ConflictClarifier

2026伊朗-海湾危机追踪
CC
Events Archive
strikeApr 13, 2026

Marine Animals in the Strait of Hormuz Don’t Get a Ceasefire

Summary

Beneath the surface of the Strait of Hormuz and the surrounding Gulf lies a biological sanctuary. The region is home to around 7,000 dugongs and fewer than 100 Arabian humpback whales—a nonmigratory population that cannot leave these waters. The United States and Iran last week agreed to a two-week ceasefire, following weeks of escalating tensions that disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. But the ceasefire has not cleared the water. Naval mines, residual military activity, and congested shipping lanes mean the strait remains a high-risk environment—not just for vessels but also for the ecosystems beneath them. With 800 vessels currently trapped behind a monthlong maritime blockade, shipowners are preparing to move. But while headlines focus on oil and trade, a different kind of resident is struggling to navigate the Arabian Gulf. These species are extremophiles, adapted to heat and salinity levels that mirror what much of the world’s oceans may face by 2050. Scientists see them as a living blueprint for how marine ecosystems might survive climate change—if they survive this moment. Sound Is Survival Underwater explosions and military sonar don’t just scare whales, they can physically blind them, leading to stranding and death. The Arabian humpback whale, unlike its cousins in the Atlantic, does not migrate. For them, the Gulf is not a corridor but home, a permanent habitat. Olivier Adam, a researcher at Sorbonne University Abu Dhabi, says that the Gulf’s resident cetaceans—better known as marine mammals—have limited options: Either abandon their habitat or remain and endure prolonged exposure to noise. In the case of Arabian humpback whales, relocation is not realistic, as they are one of the only populations that do not migrate between feeding and breeding areas. “These baleen whales have no way to escape,” he says. The sounds they endure are more than just a nuisance. They are a physical and social barrier. Whales rely on sound for nearly every essential function: feeding, navigation, reproduction, and social interaction. When that acoustic environment is disrupted, the effects are immediate. “Their emitted sounds, which are therefore important for structuring their social groups, can be masked by underwater noise pollution from human activities at sea,” Adam says. Humpback whales communicate in low-frequency sound—meaning the same range filled by ship engines and sonar—making them especially vulnerable to disruption. Adam explains that underwater noise from maritime traffic interferes with feeding behavior and can have physiological effects on the auditory system. “The radiated underwater noise generated by maritime traffic disrupts the feeding of humpback whales.” As noise levels rise, whales reduce their diving activity—effectively entering a forced fasting period that weakens them over time. From Disruption to Damage In the narrow, 21-mile-wide funnel of the strait, military activity introduces shock waves and pressure changes that marine species are not built to withstand. Underwater explosions can be strong enough to kill fish outright and damage the auditory systems of larger marine mammals. Aaron Bartholomew, professor of biology, chemistry, and environmental sciences at the American University of Sharjah, suggests that “while whales and dolphins may temporarily move out of areas where there is significant naval sonar activity,” the intensity of modern maritime conflict poses lethal risks. Adam warns that the impact can be lasting: “These explosions can also damage the auditory system of cetaceans, which may temporarily or permanently lose their hearing.” Even when not immediately fatal, the effects can weaken animals over time and disrupt their ability to survive in already stressed conditions. Naval mines introduce similar risks even before detonation. When triggered, they generate high-pressure shock waves that can rupture internal organs in fish and damage the auditory systems of marine mammals. Bartholomew says that while some species may attempt to move away from high-activity zones, that displacement comes at a cost. “Whales and dolphins may temporarily move out of areas where there is significant naval sonar activity. Their short-term behavior in the region may be negatively affected," he says. "Overall, they will likely be fine. The most likely outcome is temporary displacement from areas with extensive sonar use.” In a confined corridor like the strait, even temporary displacement can interfere with feeding patterns and habitat use, turning short-term disruption into longer-term ecological stress. “Slow-Flush” Nature The Arabian Gulf is uniquely vulnerable, because it does not easily reset. It is what scientists describe as a “slow-flush” sea, taking between two and five years to fully exchange its waters. That means contaminants—whether from oil, fuel, or debris—can persist long after the initial event, spreading across both surface and seabed ecosystems. Bartholomew warns that even a single major spill could have far-reaching consequences: “A major oil spill in the Strait of Hormuz could contaminate beaches and severely affect turtle nesting sites, including islands such as the Sir Bu Nair.” “Oil spills can kill adult turtles and sea snakes and damage nesting habitats. They could also harm marine mammals such as the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins in Musandam waters [near the strait] and the Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins, as well as kill seabirds.” The danger is not limited to the surface. Whale sharks that migrate seasonally into the Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz, particularly between May and September, are vulnerable to floating oil because they feed near the surface. Bartholomew adds: “Although oil generally floats, storms and high waves can mix it to deeper depths, which could negatively affect coral in the strait’s region, where coral diversity is the highest in the Gulf, especially on the Iranian side.” Surface pollution can also alter animal behavior in unexpected ways. Oil slicks create shaded areas on the water’s surface, similar to fish-aggregating devices, which naturally attract small fish. This can draw other animals—including turtles, sharks, and marine birds—into contaminated zones, exposing them to toxins and increasing the risk of ingestion or coating. In shallow coastal zones, where biodiversity is concentrated, even small disruptions can cascade through the ecosystem. Recovery is often slow, if it happens at all. Loss of Light For dugongs, the threat is less visible but no less severe. These animals depend on seagrass meadows, which require sunlight to grow. Adam says that the presence of vessels introduces multiple pressures at once, from pollution to physical disruption of the seabed. One of the most immediate effects is the loss of light: “The oil slicks that remain on the surface block sunlight and prevent photosynthesis, which is essential for seagrass meadows,” he explains. In shallow waters, where marine life is most concentrated, damage to the seabed is difficult to reverse. And oil spills near the coast can potentially harm mangroves if currents push the slicks towards the shore. What appears to be temporary disruption on the surface can translate into long-term habitat loss below it. Unfolding in the Dark The most critical failure, however, may be invisible. War does not just damage ecosystems, it disrupts the ability to observe them by cutting off access to the coastline and the sea at the exact moment when monitoring is most needed. Adam says this creates a gap in understanding that can last long after the conflict itself. “Fieldwork becomes impossible," he says. “This constitutes a major obstacle to conducting medium-term scientific studies, particularly for understanding ecosystem variations over several months or years.” Even the tools designed to monitor marine life begin to fail under these conditions. Passive acoustic monitoring, which relies on detecting whale vocalizations, becomes less effective as human-generated noise fills the same frequency range. “The addition of human-generated noise, especially when continuous like that of boat engines, poses a real problem because it masks the sounds emitted by these large cetaceans,” Adam says. “This prevents the study of the acoustic features of their vocalizations and hinders the study of their communication.” The Arabian Gulf is a rare testing ground for how marine ecosystems might survive a warming planet, with species already adapted to extreme heat and low oxygen levels. “In the Arabian Gulf, the temperature gradients between January and August are even more pronounced, making this part of the ocean a prime case study for examining the resilience of marine ecosystems,” says Adam. By studying these ecosystems, scientists can better understand how marine life may adapt—or fail—under climate stress. Losing these marine residents as a consequence of war would be a global scientific loss. As vessels begin moving again through the strait under the ceasefire window, the risk doesn’t disappear; it shifts. Increased traffic through potentially mined waters, combined with sustained noise and pollution, could intensify the pressures marine life is already struggling to survive. For the Gulf’s most vulnerable species, the danger was never just the conflict itself, but what lingers after it. This story originally appeared in WIRED Middle East.

Actors involved

USIran

Sources

  • Evangeline ElsaBy Evangeline Elsa

    Beneath the surface of the Strait of Hormuz and the surrounding Gulf lies a biological sanctuary. The region is home to around 7,000 dugongs and fewer than 100 Arabian humpback whales—a nonmigratory population that cannot leave these waters. The United States and Iran last week a

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