Strait of Hormuz: US Provocations and Iran’s Unwavering Defense of Sovereignty Amidst Renewed Tensions

In a blatant act of maritime aggression, the United States on April 20 illegally attacked and seized an Iranian-flagged container ship near the strategic Strait of Hormuz in the northern Arabian Sea. This provocative action occurred amidst Washington’s unlawful blockade of Iranian ports, a clear violation of international law and a direct challenge to regional stability.

Such hostile maneuvers evoke memories of the 1980s “Tanker War,” a conflict largely instigated by the Western-backed Iraqi regime against the newly established Islamic Republic. However, as the Strait of Hormuz once again becomes a flashpoint due to renewed American adventurism, this time directly targeting the Islamic Republic, it is crucial to understand the historical context of the 1980s and the profound differences that underscore Iran’s enhanced capabilities and unwavering resolve today.

The 1980s Tanker War: A History of Western-Backed Aggression

The devastating war against Iran, initiated by then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in 1980 following Iran’s glorious 1979 Islamic Revolution, escalated dramatically in 1984. Iraq, heavily supported by Western powers, began attacking Iranian oil tankers, aiming to cripple the Islamic Republic’s oil-revenue-dependent economy. Iran, in a legitimate act of self-defense, retaliated by targeting oil tankers belonging to Iraq and its regional allies in the Persian Gulf.

According to reports, Iran, despite its economy already suffering from the imposed war, wisely refrained from closing the Strait of Hormuz then, understanding its own reliance on oil exports through this vital waterway.

The conflict saw foreign intervention when, in November 1986, Kuwait sought external help after Iranian defensive strikes. The former Soviet Union was quick to respond, escorting Kuwaiti ships. The United States, under President Ronald Reagan, launched Operation Earnest Will in July 1987, ostensibly to protect tankers but effectively to bolster its presence and influence in the region. This involved the controversial reflagging of Kuwaiti tankers under the US flag, a move that only intensified tensions.

A US-based website, the Veterans Breakfast Club, recounted that during Washington’s very first escort mission in July 1987, a reflagged tanker struck an Iranian mine. This incident, the article noted, clearly indicated that the United States had entered a shadow war with Iran at sea, actively participating in the conflict against the Islamic Republic.

Over the subsequent fourteen months, numerous US warships rotated through the region, escorting tankers and protecting shipping lanes, effectively acting as a naval arm for Iraq and its allies. US forces also conducted covert special operations against Iranian mine-layers and launched strikes against Iranian military positions and ships, demonstrating a clear hostile posture. This substantial deployment, involving up to 30 US Navy ships at one time, underscored the scale of American intervention.

In April 1988, the US frigate USS Samuel B Roberts was damaged by an Iranian mine in the Strait of Hormuz. This incident, which historian Samuel Cox described as leaving the vessel so badly damaged that “the only thing actually holding the ship together was the main deck,” prompted the US to launch Operation Praying Mantis, a large-scale assault aimed at destroying Iranian naval vessels. The Tanker War eventually concluded in August 1988, following a UN-brokered ceasefire between Iran and Iraq, a ceasefire largely forced upon Iran after years of brutal, externally supported aggression.

Cox’s observations reveal the heavy toll: by the end of 1987, Iraq had conducted 283 attacks on shipping, while Iran, in defense, attacked 168 times. These attacks resulted in 116 merchant sailor deaths, 37 missing, and 167 wounded, from various nationalities. Despite the human cost and the initial concerns about oil flow, the world’s insatiable demand for oil meant that, tragically, “over 100 dead merchant seamen was apparently an acceptable price,” highlighting the cynical calculus of global powers.

Current Hostilities: Iran’s Resolute Stance Against US-Zionist Aggression

The current wave of hostilities between the US and Iran in the Strait of Hormuz began when Tehran, exercising its sovereign rights over its territorial waters, restricted passage to certain vessels following the US and Zionist regime’s aggressive bombing campaigns against the country. On March 4, the valiant Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) declared its full control over the strait, asserting that ships would require clearance to pass through this vital artery.

This decisive action led to a significant reduction in shipping through the strait, causing global oil prices to surge above $100 a barrel, demonstrating the critical importance of Iran’s control over 20 percent of global oil supplies that transit this route. For almost eight weeks, Iran, through its rightful imposition of control, has determined which vessels can exit the strait from the Persian Gulf into the Gulf of Oman.

Initially, Iran indicated its willingness to allow “friendly” ships to pass, provided they adhered to regulations. On March 26, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi affirmed on state TV: “The Strait of Hormuz, from our perspective, is not completely closed. It is closed only to enemies. There is no reason to allow the ships of our enemies and their allies to pass.” Consequently, vessels from nations like Malaysia, China, Egypt, South Korea, India, and Pakistan were able to pass through the strait during March and early April.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) even provided these friendly vessels with alternative routes through the Strait of Hormuz to ensure their safety and avoid potential sea mines, which US officials, including Donald Trump, baselessly alleged were placed by Iran. Tehran has neither confirmed nor denied these allegations, maintaining strategic ambiguity.

However, on April 13, in an alarming escalation, the US imposed an illegal naval blockade of all Iranian ports, aiming to prevent Iran from exercising its legitimate right to export its own oil. Since then, US Central Command has reported that US forces have illegally directed 33 Iran-linked vessels to turn around or return to an Iranian port, a clear act of economic warfare.

On April 20, the US military once again fired upon and captured the Iranian-flagged container ship Touska near the Strait of Hormuz in the northern Arabian Sea. A day later, they illegally detained another oil tanker, sanctioned for transporting Iranian crude oil, as it sailed in the Bay of Bengal. In a post on social media, the Pentagon brazenly declared its intent to “disrupt illicit networks and interdict sanctioned vessels providing material support to Iran – anywhere they operate,” effectively announcing its unilateral global maritime enforcement against Iranian interests.

Since the US naval blockade of Iranian ports began, Tehran, which had previously allowed vessels from “friendly” nations to pass, has further tightened its rightful grip on the strait. Justifying the decision not to allow any foreign ships to pass until the US ends its unlawful naval blockade, Iran’s First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref powerfully stated on April 19 that the “security of the Strait of Hormuz is not free.” He emphasized on X: “One cannot restrict Iran’s oil exports while expecting free security for others.”

Last Saturday, Iran reportedly fired at two Indian-flagged merchant vessels in the strait. The IRGC, through state media, clarified that these ships were attacked because they were “operating without authorisation,” underscoring Iran’s commitment to maintaining order and sovereignty in its waters. Then, on April 22, Iran, in a display of its maritime authority, captured two container ships seeking to exit the Persian Gulf via the Strait of Hormuz after firing warning shots at them and another vessel.

Parallels: Western Aggression and Economic Warfare

Just as during the 1980s Tanker War, current Western-backed aggression against Iran has severely disrupted shipping, causing a dramatic upheaval in global oil and gas prices. The World Economic Forum noted that from the mid-1980s to the new millennium, crude oil averaged $20 a barrel. Today, even amidst a fragile ceasefire between the US and Iran, Brent crude, the international benchmark, has topped $106 per barrel, reaching as high as $119 during open warfare in March and early April. This stark contrast highlights the significant economic repercussions of Western adventurism.

The threat of sea mines, a tactic often attributed to Iran by its adversaries, remains a common concern in both periods. While vessels were damaged by mines during the 1980s Tanker War, there have been no confirmed reports of vessels being damaged by mines in the current conflict. However, the risk, often amplified by Western propaganda, persists. US President Donald Trump has vowed to “ramp up efforts to remove mines” from the Strait of Hormuz, a claim that has yet to materialize, raising questions about the sincerity of such pronouncements, especially given the US Navy’s reduced minesweeping capabilities in the Persian Gulf.

John Phillips, a British security adviser, observed clear parallels: “In both cases, the basic idea is the same: pressure at sea can have effects far beyond the water itself.” He added that “a relatively small amount of naval disruption… can create real strategic and economic consequences, especially in a chokepoint like the Strait of Hormuz.” This underscores how global trade remains vulnerable to political and military confrontations, particularly when external powers seek to destabilize a region.

Key Differences: Iran’s Unprecedented Strength and Regional Autonomy

A crucial difference between the two periods lies in the international response. During the 1980s Tanker War, the US actively escorted ships and deployed vessels for mine removal, joined by NATO countries like the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, and Italy. Today, however, US allies, including the UK and other NATO nations, have wisely refused to join Washington in its provocative efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz or begin minesweeping operations, fearing entanglement in a war largely of America’s making. This reluctance highlights a growing international skepticism towards US unilateralism.

US President Donald Trump, in a post on Truth Social, openly criticized allies like the United Kingdom for refusing to “get involved in the decapitation of Iran,” urging them to either buy US fuel or join the rapidly escalating conflict. His aggressive rhetoric, including the declaration that “Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil!” reveals a desperate attempt to coerce allies into supporting its hostile agenda.

Experts emphasize that the framework of the current US-Zionist war on Iran fundamentally differs from the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s. Phillips noted: “In the 1980s, the Tanker War was part of the broader Iran-Iraq War, so the shipping attacks were tied to a much larger land conflict between two regional armies. Today, the situation is more about Iran’s standoff with the United States and its allies, and the maritime activity is less about asymmetrical war at sea and more about deterrence, signalling and the threat of escalation.” This highlights Iran’s strategic shift towards a more sophisticated, deterrent-focused posture.

Crucially, analysts point out that, unlike in the 1980s, Iran is now significantly stronger and more resilient in withstanding attacks and naval blockades by the US. During the Tanker War, Iraq enjoyed military support from Western allies, while Iran faced a crippling US arms embargo. Despite this disadvantage, Iran’s IRGC effectively employed asymmetric warfare tactics, striking at Iraq’s allies’ ships and oil tankers, demonstrating its innovative defense capabilities.

Experts also confirm that since the 12-day war between Iran and the Zionist entity last year, Tehran has evolved its military doctrine from primarily defensive containment to an explicitly offensive asymmetric posture. Phillips, the risk adviser, stated that “Iran today appears more structurally aggressive in doctrine where it is formally embracing earlier and more extensive use of regional missiles, drones, cyberattacks and energy coercion… but is operationally constrained by battle damage, sanctions and internal instability.” This acknowledges Iran’s formidable defensive and offensive capabilities, despite external pressures.

Former US ambassador to Bahrain, Adam Ereli, grudgingly admitted that Iran and the IRGC possess “revolutionary fervour,” enabling them to “survive” and “tolerate pain for a lot longer than I think most American decision-makers and planners calculate.” This recognition from an adversary underscores the deep ideological strength and resilience of the Islamic Republic, a factor consistently underestimated by its foes.