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Losing a little money isn't dying, but Iranians have surely been slaughtered for nonsense.

I referenced starvation.

Must be small calibre to shoot up a tanker ,sounds ridiculous!!

1 hour ago, Alan Zweibel said:

The Iranians are fighting with what tools they've got.

The same tools that Trump claims to have destroyed!

10 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

The same tools that Trump claims to have destroyed!

Like lots of members of aseannow.com, he doesn't understand asymmetrical warfare.

Iran doesn’t need a navy to choke the world’s oil lifeline — just a swarm of ‘mosquito’ boats

ISLAMABAD — While President Trump said the US has “defeated the Iranian navy,” pointing to waves of strikes that wiped out warships, submarines and key military sites since late February, Tehran was still able to force closed the Strait of Hormuz.

That’s because in the narrow, oil-choked waters of the Strait of Hormuz, the war was never really about big ships...

Iran’s so-called “mosquito fleet” — thousands of small, fast-attack boats paired with drones and coastal missiles — is proving it can still rattle global oil markets even after US strikes hammered much of Tehran’s military infrastructure, according to defense analysts and US officials.

https://nypost.com/2026/04/18/world-news/iran-doesnt-need-a-navy-to-choke-the-worlds-oil-lifeline-just-a-swarm-of-mosquito-boats/

But is it suicidal? And aren't you ignoring something? What about the effect this war has had on people all over the world? Particularly in developing nations where a shortage of fertilizer and high priced fossil fuels can result in starvation?

4 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

I do agree that Iran's people deserve better. But what's that got to do with the strategic outcome?

You’re looking at this way too short-term. Are you actually comfortable with Iran having the leverage to pressure or even monetise traffic through the Strait of Hormuz once it’s effectively untouchable?

They’ve been hinting at controlling that route for decades. So what’s the endgame here? Because doing nothing isn’t neutral - it leads to a nuclear-capable Iran and likely a wider regional arms race.

And it’s not just oil or fertiliser - that strait is a critical artery for global trade. If it’s disrupted, everyone feels it.

This situation should’ve been dealt with years ago. Now we’re just dealing with the consequences.

That’s a very simplified and dumbed-down bit of commentary - too many separately running threads. Here’s a copy and paste from another thread I just commented in about the same issue.

Quote: Me from another thread:

[This will be TLDR for some - because one-liners are easier - but this isn’t a simple conflict. Every move is messy, nuanced, unclean. You can’t form a serious opinion on something this strategic from a soundbite - that’s what the media peddles. Surely we’re better than that]

I actually agree with part of what you’re saying - the US blockade isn’t “clean”. And yes, technically it is an act of war. But you can’t just stop there and pretend Iran was honouring some neat little “truce”, because that’s just not what was happening.

A truce means free passage. Proper free passage. Ships moving through an international strait without being quietly pushed into Iran-vetted / controlled corridors near Qeshm and Larak, right up against their coastline, under IRGC oversight. You don’t announce “free shipping” to the world and then in practice funnel traffic into routes you control, where approval, “coordination” and potential inspections still apply - and where there have even been reports of payments being made to secure passage.

That’s not a truce - that’s saying one thing publicly and doing another behind the scenes. It’s not free shipping, it’s not a truce - it’s leverage. Iran were clearly being duplicitous here, and some people have just lapped that up because it fits their political allegiances in the US.

To back that up: there are multiple reports over the last few weeks that ships were being routed through narrow corridors near islands like Qeshm and Larak, where they can be monitored and, if needed, boarded.

There’s also been reporting of vessels needing IRGC approval to pass, and at least one reported case of a ship paying around $2 million to get through. Whether that’s happening to every single vessel or not almost doesn’t matter - the principle is the problem. You cannot have a major international shipping lane turned into a permission-based or pay-to-pass system.

And this isn’t some minor waterway. The Strait of Hormuz carries roughly 20% of the world’s (better quality) oil supply - around 20 million barrels a day - and about 20% of global LNG. But it doesn’t stop there. A huge chunk of global petrochemicals move through it as well (plastics, industrial feedstocks), along with refined fuels like diesel and jet fuel, and critical bulk commodities linked to Gulf exports.

And here’s where people massively underestimate it - fertiliser. The Gulf is a major exporter of ammonia and urea (key fertiliser inputs), and those flows rely heavily on Hormuz. As we are seeing disrupt that, even for a few weeks, and you don’t just get higher prices - you get supply shocks into agriculture. That means farmers cutting usage, lower crop yields, and then food prices rising months down the line. It’s not immediate, but it’s brutal when it lands - its long term - and and power Iran simply cannot be permitted to have 'long term'.

Its the same with energy-intensive products like aluminium - the Gulf produces a significant share globally because of cheap energy. Restrict the strait, you hit those exports too. Then you’ve got LNG - critical for electricity generation in parts of Asia and Europe. Squeeze that, and you’re not just talking about prices - you’re talking about power security.

There’s only limited capacity to bypass Hormuz - nowhere near enough to compensate if flows are disrupted.

So if that flow gets squeezed, even partially, the knock-on effect is immediate - fuel prices, shipping costs, fertiliser, food, manufacturing, everything. It feeds into inflation globally. People talk about it like it’s abstract - it isn’t. It hits your heating bill, your groceries, your cost of living and it will for the long term if Iran gets a strangle hold.

So when people say “why is the US reacting?” - that’s why. Because if you allow one state to start controlling, pricing, or selectively restricting passage through Hormuz, you’re basically accepting that a huge chunk of global trade can be held to ransom whenever it suits them (Iran).

And let’s be honest - this didn’t just appear overnight. Iran has been threatening to close or control the strait for decades. That’s not even disputed. Ship seizures, confrontations, sanctions, proxy pressure - this has been building for years. So calling this a sudden overreaction by the US ignores a lot of history.

Now on the “international law” point - yes, that matters. And I actually agree that talk like “no quarter” and dismissing rules of engagement is reckless. That stuff doesn’t help anyone and it’s not defensible.

But at the same time, you don’t get to invoke international law only when the US responds, and ignore it when Iran is effectively turning an international strait into a controlled corridor. Transit passage through Hormuz is supposed to be continuous and unobstructed. No tolls, no selective access, no political gatekeeping. That’s the whole point of it being an international strait.

Zooming out a bit - this isn’t really about US politics which seems to blinker the opinions of many on this issue. Republican, Democrat, UK, EU, Gulf states, Asia - none of them can just sit back and accept this becoming normal. Because if it does, the next step isn’t stability - it’s escalation. Other regional powers start hedging, pushing for nuclear capability, preparing for worst-case scenarios. That’s how you end up with more proliferation, not less.

Criticise the US if you want. Fair enough - the methods are crude - but negotiations have repeadely failed and Iran cannot enrich U235 - they lied, they exceeed the agreed 3.67% U235 enriuchment - they reached 60% with > 400 kgs 60% Enruched U235 with no civilian need on the planet for that level of enrichment - weapons was the ONLY reason for this.

So - when accusing the US of breaking this truce, be consistent and call out Iran as well. Because this idea that there was a genuine “truce” with free shipping, and the US just randomly broke it… it doesn’t stack up to anyone capable of observing the true geo-political game at hand.

The “truce” was never a truce because shipping was never actually free. It was a headline. And behind it, the exact same game of poker was still being played - and it still is.

The US can’t show its full hand here - it simply can’t. China is watching everything. Capabilities, response times, thresholds. So what you’re seeing is a deliberately limited, slightly clumsy looking conflict - but that’s by design. It’s controlled, it’s restrained… for now.

But that only holds up to a point. If Iran keeps pushing - controlling routes, interfering with passage, testing limits - then eventually that restraint runs out. And when it does, the options become a lot more direct. Taking control of Qeshm, securing the strait by force, removing the capability entirely. And when that happens, the same people who’ve ignored everything leading up to it will suddenly be the loudest critics - blaming Trump, blaming Republicans, same old script.

But make no mistake - this should have been dealt with decades ago. The West has been kicking this can down the road for years. And “too late” isn’t some abstract idea - it’s a very real scenario.

Too late looks like Iran sitting on near weapons-grade uranium, crossing the threshold into full nuclear capability, while at the same time exerting control over the Strait of Hormuz. That’s not just regional influence - that’s leverage over a massive portion of global trade and energy.

And once that line is crossed, it doesn’t stop. Saudi, UAE, Turkey, others - they don’t just sit there. They push for their own nuclear capability. Treaties start to mean less. Proliferation spreads across one of the most unstable regions on the planet.

Then you’ve got the proxy layer. The Houthis already disrupting shipping routes. Now imagine that with access to more advanced weapons, even radiological material - dirty bombs, threats extending into the Gulf of Aden.

That’s not hypothetical escalation - that’s the direction if this keeps going unchecked.

And worst case? This doesn’t turn into a clean “World War III” scenario. It becomes a drawn-out, fragmented conflict across the Middle East. Infrastructure gets hit - ports, power, desalination. And people massively underestimate that last one - large parts of the region rely on desalination just to survive. You take that out, and whole areas become unliveable.

Then comes the fallout - mass displacement, evacuation, migration on a scale the world hasn’t seen. At the same time, global supply chains start to break. Fertiliser disrupted, food production drops months later, energy squeezed, prices surge everywhere. It doesn’t stay regional - it hits globally - mass famine.

And the irony? It’s not “winning”. It’s collapse. You don’t end up with control - you end up with a destabilised region and a world dealing with the consequences.

And all of it comes back to this moment - this decision point. Because if the US and the wider international community can’t turn around and say “no - you don’t get to control one of the most critical shipping lanes on earth”… then everything that follows is on that failure.

The alternative? Pretend this is all overreaction because Trump and Hegseth are not 'nice people' - and hope Iran’s 60% U235 enrichment was just a bargaining chip, hope they never intended to tighten control over Hormuz, hope their backing of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis means nothing.

Hope optimism is not a reality... if you’re wrong, even once… you don’t get a reset.