Analysis: Iran war echoes U.S. “Tanker War” experience in Hormuz

Summary

The Associated Press analysis described a maritime flashpoint in the Persian Gulf that is again raising the prospect of U.S. naval escorts—this time in the Strait of Hormuz as Iran and U.S.-linked forces fight. The story depicts mines threatening tankers, Iranian speed boats firing on ships, and the United States operating alongside the fight. It framed the present risk not as the current Iran-U.S. conflict shaped by a shaky ceasefire, but as the return of a campaign style that previously disrupted global shipping in the 1980s.

The analysis said the Strait of Hormuz remains an especially important route: about 20% of the world’s traded oil and natural gas moves through it in peacetime. With shipping exposed, the article noted that the U.S. has conducted limited escorts through another corridor in recent years, including during Red Sea disruptions linked to attacks by Yemen’s Iranian-backed Houthi rebels.

In the analysis, President Donald Trump’s recent comments about force also appear as part of the backdrop. The article said Trump told reporters this week that he has ordered the U.S. military to “shoot and kill” small Iranian boats, and it described the potential implications for how the United States might try to protect traffic through Hormuz.

The Associated Press comparison centered on Iran’s earlier “Tanker war” during the 1980s conflict between Iraq and Iran. The analysis said Iraq first targeted Iranian oil infrastructure and tankers in the Persian Gulf before Iran responded with a campaign against regional shipping, including laying mines. It said Iraq attacked more than 280 vessels associated with Iran, while Iran targeted 168 vessels, citing the U.S. Naval Institute.

The analysis described the U.S. role in that period as a specific escort mission. It said the Reagan administration launched “Operation Earnest Will,” reflagging Kuwaiti oil tankers as American and escorting them to keep crude moving to global markets. It also said the operation faced serious hazards, including the Kuwaiti supertanker Bridgeton striking a mine while under U.S. escort and the USS Stark being hit by an Iraqi missile, killing 37 sailors.

The AP analysis also pointed to casualties from earlier naval engagements as part of the risk picture, including an Iranian mine attack that wounded 10 sailors aboard the USS Samuel B. Roberts and the U.S. shooting down Iran Air flight 655, killing 290 people. Those incidents, the analysis suggested, underline that even escort operations in a defined mission space can turn deadly.

The piece then outlined why it may be harder to replicate the 1980s approach today. It said Iran’s Revolutionary Guard has become familiar with small-boat tactics and has adapted by using smaller civilian-sized vessels blocked by sanctions from accessing military platforms. The analysis said the Guard has used small boats to shadow American aircraft carriers when they pass through the strait and described those vessels as carrying heavy machine guns and rocket launchers.

In that context, the analysis said Iranian forces seized two cargo ships this week, pointing to a video the Guard released showing patrol forces aboard patrol boats dwarfing the container ships. It said guardsmen opened fire on the cargo ships and then stormed the vessels with assault rifles, and it said the seizures demonstrated the Guard’s ability—despite limited resources—to disrupt the strait and hold the global economy hostage about eight weeks into the war.

The analysis quoted Torbjorn Soltvedt of risk intelligence company Verisk Maplecroft on what makes securing the waterway harder now. Soltvedt said, “I think even if you compare it with the ‘Tanker war,’ I think just in terms of the way military technology has evolved, especially on that asymmetrical side, it’s much more difficult to secure a waterway now than it was then.” He added that, unless there is an agreement or unless the U.S. can curb Iran’s ability to launch fast boats, drones, and short-range missiles, “then this problem just remains unresolved.”

The analysis said European governments, even under pressure from Trump, have indicated they would not join an escort mission until the war ends. It then compared how the U.S. set its aims in different eras, quoting Tom Duffy, a former U.S. diplomat and naval officer who recently published a book titled “Tanker War in the Gulf.” Duffy said, “In contrast, the American goals (now) have been sort of a kaleidoscope of regime change to all sorts of very maximalist goals.”

The analysis also included a dispute about what the U.S. is trying to accomplish right now. It said Duffy noted that it was unclear whether the Trump administration even wanted the fight, adding that he pointed to a White House statement saying the ceasefire was not in jeopardy because Iran was not attacking U.S. and Israeli ships—language Duffy said “goes past centuries of U.S. practice and statements about the needs for freedom of the sea.”