ConflictClarifier

מעקב משבר איראן-המפרץ 2026
CC
Events Archive
strikeApr 14, 2026

Beijing fury and Saudi dismay over Trump's Strait of Hormuz blockade

Summary

Trump's Strait of Hormuz blockade is 'dangerous and irresponsible', Beijing warns as Chinese tanker ignores the threat and Saudi Arabia calls on US to let ships pass A Chinese tanker has defied Donald Trump's blockade and passed through the Strait of Hormuz after Beijing accused the president of 'dangerous and irresponsible' behaviour. The US President threatened to stop 'any and all ships' from using the strait from Monday in an attempt to regain control over the shipping route after peace talks with Iran failed. He claimed Iran's navy was 'lying at the bottom of the sea' and their final 'fast attack ships' would be 'immediately eliminated' if they tried to prevent his siege. But Iranian-linked and Chinese vessels ignored Mr Trump and continued to pass through the waterway on Tuesday as Saudi Arabia urged the US to let ships pass. A US-sanctioned Chinese ship transporting Iranian crude oil transited through on Tuesday after it circled the area late on Monday. The Rich Starry, a medium-range tanker that is carrying about 250,000 barrels of oil, is owned by Shanghai Xuanrun Shipping Co Ltd. It traveled through the strait, having loaded the cargo at its last port of call, the United Arab Emirates' Hamriyah Port, according to data from Kpler and MarineTraffic. China said a US blockade around Iranian ports was 'dangerous and irresponsible', after Mr Trump threatened to sink any boats that sought to leave or dock there. The Rich Starry, a US-sanctioned Chinese ship transporting Iranian crude oil, transited the Strait of Hormuz on Tuesday Donald Trump threatened to stop 'any and all ships' from using the strait from Monday in an attempt to regain control over the shipping route after peace talks with Iran failed The Rich Starry traveled through the strait, having loaded the cargo at its last port of call, the United Arab Emirates' Hamriyah Port, according to data from Kpler and MarineTraffic 'The US increased military operations and took a targeted blockade action, which will only exacerbate tensions and undermine the already fragile ceasefire agreement and further jeopardise safety of passage through the Strait,' Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said. Two other Iranian-linked tankers entered the Gulf via the Strait of Hormuz on Tuesday, shipping data showed. Handy tanker Murlikishan is heading to Iraq to load fuel oil on April 16. The vessel, formerly known as MKA, has transported Russian and Iranian oil. Panama-flagged Peace Gulf, a medium-range tanker, is heading to Hamriyah Port in the UAE. The vessel typically moves Iranian naphtha, a petrochemical feedstock, to other non-Iranian Middle Eastern ports for export to Asia. Mr Trump ordered the US navy to blockade the strait from 3pm on Monday in a bid to regain the initiative 45 days into the war. Vessels using the strait to travel to and from non-Iranian ports will not be impeded. Iran shut down the shipping lane through which a fifth of global oil passes following joint US-Israeli strikes that caused a worldwide economic meltdown. Tehran allowed a handful of friendly ships through and charged them in an unofficial toll system. However, Mr Trump has now decided to block all vessels. Saudi Arabia is now pressing the US to drop the blockade and return to negotiations. Saudi officials fear the US closure could force Iran to escalate and disrupt other important shipping routes, the Wall Street Journal reports. There are concerns Iran could retaliate and close the Bab al-Mandeb, a Red Sea chokepoint through which around 12 per cent of oil flows daily. Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei promised Iran has 'large, untouched levers' to strike back against Trump's blockage, quipping that they cannot be pressured by 'tweets and imaginary plans.' Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf - who led negotiations with JD Vance on behalf of Iran - warned Americans that 'soon you'll be nostalgic for $4-$5 gas.' Traffic in the strait has been limited even in the days since the ceasefire. Marine trackers say over 40 commercial ships have crossed since the pause in fighting. Mr Trump claimed that the threat posed by the Iranian Navy is 'gone' from the key waterway thanks to the US military assault on Iran since February 28. However, experts have warned that though much of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' large battleships have been destroyed, the smaller boats that control the Strait are still intact. 'Effective immediately, the United States Navy, the Finest in the World, will begin the process of BLOCKADING any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz,' Trump announced via Truth Social on Sunday morning. 'Any Iranian who fires at us, or at peaceful vessels, will be BLOWN TO HELL!' he added. 'Iran knows, better than anyone, how to END this situation which has already devastated their Country. 'Their Navy is gone, their Air Force is gone, their Anti Aircraft and Radar are useless, Khamenei, and most of their “Leaders,” are dead, all because of their Nuclear ambition. The Blockade will begin shortly.' It comes amid a tenuous two-week ceasefire deal Trump struck with Tehran, which agreed to stop fighting in exchange for the opening of the strait. Iran warned by marine radio that any unauthorized ships trying to cross the strait in the meantime would be destroyed. China said a US blockade around Iranian ports was 'dangerous and irresponsible', after Mr Trump threatened to sink any boats that sought to leave or dock there. (Pictured: Chinese President Xi Jinping) Only four ships passed on day one, and Iran plans to limit traffic to about a dozen daily, down from more than 100. Tehran has also warned of possible antiship mines, urging vessels to follow new coastal routes with Revolutionary Guard guidance. Mr Trump insisted on Monday that Iran wanted to make a deal 'very badly' as his blockade of the Islamic regime's own oil blockade came into force. The US President claimed the only sticking point between the warring nations was 'over nuclear', claiming Iran wanted an atomic bomb so it could 'exterminate the world'. But he suggested once more that a deal was close, even though peace talks in Pakistan broke down in less than 24 hours on Sunday and despite fears that the ceasefire could end at 'any moment'. No comments have so far been submitted. Why not be the first to send us your thoughts, or debate this issue live on our message boards.

Actors involved

USIsraelIranRussiaChina

Sources

  • Adam PogrundBy Adam Pogrund

    Trump's Strait of Hormuz blockade is 'dangerous and irresponsible', Beijing warns as Chinese tanker ignores the threat and Saudi Arabia calls on US to let ships pass A Chinese tanker has defied Donald Trump's blockade and passed through the Strait of Hormuz after Beijing accused

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