ConflictClarifier

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

‘We can’t let Iran blackmail the world,’ says Trump as US blockade of Hormuz starts

Summary

‘We can’t let Iran blackmail the world,’ says Trump as US blockade of Hormuz starts Tehran says move will escalate crisis The US military began a blockade of ships leaving Iran’s ports yesterday, president Donald Trump said, and Tehran threatened to retaliate against ports of its Gulf neighbours after weekend talks on ending the war broke down. Oil prices climbed back over $100 (€85) per barrel, with no sign of a swift reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to ease the biggest ever disruption in supplies and broader concerns over the durability of a two-week ceasefire agreement reached last week. Mr Trump said Iran had been in touch yesterday and wanted to make a deal but he will not sanction any agreement that allows Tehran to have a nuclear weapon. “Iran will not have a nuclear weapon,” Mr Trump told reporters at the White House. “We can’t let a country blackmail or extort the world.” Since the war started on February 28, Iran has effectively shut the Strait of Hormuz to all vessels except its own, saying passage would be permitted only under Iranian control and subject to a fee. Mr Trump said earlier that Washington would block Iranian vessels and any ships that paid such tolls and that any Iranian “fast-attack” ships that went near the blockade would be eliminated. Brigadier General Reza Talaei-Nik, a spokesperson for Iran’s Ministry of Defence, warned that efforts by foreign military to police the strait would escalate the crisis and instability in global energy security. Nato allies, including Britain and France, said they would not be drawn into the conflict by taking part in the blockade, stressing instead the need to reopen the waterway, through which about one-fifth of the world’s oil normally passes. The ceasefire that halted six weeks of US and Israeli airstrikes looked in jeopardy, with only a week left to run. Washington said Tehran rejected its demands at weekend talks in Islamabad, the highest-level discussions since Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution. The US military’s regional Central Command said the blockade would be “enforced impartially against vessels of all nations” entering or leaving Iranian ports in the Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. “The blockade will not impede neutral transit passage through the Strait of Hormuz to or from non-Iranian destinations,” Central Command said in a note to seafarers seen by Reuters yesterday. Two Iranian-linked tankers, the Aurora and New Future, laden with oil products, left the strait yesterday before the deadline, according to LSEG data. An Iranian military spokesperson called any US restrictions on international shipping “piracy”, warning that if Iranian ports were threatened, no port in the Gulf or Gulf of Oman would be secure. Any military vessels approaching the strait would violate the ceasefire, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said. Mr Trump said that Iran’s navy had been “completely obliterated” during the war, adding that only a small number of “fast-attack ships” remained. “Warning: If any of these ships come anywhere close to our BLOCKADE, they will be immediately ELIMINATED, using the same system of kill that we use against the drug dealers on boats at Sea. It is quick and brutal,” Mr Trump wrote on social media, referring to the US strikes carried out against suspected drug boats in the Caribbean and Pacific. With the war unpopular at home and rising energy prices causing political blowback, Mr Trump paused the US-Israeli bombing campaign last week after threatening to destroy Iran’s “whole civilisation” unless it reopened the strait. Israel has continued to bombard Iran-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon and yesterday Israeli troops launched an attack to seize a key south Lebanon town from the group. Israel and the US have said the campaign against Hezbollah was not part of the ceasefire, while Iran has insisted it is. Iran has brought new demands, including recognition of its control of the waterway, lifting of sanctions and the withdrawal of forces from US military bases across the Middle East. Pakistani prime minister Shehbaz Sharif said efforts were still on to resolve the conflict after the direct talks between the US and Iran in Islamabad at the weekend. Mr Trump has declared victory, despite failing to achieve the objectives he set out at the start of the war: to eliminate Iran’s ability to strike its neighbours, end its nuclear programme and make it easier for Iranians to topple their government. Meanwhile, the International Committee of the Red Cross said it was deeply concerned by attacks on medical workers in Lebanon after a deadly strike on a Red Cross centre in the country yesterday and the death of a volunteer a day earlier. Lebanon’s state news agency reported that yesterday’s strike, which it said was carried out by Israel, killed one person and damaged Lebanese Red Cross vehicles. The ICRC said the Lebanese Red Cross centre in the district of Tyre, a city on Lebanon’s coast, was hit by the strike. It did not comment on who was responsible or give details of the victim. Israel’s military said it had carried out a strike on a “Hezbollah terrorist” in Tyre and was investigating reports the strike had caused damage to a Red Cross centre. The military did not identify the individual it said it had killed. On Sunday, the Lebanese Red Cross said one of its volunteers, Hassan Badawi, had died from his injuries after a strike by an Israeli drone in the district of Bint Jbeil in southern Lebanon. Mr Badawi had volunteered for the Lebanese Red Cross since 2012, his friend Ahmed Qassam told Reuters during his funeral yesterday. He was buried in a temporary grave in Choueifat, south of Beirut, as it was not possible to access Mr Badawi’s home village of Sultaniyah in Bint Jbeil district, due to intensive fighting there. Israeli troops yesterday launched an attack to seize the key border town in southern Lebanon. “I was waiting for a phone call from him to tell me, ‘Mother, I’m fine.’ He didn’t call me. My heart was burning,” Mr Badawi’s mother, Ahlam Badawi, said. “They (the Israeli military) attacked him directly. He was just doing humanitarian work. “He was not doing anything more,” Mr Badawi’s father, Ali Badawi, added. The Israeli military had no immediate comment on the accusation. Earlier, it had said it had struck a “Hezbollah terrorist” in the area and that it was reviewing the incident after it received reports of injury to a Red Cross team. Agnes Dhur, head of the ICRC delegation in Lebanon, said in a statement yesterday: “The loss of those who dedicate their lives to saving others is gravely concerning, given the impact on the civilians who depend on their help. “Humanitarian and medical personnel must be protected. They must be allowed to reach and help the wounded, and return unharmed,” she added.

Actors involved

USIsraelIranProxy

Sources

  • Trevor Hunnicutt; Parisa HafeziBy Trevor Hunnicutt; Parisa Hafezi

    ‘We can’t let Iran blackmail the world,’ says Trump as US blockade of Hormuz starts Tehran says move will escalate crisis The US military began a blockade of ships leaving Iran’s ports yesterday, president Donald Trump said, and Tehran threatened to retaliate against ports of its

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