ConflictClarifier

Rastreador de la Crisis Irán-Golfo 2026
CC
Events Archive
strikeApr 14, 2026

After all the talk, is Trump’s blockade of Iranian ports actually doing anything?

Summary

After all the tough talk, is Trump’s blockade in the Strait of Hormuz actually doing anything? Experts said the blockade was ‘more akin to a traffic enforcement operation in the middle of a war zone’ and that Iran has moved vast quantities of its oil offshore After high-stakes peace talks in Islamabad collapsed over the weekend, the future of a fragile ceasefire between the US and Iran now appears to rest on a 100-mile waterway between the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea. The United States imposed a blockade on Iranian ports and coastal areas east of the Strait of Hormuz, which came into effect at 3pm BST on Monday. America’s Central Command warned that vessels will be subject to “interception, diversion and capture” regardless of their flag. More than 15 US warships are in place to support the operation, a senior official told the Wall Street Journal. President Donald Trump threatened that ships sailing from Iranian ports would be subject to “the same system of kill that we use against the drug dealers on boats at Sea”, referring to the administration’s controversial attacks on boats off the coast of Venezuela. Oil prices surged in response to the threats but the US military insisted that the action would “not impede” movement of ships through the Strait of Hormuz. But despite the rhetoric, a US- sanctioned Chinese tanker, the Rich Starry, appeared to sail straight through the Strait on Tuesday in apparent defiance of Trump’s blockade. What does Trump’s blockade involve? In practice Trump’s blockade will impact vessels departing from Iran’s ports and coastline, regardless of their country of origin. The US has explicitly said it will not target vessels that aren’t linked to Iran or its ports, but those that are will be intercepted, diverted or captured. However, the US leader has also ordered the Navy to hunt down vessels that have paid Iran a transit toll, which includes Chinese tankers and Indian bulk carriers that are not parties to the conflict, according to Professor Barry Appleton, co-director for for international law at New York Law School. “You have a narrow, mine-threatened strait, active hostilities, and now the US Navy is being asked to police every vessel entering or leaving Iranian ports,” he told The Independent. “That's not a blockade. It is more akin to a traffic enforcement operation in the middle of a war zone.” Has the blockade been working? According to marine traffic data analysed by Kpler, five liquid tankers have transited the Strait of Hormuz since the blockade was in place. For all categories—liquids, LNG, LPG, and dry bulk—a total of eight vessels crossed between 13 and 14 April. “The objective is to constrain Iran’s ability to export crude and condensate, which could eventually lead to production shut-ins.” senior crude analyst,” Johannes Rauball, told The Independent. But Tehran appears to have moved its oil offshore in anticipation of the restrictions and the volumes of its oil in transit also remains elevated, according to Kpler. This week, floating storage of Iranian crude - a method of producing and storing oil and gas on open waters away from land or ports - rose to 42 Mbbls (or 42 million barrels) up from 38 million on Sunday 12 April. Floating storage is defined as crude-carrying tankers that have remained idle and reduced their speed for at least seven days, essentially "waiting for instructions" on water. Because Iranian oil supply is exceeding demand, some tankers have been unable to discharge their load and find buyers. “While any reduction in Iranian exports would primarily impact China, which absorbs the vast majority of these flows, overall availability of Iranian crude is expected to remain ample,” explains Rauball. “We are observing significant concentrations of floating storage near China, including roughly 15 Mbbls in the Yellow Sea and around 7 Mbbls in the South China Sea.” Rauball suggests that this could mean up to 120 days of availability of Iranian crude for China, meaning Iran is unlikely to be impacted by the blockade anytime in the near future due to “substantial volumes already on the water”. “In total, Iranian crude on water—including both floating storage and cargoes in transit—stands at approximately 190 Mbbls,” explains Rauball. “With China typically importing around 1.5 Mbd of Iranian crude, this implies roughly 120 days of cover under current conditions. “As such, even if Iranian crude exports decline, near-term availability is unlikely to tighten significantly, given the substantial volumes already on water.” Furthermore, Iran’s shadow fleet of tankers poses a further challenge to the US navy, shipping experts have warned in comments to the Wall Street Journal, allowing vessels linked to ports to transit undetected using sophisticated methods. According to Lloyd’s List, a falsely-flagged US-sanctioned tanker linked to China exited the Strait early on Tuesday. Chatham House analyst Neil Quilliam says it it “too early to tell” whether Trump’s blockade had been effective. “It certainly complicates the movement of vessels that Iran permits to pass through Hormuz. The passage of the Chinese tanker shows that some ship owners and their crews have a high risk tolerance and are willing to test the US - making it a test of who blinks first. It is a high stakes game.” Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs) - that can loiter underwater for up to 96 hours - can also pose a threat to billion-dollar US naval assets, according to political analyst Safi Ghauri. After nearly half a century of sanctions, further structural pressure may not hit Iran as hard as other nations, according to Ashok Kumar, associate professor of political economy at Birkbeck, University of London. “Trump’s plan to ‘blockade the blockade’ is strategically incoherent,” he says. “It’s a gesture of desperation, not strength. Iran has already moved vast quantities of oil offshore, so much of its supply simply sits beyond the reach of any naval cordon.” Could the blockade force a confrontation? Prof Kumar says that the strategy “escalates a confrontation in one of the world’s most fragile chokepoints, where the US and global economy are far more exposed than Iran itself”. Iran has threatened to attack US partners in the Gulf if what it calls “piracy” continues. “It seems to be a tit-for-tat move by the US,” explains Quilliam. “At best, if it remains benign, then it will prevent Iran from exporting its crude, but will lead to an increase in the price of oil. In this scenario, the US aims to increase Iran’s economic pain and bring it back to the negotiating table. This move alone will not persuade the regime to reopen talks, as it has resisted sanctions for over 20 years. “At worst, Iran will challenge the blockade, leading to renewed military confrontation and include new Iranian strikes against energy infrastructure in the Gulf states, notably Saudi Arabia and export facilities in Yanbu on the Red Sea. This will lead to an even bigger hike in oil prices.” Join our commenting forum Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their repliesComments

Actors involved

USIranChina

Sources

  • Maira ButtBy Maira Butt

    After all the tough talk, is Trump’s blockade in the Strait of Hormuz actually doing anything? Experts said the blockade was ‘more akin to a traffic enforcement operation in the middle of a war zone’ and that Iran has moved vast quantities of its oil offshore After high-stakes pe

See this event through different lenses

Compare how Western, Iranian, Israeli, Global South, and Pro-Peace perspectives frame this event.

Compare Perspectives

Community Notes

Community Notes

Loading notes...

Related events

strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranUN
1 source

The US and its allies Britain, France and Germany are pushing other countries on the UN nuclear watchdog's board to pass a resolution next week reporting Iran to the UN Security Council for the first time in 20 years, diplomats said on Friday. If passed, the resolution would follow up on one adopted on June 12 of last year declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for not fully cooperating with an investigation into uranium traces found at undeclared sites.

The US launched an air war against Tehran on February 28 in which, together with Israel, it destroyed or badly damaged Iran's uranium-enrichment facilities. Iran has not let International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors return to the bombed sites since then or verify what remains of its stocks of enriched uranium, some of which was enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.

Resolution would be culmination of standoff over IAEA's access to nuclear sites A resolution by the IAEA's 35-nation board reporting Iran to the Security Council would also be the culmination of a standoff over IAEA access to those sites, since the board has passed two resolutions in the past year demanding Iran declare its enriched uranium stocks and grant the IAEA full access to verify them.

A draft text for the resolution has yet to be formally submitted to the board and negotiations between countries over the exact wording are ongoing, diplomats said. A draft is usually formally submitted early in the week of a board meeting. As a party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology, including enrichment, for peaceful purposes.

Iran says it would never produce nuclear weapons. It is, however, the only country to enrich to 60% without making a bomb. The amount it has enriched to that level is "a matter of serious concern" to the IAEA. The IAEA believes well over 200 kg of that highly enriched uranium has survived the bombardments and is held in a tunnel complex at Isfahan and at the Natanz facility.

Location: Jerusalem
strikeUnverifiedUSIranChina
1 source

The U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions on the Turkish bank Golden Global Yatirim Bankasi Anonim Sirketi, alleging it facilitated the transfer of Iranian oil revenues into cash and gold. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated these measures are part of "Operation Economic Outcast," an initiative launched following more than six months of conflict to pressure Iran.

Location: Iran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranEURussiaChinaUkraineHamas
1 source

Rabobank reported that geopolitical developments, including Russian statements regarding potential peace talks in Ukraine and US-Iran hostilities, continue to dominate market sentiment, though analysts noted these claims remain unverified. The bank also cited unconfirmed reports that South Korea may deploy forces to the Strait of Hormuz and that Israel has stated regime change in Tehran is a primary objective, while noting that Ukrainian media reports of an impending northern Russian offensive lack independent verification.

Location: Tehran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranRussiaUkraine
1 source

The White House is now apparently using Russian tactics to convince the American public that the war in Iran is not, in fact, a war. When asked by reporters at the White House on Thursday whether the most intense sustained air campaign by American forces since the invasion of Iraq would be over by the midterms, Vice President JD Vance replied: “I wouldn’t call it a war.

” Vladimir Putin said much the same thing when he invaded Ukraine. Russia was not fighting a war either, the Kremlin insisted; it was merely conducting a “special military operation.” If that comparison strikes you as shocking, consider the contours of the two conflicts.

A vastly more powerful military launched a punishing offensive against a smaller, less well-equipped adversary, inflicted enormous damage without achieving a decisive resolution, and then found itself drawn into a longer, grinding conflict with no clear way out.

The motivations behind the wars may be different, and they’re playing out in different theaters, but the pattern is eerily similar. Now, so too is the attempt by those in power to control how the public understands, and even what it is allowed to call, the obvious war unfolding in front of them.

If This Isn’t a War, What Is? Let us take a moment to assess what exactly has happened since February 28, when the U.S. launched Operation Epic Fury. The opening U.S.-Israeli attack killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, along with the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the defense minister and various other senior officials.

According to the U.S. military’s own accounting, the first 38 days of major combat operations involved more than 10,200 sorties and 13,500 strikes. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) says those attacks damaged or destroyed more than 85 percent of Iran’s ballistic missile, drone and naval defense industrial base, while knocking out 82 percent of its air-defense missile systems.

The U.S. sent carrier strike groups and warships into the region, later imposing a military blockade on Iranian ports. Meanwhile, American and allied air defenses intercepted more than 6,000 Iranian attack drones and 1,500 ballistic missiles fired at U.

S. forces, Israel and American partners across the Middle East. More than 50,000 U.S. service members remain deployed across the region. The fighting has killed 18 U.S. service members and at least 8,000 people across Iran, Lebanon, Israel and the Gulf states.

More than 750 U.S. service members have been wounded. Last month, during a lull in the fighting, the U.S. Treasury unveiled a sanctions package likened to an “economic D-day” that is designed to make Iran an “economic outcast” and cut the adversary off from all available forms of economic support.

In the announcement, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent openly declared that Iran had been “at war against America” for 47 years. This week, the shooting resumed; the U.S. hit targets in and around the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran blasted missiles at targets in Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan and Iraq.

All this from an administration that almost exactly a year ago launched a rapid rebrand of the Defense Department into the “Department of War”. No boots on the ground, though, so it’s not a war, right? Tell It Kind of Like It Is Even the very best snake-oil salesman would have a hard time convincing people that the war in Iran isn’t a war.

So why is JD Vance even trying? Well, if there’s one thing politicians understand better than anyone, it’s the importance of language and rhetoric. Words have immense power; a well-written speech can unite millions of people, and a catchy slogan like Make America Great Again can come to represent an entire political philosophy.

But war is a pesky word. For one, it implies there will eventually be a winner and a loser. It also brings with it certain expectations—and some very difficult questions. What is the objective? How many people will die? When will it end? And, perhaps most dangerously of all: was it worth it?

Those are not questions the White House wants Americans to be asking. Trump built a substantial part of his political identity around ending, rather than beginning, America’s “endless wars.” When Washington and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding in June, the White House presented it as proof that Trump’s America First approach could deliver peace without another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict.

Then the hostilities started again. Earlier this week, Trump shared a Truth Social graphic declaring that “Hormuz Oil Volumes are BACK!”, saying 18 million barrels a day were once again leaving the Strait, compared with 20 million before the war. No independent commodity tracking company or energy analyst appeared to verify Trump’s claims.

But most Americans won’t be checking tanker-tracking dashboards. What they’ll care about is the cold, hard fact that diesel hit a new record price this morning, soaring to an average of $5.85 a gallon for the first time ever. Gasoline is $4.15 a gallon on average, compared with $3.

20 at this time last year, according to AAA. The numbers on the sign at the gas station and the price on the grocery receipt aren’t affected by Trump’s tall tales, but they’ll surely affect how Americans vote at the midterms. When viewed in this light, Vance’s attempt to discourage reporters from “call[ing] it a war” begins to make sense.

A war is something that we want to end. It tends to result in a winner and a loser. And its worth is up for debate at all times. A different kind of engagement that doesn’t quite meet the threshold of war—say, a special military operation—is not exposed to the same kind of scrutiny.

Vance effectively made that case himself. “When you ask, ‘When will this end?’ You’re asking me a question like, ‘When will the Iranians stop shooting at ships?’” he said. By that logic, there is no American war—only recurring Iranian provocations that require American military responses.

That’s exactly the logic applied by Putin to Ukraine and supposed expansion of NATO. Putting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube U.S. lawmakers have repeatedly invoked the War Powers Resolution to challenge Trump’s authority to keep fighting Iran without specific congressional authorization.

The law generally gives a president 60 days after U.S. forces enter “hostilities” to secure congressional approval or bring those hostilities to an end. That makes the pauses in fighting hugely important. When the original 60-day deadline arrived in May, Trump told Congress that the temporary ceasefire reached in April meant the hostilities that began on February 28 had ended.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued that the War Powers clock could “pause, or stop” when the shooting did. That position is disputed by legal experts, but its political utility is obvious. If every new outbreak of fighting can be treated as a separate skirmish, rather than part of one continuous war, the administration can argue that a fresh 60-day clock starts each time.

Vance’s insistence that there is no continuing “war” fits neatly for an administration that has already tried to divide six months of conflict into separate periods of hostilities, interrupted by ceasefires and pauses. This brings us back to Moscow.

The Kremlin’s own linguistic trick was also about making one sprawling war sound smaller, more limited and more manageable than it really was. From the very beginning of the invasion, Putin described the war as a special military operation. Only after two years of grinding warfare did Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov openly declare Russia to be in a “state of war”—and even then, he said the transformation had occurred because the “collective West” had joined the fight against Russia.

Vance is playing a similar game, but in reverse. Only now—with soaring fuel prices, mounting casualties, concerns over the military’s munitions stockpiles, and midterm elections on the horizon—is the conflict no longer a war. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle, though, and the American people aren’t stupid.

Vance and the White House may discover in November that voters are perfectly capable of recognizing a war, even when the vice president doesn’t want to call it one.

Location: Iran