Iran says won’t allow US warships to get close as Trump ponders new attacks

Iran’s armed forces warned that American warships would be attacked if they tried to return to Iran’s territorial waters or nearby areas. The threat shows how both sides are preparing for a possible escalation rather than signaling surrender. Iran says its weapons can reach any vessel in the region.

Ali Abdollahi, chief of general staff of the Iranian armed forces, said the US Navy could not safely re-enter the Persian Gulf. His statement followed Trump’s comments that the United States might launch another “Epic Fury,” referring to the opening bombing campaign. Trump was also weighing continued pressure through a naval blockade and sanctions.

The standoff is already affecting the region. Iranian forces have attacked or mined tankers near the Strait of Hormuz, while allied and opposing forces are fighting in Yemen, Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank. A new US attack could therefore widen an already spreading conflict.

The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow maritime passage between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. It is one of the world’s most important routes for oil shipments. Its geography makes it strategically valuable: vessels have limited room to pass, while nearby forces can monitor, threaten or attack them.

In this conflict, Iranian forces have attacked vessels and reportedly placed mines around the strait. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said seven tankers were attacked or hit mines overnight, then claimed two supertankers struck mines. These incidents show how disruption can occur without a full naval battle.

The strait matters because any sustained threat affects countries far beyond Iran. The article says Brent crude climbed to about $117, its highest price since April. Renewed fighting could make shipping more dangerous, push energy costs higher and spread economic pressure across the region and beyond.

About one-fifth of the world’s oil supply passes through the Strait of Hormuz, according to widely used energy estimates. The supplied article does not give this percentage, so this figure comes from established external knowledge. The passage is therefore important far beyond the countries directly fighting.

The strait carries oil tankers through a narrow, highly sensitive route. If attacks, mines or military threats make the passage unsafe, ships may be delayed, diverted or require greater protection. Even uncertainty can affect traders, insurers and energy companies before supplies are physically cut.

The article describes that process already beginning. Tankers were attacked or hit mines, and Brent crude reached about $117, its highest price since April. A longer disruption could raise fuel and transport costs, strain importing countries and increase pressure for diplomatic or military action to keep the route open.

When tankers are attacked, shipping companies face danger, delays and possible damage to vessels or cargo. They may need to avoid the route, accept higher insurance costs or wait for military protection. A threatened passage can therefore reduce the reliable flow of oil even before the waterway is fully closed.

The article gives a direct example. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said seven tankers were attacked or hit mines, and later claimed two supertankers struck mines. As the risk of renewed war increased, Brent crude rose to about $117, its highest price since April. Traders were pricing in possible disruption.

Higher oil prices usually increase costs for transport, manufacturing and households. Governments may face pressure to protect shipping or release emergency supplies. If disruption continues, energy insecurity can worsen inflation and political tensions. In this case, maritime attacks could also encourage further military escalation across the region.

Large warships are powerful, but they must operate within predictable sea lanes and depend on nearby support vessels, communications and fuel. A coastal state can exploit that environment with mines, missiles and other weapons. The danger comes from making movement costly and uncertain, not necessarily from defeating a carrier in a direct duel.

Iran says it can target any vessel in the region. Its forces have attacked or mined tankers near the Strait of Hormuz, while the IRGC has threatened seabed internet and communication cables if civilian infrastructure is struck. These actions show several pressure points: ships, sea routes and the systems supporting military operations.

The article does not detail specific missile types or ranges. It does report that Iran says the US Navy cannot safely re-enter its territorial waters or periphery. That warning could keep American vessels farther away, limit operations and raise the risk that one incident triggers a much larger war.

A regional war can grow when separate conflicts share alliances, enemies and political demands. Iran links its confrontation with the United States and Israel to fighting in Lebanon, while the Houthis connect their attacks to Gaza and the West Bank. That means a strike in one place can become a reason for action somewhere else.

The article describes several connected fronts. The Houthis attacked Saudi Arabia and Israel, Saudi forces bombed Houthi-controlled areas in Yemen, and Israel carried out air attacks near Nabatieh in southern Lebanon. Israel also locked down the occupied West Bank after a Palestinian attack killed two soldiers in Hebron. Iran has demanded that any US ceasefire also cover Lebanon.

This network makes containment difficult. Retaliation can cross borders, while attacks on oil routes, infrastructure or officials add new targets. Regional diplomats warned that another attack on Iran would widen the war. The article says future peace depends on events in Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza as well as Iran.

Sanctions and blockades are tools for weakening a government from outside. Sanctions can limit access to money, trade and important supplies. A naval blockade can stop or inspect ships carrying exports and imports. Both aim to reduce a country’s ability to fund government activity and sustain military operations.

The article says Trump was weighing continued pressure through a naval blockade and sanctions instead of immediately launching another huge attack. A blockade would focus on maritime access, while sanctions would apply broader financial and commercial pressure. The goal is to make continuing the conflict increasingly costly for Tehran.

These tools can avoid the immediate scale of a ground occupation, but they can also produce serious hardship and provoke retaliation. In this crisis, Iran has attacked or mined tankers near the Strait of Hormuz, helping drive Brent crude to about $117. Pressure therefore risks damaging the wider economy and widening the conflict rather than forcing quick concessions.