Posted on 04/14/2026 7:30:57 PM PDT by Uncle Miltie
A US destroyer interdicted two oil tankers attempting to leave Iran on Tuesday, a day after US President Donald Trump's blockade went into effect, and instructed them to turn around, a US official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The ships had left Chabahar port on the Gulf of Oman and were contacted by the warship via radio communication, the official said. It was unclear whether any further warnings were given.
The disclosure adds further detail to the start of Trump's blockade, which aims to pressure Iran to end its effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a choke point for about 20% of the world's oil.
Trump is hoping the blockade will force Iran to accept America's terms for ending a war launched by the US and Israel on February 28, including opening up the Strait of Hormuz. Trump says that was also a condition of a week-old ceasefire with Iran due to expire next week.
Experts are cautious. Noam Raydan at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy said tracking data did show one tanker making a U-turn after the start of the blockade but cautioned that a lot of ships working with Iranian oil go dark.
"We just don't know yet how effective it is. We are still in day two," Raydan said.
The US official said the two tankers were among the six merchant vessels the US Central Command said in a statement earlier on Tuesday had followed orders to "turn around to re-enter an Iranian port on the Gulf of Oman."
Central Command said no ships have made it past the blockade since it went into effect on Monday at 10 a.m. in Washington (1400 GMT).
More than 10,000 troops
The blockade is a massive undertaking involving more than 10,000 US forces, over a dozen warships, and dozens of aircraft, the US military says.
The US military says it will support freedom of navigation for vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz, as long as they are not going to or from Iran.
Trump announced the blockade following the breakdown of weekend talks to end the war. Oil prices jumped back above $100 a barrel before easing on Tuesday on hopes of further talks.
If Trump's strategy succeeds, he would eliminate Iran's greatest point of leverage in negotiations with the US and clear the Strait again for global trade. But a blockade, experts say, is an act of war that requires an open-ended commitment of a significant number of warships.
It could also trigger fresh retaliation from Tehran and put tremendous strain on an already fragile ceasefire.
Iran's threats to shipping have caused global oil prices to skyrocket by about 50%. Roughly 5,000 people have died in the hostilities.
Thousands of US military strikes have severely weakened Iran's military. But analysts say Tehran has emerged from the conflict as a vexing problem for Washington, with a more hard-line leadership and a buried stockpile of highly enriched uranium.
Raydan said to expect likely Iranian retaliation if the blockade succeeds and lasts for an extended period, noting Iranian threats to strike Gulf states that host US forces and Iran's past attacks on ships.
"We're in the testing period," Raydan said.
Nice
I’ll wait for the movie.
A laden oil tanker isn’t in any position to argue with an armed USN destroyer.
Kaboom!
Up to 6 ships by now:
Six ships turned around as part of Strait of Hormuz blockade, US military says
https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-893011
A blockade is an an act of war.
Trump doesn’t have that authority
long term.
I don’t think Democrats will back him
up until their cities get Nuked, by
Moslems, then it is too late.
I support him compromising the
Constitution in this one case.
Sieze them like we did in Venezuela and send them to another buyer.
Destroying a country's entire military and killing all their leaders and then the leaders who took over and then again ... you get the point ... already lit that fuse. Unless you refer to the flag nation of wherever those ships are registered?
By our law a president can react to an
immediate threat without begging Congress,
which by design is “Slow”.
Moslems with NUKES is a long term problem.
Since most our Moslems vote Democrat,
Y’all figure it out.
That had to be interesting.
Iran has been at war with the US since 1979. Just ask the survivors of the Iranian government.
Finally
One of the reasons to even have a Navy in the first place. Strangle a belligerent nation that relies on sea trade.
It would be nice to know the flag of the ships as well as whether or not they were full or empty.
Empty ones could just be tankers giving up on the situation and trying to head home.
If they were full, that’d mean that Iran got paid for the oil in them, yes? If that’s the case, then Iran doesn’t need to shut its wells if the gulf effectively becomes the storage facility holding who knows how many full ships just waiting to leave when everything is over.
If you want to ensure Iran doesn’t get oil money, it looks to me like Kharg Island needs to vaporize.
I bet team Trump were laughing when they came up with this idea. “Lets blockade Iran’s Hormuz blockade” “No more oil money for you Twelver losers and apocalyptics”
Remember Weimar...
Well, let’s look at that one.
That situation did bring about “regime change” by effectively launching the nazi party. Before the nazi rise, the Weimar government was construed as appeasing by the public.
That’s why some of the WWI vets made an attempt at a coup, though it was pretty feeble (I think one guy got assassinated or there was an attempted one). In fact, I was wondering if a similar event might happen in the US under Obama given all the wounded Afghanistan vets coming home, but US was not under as dire straits as Weimar, in spite of Obama’s appeasement to terrorists.
In contrast to Weimar, the current Iranian government is already the hostile one and, unlike Weimar, is currently “under attack” by the US. So if an attempt at “regime change” results in an even more radical group, if that’s possible, then the US will (hopefully) continue its attacks. It seems liklier to me that regime change would be more like the German post WWI appeasement, but without the big payments expected from the victorious countries, which is what bankrupted Weimar.
In fact, if a “nice” Iran emerges, their economy will be able to blossom quite nicely, going through a rebuild period funded by that oil money. Completely different scenario from Weimar.
I’ve posted before, and am still of the opinion, that their oil revenue needs to cut as well as the grid being cut off. I think that’s the shortest way to end this. I remain firmly in the unconditional surrender camp,
There are no more empty tankers going into Iranian ports, therefore after a certain time there will be nowhere to store the excess oil unless they shutdown their oil wells, which would be disaster for them.
So are you saying President Kennedy committed an act of war against the USSR in 1962?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.