Iran Claims More Ships Struck Near Hormuz as Trump Accuses Tehran of ‘Faking Hits’

Iran claimed seven commercial vessels were struck overnight in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz. Four were allegedly conducting ship-to-ship oil transfers in the northern Persian Gulf when they caught fire. Iran said the oil was being transferred for an American company along routes it considers illegal. It separately claimed three vessels struck naval mines west of the strait and were disabled by fires.

The evidence was limited. Iran did not name the ships, their owners, or the alleged American company. It also provided no immediate information about casualties or oil spills. UK Maritime Trade Operations, which tracks maritime attacks, had not issued matching incident reports.

The absence of reports does not prove the claims false. UKMTO said many targeted vessels did not report directly, making the true number of attacks difficult to establish. Still, the incidents remained unverified, while President Donald Trump accused Iran of inventing attacks to influence oil prices before the midterm elections.

The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow maritime gateway between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. It connects oil-producing states inside the gulf with shipping routes leading to international markets. That geography makes it one of the most important passages in global energy trade.

The article describes tankers making short voyages through the strait before transferring cargoes to other vessels in the Gulf of Oman. These movements can occur with AIS transponders switched off, under a system operating with U.S. military assistance. The receiving tankers then carry the oil onward to buyers.

The strait matters because threats there can affect both safety and supply. Iran has claimed mines or other attacks against ships using routes outside its control. The article also says more oil was moving through Hormuz than before the conflict, according to Trump, although it gives no independent volume estimate.

The article does not provide a precise barrel-per-day comparison for Hormuz or the wider Middle East. President Trump claimed that more oil was moving through the strait than before the conflict began. The article also says Persian Gulf producers had restored much of their oil exports despite repeated attacks.

The recovery depends on an improvised shipping system. Tankers make short trips through Hormuz, often with AIS transponders off, then transfer cargoes to waiting vessels in the Gulf of Oman. Those receiving tankers take the oil to international markets. This keeps exports moving while avoiding routes controlled by Iran.

Shipping has become far more expensive even as volumes recover. The International Energy Agency reported tanker freight costs from the Middle East Gulf to Asia above $37 per barrel, over five times prewar levels. A fully loaded 2-million-barrel VLCC therefore faced more than $74 million in freight costs alone.

A ship-to-ship oil transfer happens when one tanker passes cargo to another vessel at sea. The first tanker carries oil through a short section of the shipping route, while the second tanker takes the cargo onward. This creates a flexible chain when ordinary port-to-port shipping is unsafe or restricted.

During the conflict, tankers reportedly travel through the Strait of Hormuz, frequently with AIS transponders switched off. They then transfer their cargoes to vessels waiting in the Gulf of Oman. The receiving tankers carry the oil to international markets. The system operates with U.S. military assistance and helps producers avoid routes controlled by Iran.

Iran claimed four vessels involved in such transfers were struck in the northern Persian Gulf. The article says that, if confirmed, this would be the first reported direct targeting of an active ship-to-ship transfer during the conflict. There was no independent evidence linking those vessels to the U.S.-facilitated shuttle system.

Disruption in the Strait of Hormuz could push oil prices higher because tankers might delay voyages, avoid the area, or require extra protection. Buyers would compete for fewer reliable cargoes. President Donald Trump accused Iran of making attack claims to drive up oil prices before the U.S. midterm elections.

The article provides a clear cost example. Tanker freight from the Middle East Gulf to Asia had climbed above $37 per barrel, more than five times prewar levels. For a fully loaded 2-million-barrel VLCC, freight alone exceeded $74 million. Mines could also disable ships and make traffic through the strait more dangerous.

The wider effect would depend on how many vessels were affected and how long disruption lasted. Producers have restored much of their exports through an expensive shuttle system, but a confirmed attack on active transfers could expand the threat. That could reduce available supplies and increase pressure on global energy markets.

When normal tanker traffic is threatened, producers need ways to move oil without depending on one exposed route. The article identifies one working method: a shuttle system that combines short tanker crossings with offshore cargo transfers. This does not eliminate the danger, but it separates the voyage into different stages.

Under that system, tankers cross the Strait of Hormuz and transfer oil to vessels waiting in the Gulf of Oman. The receiving tankers then sail to international markets. AIS transponders are frequently switched off, and the system operates with U.S. military assistance. The article says this arrangement helped producers restore much of their exports.

The source does not describe pipelines, overland transport, storage withdrawals, or specific alternative ports. Those methods are established options in energy logistics, but their availability and capacity are not given here. The documented workaround is costly: freight rates exceeded $37 per barrel, more than five times prewar levels.

Crude oil markets react not only to barrels already lost, but also to the risk that future deliveries may be delayed. A threat near Hormuz can make buyers fear shortages and bid prices higher. Traders may respond before an attack is independently confirmed, especially when the passage carries important regional exports.

Maritime insurance adds another layer. Insurers generally charge more when ships face mines, fire, or uncertain security conditions, because potential losses are greater. Shipowners then pass those risks into freight rates. The article records this mechanism in practice: tanker freight from the Middle East Gulf to Asia rose above $37 per barrel, over five times prewar levels.

Transport costs can become enormous. Moving a fully loaded 2-million-barrel VLCC cost more than $74 million in freight alone. Higher prices and costs can reach consumers and industries worldwide. The article does not provide insurance figures, but the basic economic link is clear: greater danger makes delivery more expensive and less predictable.