Trump Has Already Pivoted To Mulling Regime Change
Trump has already pivoted from 'this isn't about regime change' as an admin talking to point, to… there might possibly be regime change after all .
And all the while he's lecturing Thomas Massie about not being 'MAGA' amid a 'debate' over what it is to be America First…
As world leaders urgently called for diplomacy, President Trump raised the prospect of regime change in Tehran on Sunday, less than 24 hours after U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites stoked fears of a dangerously escalating conflict across the Middle East.
'If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???' Mr. Trump wrote in a post on his social media site. The post came after top members of his administration spent much of the day emphasizing that the United States did not intend to enter an all-out war with Tehran.
This could very well become Bush/Cheney's Trump's Iraq War. And look who is very happy…
Dear President Trump, Bolton is back into the MAGA fold, but who is the one that has changed?
President Trump did the right thing for America in striking Iran's nuclear-weapons program. Now, on to regime change.https://t.co/GAQt6KEKiJ — John Bolton (@AmbJohnBolton) June 22, 2025
Republican rep Thomas Massie of Kentucky has been one of the very few outspoken Congressmen on either side of the aisle to blast Trump's Iran bombing campaign, done without Congressional authorization or so much as debate or consultation.
Massie was seeking to introduce a war powers resolution in the House ahead of 'bombs away' on Iran. The conservative and libertarian-leading Congressman wants to legally prohibit American involvement in Iran.
This is not America First folks. pic.twitter.com/UllkiycVRv — Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) June 22, 2025
'This is not our war. But if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our constitution,' he stated last week. In weekend media appearances, he's also been calling out the Trump administration for shilling for Israel and Netanyahu. For example, on 'Face the Nation' he strongly suggested that the White House and some in Congress are being unduly influenced by a foreign power.
Massie: AIPAC is very persuasive. If you look at my colleagues' feeds now, they all look the same, they're all tweeting the same message. pic.twitter.com/rYZVv0SobG — Acyn (@Acyn) June 22, 2025
Critics of Trump's Iran policy are complaining that America fighting the Israelis' wars for them is not at all 'America First' – while Trump's team has touted this as 'limited' and intent on eliminating Iran's nuclear program.
These and other criticisms have prompted a Sunday Trump response on Truth Social. He took Massie to task for his defiant stance, saying he's 'not Maga' and that 'MAGA doesn't want him'…
Social media, including X, has in the last days been taken over by MAGA infighting over the Iran issue. After all, Trump campaigned on a platform that was against starting new wars; however, he also vowed to prevent Iran from ever having a nuclear weapon.
Critics have said that the Trump people now sound just like Bush-era NeoCons when it comes to taking 'preemptive' action over WMD fears in the Middle East.
The benefit of Donald Trump attacking Thomas Massie is that it will continue to split the right and increase Thomas Massie's popularity. And, in the long run, Massie will be proven right, just like Ron Paul. — Liam McCollum (@MLiamMcCollum) June 22, 2025
Not a single US Congressman campaigned on regime change in Iran, because Americans consistently rank foreign policy as the lowest on their priorities, but most US Congressmen care about regime change in Iran above every other issue. They just take advantage of Americans only… — Liam McCollum (@MLiamMcCollum) June 22, 2025
Following President Trump's new foreign entanglement – bombing Iranian nuclear facilities (which may or may not have taken them out while causing a deep divide amongst MAGA), Vice President JD Vance says he believes their nuclear program has been set back 'many years,' and that he feels 'very confident that we've substantially delayed [Iran's] development of a nuclear weapon,' adding that it was US intelligence, not Israeli intelligence assessments, that led to Trump's decision.
When asked if the United States is at war with Iran, he claimed 'No, Kristen, we're not at war with Iran. We're at war with Iran's nuclear program,' and called on Iranians to 'give peace a chance.
'They can go down the path of peace, or they can go down the path of this ridiculous brinksmanship of funding terrorism, of trying to build a nuclear weapon – and that's just not something the United States can accept.'
"We didn't blow up the diplomacy. The diplomacy never was given a real chance by the Iranians," says @VP."The Iranians are clearly not very good at war. Perhaps they should follow President Trump's lead and give peace a chance." pic.twitter.com/pJ2tpqekom — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) June 22, 2025
When asked if the US would support an Israeli assassination of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Vance said that it would be 'up to the Israelis,' and that the US position is 'we don't want a regime change.'
VP Vance: 'No Regime Change' in Iran — U.S. Focused on Nuclear Threat, Not Government Overthrow– In interviews (e.g. NBC's Meet the Press), Vice President J.D. Vance emphasized the U.S. strike on Iranian nuclear sites aims solely to dismantle Iran's nuclear program—not to… pic.twitter.com/TPOLWCvP06 — GlobalWire (@global_wire_) June 22, 2025
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, meanwhile insisted to Fox News that 'This is not a war against Iran,' adding 'Not a shot was fired against us. They didn't even know what had happened. By the time we left, the planes were out of their airspace before they finally started realizing they'd been hit. So it would be a terrible mistake if Iran retaliates. So but that's not our goal.'
Secretary Rubio clears the air on whether America is "at war" with Iran."This is not a war against Iran.""Not a shot was fired against us. They didn't even know what had happened. By the time we left, the planes were out of their airspace before they finally started realizing… pic.twitter.com/RslL7KbgUz — Media Lies (@MediasLies) June 22, 2025
He also warned against Iranian retaliation, saying: 'If Iran retaliates, it will be the WORST mistake they've ever made.'
RUBIO: It would be a terrible mistake if Iran retaliated. But that's not our goal. We are not declaring war on Iran. We're not looking for war on Iran. But if they attack us, then I think we have capabilities they haven't even seen yet. It would be a terrible mistake on their… pic.twitter.com/grpdHegkep — Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) June 22, 2025
Rubio then warned Iran not to close the strait of Hormuz after Iran's parliament backed its closure, saying 'If Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, it will be another terrible mistake. It's economic suicide for them if they do it and we retain options to deal with that.'
Rubio:'If Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, it will be another terrible mistake. It's economic suicide for them if they do it and we retain options to deal with that' pic.twitter.com/6mXeYXJ6Te — Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) June 22, 2025
Everyone got the script?
Iran, meanwhile in a statement through spox Esmail Baghaei, accused the Trump administration of sabotaging diplomatic efforts – saying 'They cannot talk about diplomacy, they betrayed diplomacy,' adding that 'diplomacy never ends.'
Setting up for another forever war…where end-goals are undefinable?
LOL, Vance says Iran still controls enriched Uranium stockpile, which could be enough to produce 10 nuclear warheads pic.twitter.com/OvaX6kG4EJ — Ragıp Soylu (@ragipsoylu) June 22, 2025
Regarding the escalating conflict, Baghaei warned 'No one knows what will happen next, but what is sure is that the responsibility of the consequences of this war must be borne by the United States and Israel.'
The Iranian foreign ministry declined to elaborate on Tehran's likely response to the attacks, or to detail the extent of the damage – only saying in a statement to CNN that Iran 'is entitled … to exercise its right of self-defense,' adding 'And we will do that for sure.'
In a Sunday morning press briefing, Trump's Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth declared that 'Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated' – but also asserted that the attack did not target the Iranian people or civilians. He hailed the 'incredible and overwhelming success' – following President Trump last night saying the same thing. 'It's worth noting the operation did not target Iranian troops or the Iranian people.'
Hegseth said this is part of the commitment of this administration's vision of 'peace through strength'. He continued, 'Many presidents have dreamed of delivering the final blow to Iran's nuclear program, and none could, until President Trump.'
For the 'bold and brilliant' operation, there was weeks of preparation and precision logistics and 'misdirection' at the highest level, involving B-2 bombers going to hit, Hegseth described. 'No other country on planet earth' could have conducted this operation.
He also underscored that the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) was used for the first time in US combat history – also that it was the longest bomber mission of its kind since 2001.
'Just like [IRGC Quds Force General Qasem] Solemani found out in the first term, Iran found out when POTUS says '60 days' – that when he seeks peace and negotiation – he means 60 days of peace and negotiation, otherwise that nuclear program will not exist. He meant it.'
Hegseth then read aloud Trump's post to Truth Social last night, soon after the three nuclear sites were struck:
'Any retaliation by Iran against the United States of America will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed tonight.'
That's when the US Defense Secretary then warned, 'Iran would be smart to heed those words. He said it before and he means it.' He tried to stress the 'limited' scope of the attack and urged the Iranians to come back to the negotiating table:
There are both public and private messages being delivered to the Iranians in multiple channels, giving them every opportunity to come to the negotiation table, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says at a Pentagon press briefing.
Scope of operation on Iran was 'intentionally limited' Hegseth says he believes the US attack will have a clear psychological impact on how Iran views the future US strikes against Iran's nuclear enrichment site at Fordow are believed to have destroyed capabilities there…
To review the details of what happened last night, the US deployed six B-2 bombers to drop 12 GBU-57 'bunker-buster' bombs on Iran's heavily fortified Fordow nuclear site, marking the first time these massive 30,000-pound bombs were used in combat.
The enrichment sites at Natanz and Isfahan were also attacked. The mission lasted about 37 hours with multiple refueling missions.
While the White House is now claiming Iran's nuclear facilities were 'completely and totally obliterated,' officials say it's too early to confirm the full extent of the damage.
America dropped six GBU-57 bunker buster bombs on the Fordow nuclear site pic.twitter.com/LaWrHm0c2d — Vince Langman (@LangmanVince) June 22, 2025
Iran, along with international nuclear agencies, reported no radiation leaks, prompting skepticism about the strike's effectiveness—particularly at Fordow, which is buried deep underground. Iranian officials said damage was minimal and mostly above ground. Iran's Atomic Energy Organization vowed to continue its nuclear program, referring to assassinated nuclear scientists as 'martyrs.'
Some degree of political backlash has quickly emerged over the lack of Congressional approval for the strikes. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, despite previously mocking Trump's diplomatic efforts with Iran, called for a War Powers vote, criticizing the president's unilateral military action without a clear strategy.
Also read: Alarming Fox Report Says Tactical Nukes 'Not Off The Table' For Trump's Iran Response
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Tribune
2 hours ago
- Daily Tribune
Inside Iran's Nuclear Ambitions: From Origins to Tensions Today
A week after Israel's unprecedented military strike against Iran, the United States escalated tensions further with overnight attacks on three Iranian nuclear facilities. The strikes underscore mounting international alarm over Iran's expanding nuclear programme — a dispute decades in the making. A Programme Decades in the Making Iran's nuclear ambitions trace back to the late 1950s, when it began receiving technical assistance from the United States under a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement signed by then-Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Iran became a signatory of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in 1970, committing to peaceful nuclear development under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). But by the early 2000s, revelations about undeclared nuclear sites raised international suspicion. A 2011 IAEA report found that Iran had conducted activities 'relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device' at least until 2003. Hope in Vienna, Fallout in Washington After suspending parts of its enrichment activities, Iran entered negotiations with world powers. These culminated in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed in Vienna with the five permanent UN Security Council members (US, UK, France, China, and Russia) plus Germany. The deal imposed strict limits on Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. That diplomatic breakthrough unraveled in May 2018, when then-US President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA and reimposed sanctions. Tehran responded with what analysts call a 'strategy of escalation.' Escalation and Enrichment In defiance of the JCPOA, Iran raised its uranium enrichment levels: From 3.67% (the JCPOA cap) To 5%, then 20%, and eventually 60% in 2021 — alarmingly close to the 90% threshold needed for weapons-grade material. As of May 17, 2025, Iran possesses 408.6 kg of uranium enriched to 60% — a 50% increase since February. Given that around 42 kg at this level is enough for one bomb if further enriched, Iran now theoretically holds enough material for more than nine nuclear weapons. Iran has also exceeded limits on the number and type of centrifuges in operation, using advanced models to accelerate production. No Evidence of a Weapon — Yet Despite the quantity of enriched material, the IAEA has stated it has 'no indication' that Iran currently has a systematic programme to build a nuclear weapon. Nuclear arms require more than enriched uranium: precise engineering, ballistic delivery systems, and warhead miniaturisation are all essential steps — none of which are confirmed. In March, US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified that Iran is not actively building a nuclear bomb. Iran continues to deny all nuclear weapons ambitions, citing a religious edict (fatwa) issued by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei banning the development and use of atomic arms. Diplomacy Under Fire Recent Israeli strikes on Iranian military and nuclear sites, coupled with the latest US bombings, have further damaged hopes for reviving the JCPOA. Talks mediated by Oman had resumed in April 2025, but the attacks have prompted Iran's Foreign Ministry to accuse Washington of committing 'illegality and crimes' to aid Israel. While US officials express confidence that a renewed nuclear deal is still possible, Tehran maintains that recent aggression has dealt a 'serious blow' to diplomacy. Why It Matters Iran is now the only non-nuclear weapon state enriching uranium to 60%, a position that drastically reduces its 'breakout time' — the time it would need to produce a nuclear weapon if it chooses to. With over 400 kg of near-weapons-grade uranium, the stakes have never been higher. The world watches as Iran walks the fine line between legal enrichment and potential weaponisation — a line that could redefine security in the Middle East and beyond.
Gulf Insider
9 hours ago
- Gulf Insider
Iran Says US Has Blown Up Diplomacy
Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who plans to travel to Moscow to meet President Putin on Monday, has reacted to the major US bombing of his country's nuclear facilities by saying 'all options' are on the table militarily, and that this effectively has blown up any efforts at diplomacy. 'The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences. Each and every member of the UN must be alarmed over this extremely dangerous, lawless and criminal behavior,' he said. 'In accordance with the UN Charter and its provisions allowing a legitimate response in self-defense, Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people.' On Sunday morning, Trump's Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sought to present the overnight attacks as 'intentionally limited' in scope, and described that this is not a regime change operation. He told the Iranians to heed Trump's call to return to the negotiating table, and that the US military is ready to unleash more strikes if need President JD Vance too in fresh statements has expressed hope of pursuing a diplomatic solution. 'We do not want to protract this or build this out any more than it's already been built out. We want to end their nuclear program,' Vance told NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday 'We want to talk to the Iranians about a long-term settlement here,' he added. But at least on a public level, Iran's foreign ministry is saying the diplomatic path is over as the US has shut the door with its brazen attack. Iran's official nuclear energy agency has the most interesting characterization of the US action, in the below via state media: The organization denounced the passive stance of the IAEA, which is not only ignoring the violations but, through its silence, enabling such aggressive behavior. 'It is unfortunate that this action—clearly against international law—has taken place with the indifference and, in some cases, complicity of the International Atomic Energy Agency,' the AEOI added. The statement called on the global community to denounce 'lawless jungle behavior' by the US and to stand by Iran in defending its legitimate rights. The statement further called out 'the American enemy' in stating, 'The American enemy, through a statement by its president in social media, has officially claimed responsibility for the attacks on these sites, which are under continuous monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) based on the safeguards agreement and the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).' And crucially: Behrouz Kamalvandi, a spokesperson for the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, says efforts to develop the civilian nuclear sector will go on. 'This is not the first time our facilities are attacked,' Kamalvandi told Iran's YJC news agency. 'Considering our capabilities, the nuclear industry must continue.' The elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has at the same time declared 'now the war has begun' – as the region braces for the coming Iranian response. Trump Has Bombed Iran. What Happens Next Is His US is the only nation on earth that can rival Israel in its ability to play the victim when the ball they've thrown at the wall bounces by Tim Foley. — Caitlin Johnstone (@caitoz) June 22, 2025 Below is the IRGC statement as reprinted in Iraqi Kurdistan English-language media: Shortly after the attack, the IRGC published a brief statement on its official X account, writing: 'Now the war has begun for us.' The message underscores the gravity of the attack on one of Iran's most sensitive nuclear sites and suggests that Tehran now considers itself fully engaged in open warfare. Iran previously warned that it could hit back directly on US bases in the region if it comes under attack. No doubt, the Pentagon and US Central Command (CENTCOM) is bracing are such potential retaliation, which could come in the form of drones and ballistic missiles – as happened in Iraq following the Soleimani assassination during Trump's first term. Recent reports have pointed to an American troop drawdown at a couple of bases in Syria, but not a full withdrawal of the occupation. US troops remain in Iraq, but also at many bases just across the water from Iran in the Arab Gulf kingdoms. Iran's FM says the attacks are 'unforgiveable' and that it made the possibility of diplomacy moot: 'IRRELEVANT to ask Iran to return to diplomacy, because we WERE in the middle of diplomacy'Araghchi says US 'gave green light to Israel, if not INSTRUCTED them to attack nuclear sites'Adds Israel and US 'only understand language of threat and force, this is very unfortunate' — RT (@RT_com) June 22, 2025 To review the details of what happened overnight, the US deployed six B-2 bombers to drop 12 GBU-57 'bunker-buster' bombs on Iran's heavily fortified Fordow nuclear site, marking the first time these massive 30,000-pound bombs were used in combat. The enrichment sites at Natanz and Isfahan were also attacked. The mission lasted about 37 hours with multiple refueling missions. While the White House is now claiming Iran's nuclear facilities were 'completely and totally obliterated,' officials say it's too early to confirm the full extent of the damage. Tehran is signaling only limited damage, and that entrances to the facilities were struck, at this point war propaganda is kicking in, and Iranian leaders will likely only conceal the full extent of the destruction. Also read: Iranian Parliament Backs Strait Of Hormuz Closure, Oil Market Braces For Turmoil
Gulf Insider
9 hours ago
- Gulf Insider
Iranian Parliament Backs Strait Of Hormuz Closure
Iranian state-owned outlet Press TV has released a new report quoting Major General Kowsari, a senior member of the Iranian Parliament's National Security Commission, who stated: ' The Parliament has reached the conclusion that the Strait of Hormuz should be closed, but the final decision in this regard lies with the Supreme National Security Council .' ‼️ Major General Kowsari, member of the National Security Commission of the Parliament: The Parliament has reached the conclusion that the Strait of Hormuz should be closed, but the final decision in this regard lies with the Supreme National Security Council. — Press TV Breaking (@PTVBreaking1) June 22, 2025 If Ayatollah Ali Khamenei approves the proposed closure of the critical maritime chokepoint—through which approximately 30% of global seaborne oil and 20% of LNG transit—Brent crude and natural gas futures will surge sharply this evening. Reuters earlier cited lawmaker and Revolutionary Guards Commander Esmail Kosari, who told Young Journalist Club that closing the critical maritime checkpoint is on the agenda and 'will be done whenever necessary.' 'We can close the strait of Hormuz and shut their mouths. This will ruin their economy'Young Iranians dismiss Trump attacks, sharing thoughts on bombings to Fars News'We should hit Dimona 10 times harder' — RT (@RT_com) June 22, 2025 Crypto-based prediction market Polymarket shows that odds for a 'Strait of Hormuz closure by July' surged from roughly 15% before the U.S. B-2 stealth bomber strikes on Iran's key nuclear sites—Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan—to as high as 60% earlier today, reflecting a sharp repricing of geopolitical risk. The potential closure of the strait was recently outlined in a 'worst-case scenario' by JPMorgan's chief commodity strategist, Natasha Kaneva (available to pro subscribers in the usual place). The note cautioned that a severe outcome could send oil prices into the $120-$130 per barrel range. London-based oil strategist at Bloomberg, Julian Lee, penned several important questions about what would happen if Iran tried to close the critical maritime chokepoint: Could Iran really block the Strait of Hormuz? Iran would have no legal authority to order a halt to traffic through Hormuz, so would need to achieve this by force or the threat of force. If its navy tried to bar entry to the strait, it would likely be met with a strong response from the U.S. Fifth Fleet and other Western navies patrolling the area. But it could cause severe disruption without a single Iranian warship leaving port. One option would be to harry shipping with small, fast patrol boats. Or it could launch drones and fire missiles toward ships from coastal or inland sites. That could make it too risky for commercial ships to venture through. Similar tactics have been employed successfully by the Houthi militia in Yemen to disrupt traffic through the Bab el-Mandeb strait leading into the Red Sea on the other side of the Arabian peninsula. The Houthis have mostly fired missiles and drones at ships after warning owners of vessels linked to the U.S., the UK and Israel that they will be attacked if they approach the area. A US-led force in the Red Sea is seeking to protect shipping there. But the number of ships sailing through the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden was still down about 70% in June compared with the average level of 2022 and 2023, according to Clarkson Research Services Ltd, a unit of the world's largest shipbroker. This has forced vessel operators to reroute their traffic around the southern tip of Africa instead of going through the Suez Canal — a lengthier and more expensive journey for ships traveling between Asia and Europe. Closing the Strait of Hormuz would quickly hit Iran's own economy as it would prevent it from exporting its petroleum. And it would antagonize China, the biggest buyer of Iranian oil and a critical partner that's used its veto power at the UN Security Council to shield Iran from Western-led sanctions or resolutions. When has Iran disrupted shipping? Iran has used harassment of ships in the Gulf for decades to register its dissatisfaction with sanctions against it, or as leverage in disputes. In April 2024, hours before launching a drone and missile attack on Israel, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps seized an Israel-linked container ship near the Strait of Hormuz. Iran released the ship's crew the following month, according to trade publication Lloyd's List. Tehran claimed that the MSC Aries had violated maritime regulations, but analysts pointed to its Israeli ownership connection as a motive. When it seized a US-bound tanker in April 2023, Iran said the ship had struck another vessel. But the move appeared to be retaliation for the seizure off Malaysia's coast of a ship loaded with Iranian crude by U.S. authorities on the grounds of sanctions violations. In May 2022, Iran seized two Greek tankers and held them for six months, presumably a response to the confiscation by Greek and U.S. authorities of Iranian oil on a different ship. The cargo was eventually released and the Greek tankers freed. So, too, was the oil on a tanker that Iran said it impounded in January 'in retaliation for the theft of oil by the US.' Has Iran ever closed the Strait of Hormuz? Not so far. During the 1980-88 war between Iraq and Iran, Iraqi forces attacked an oil export terminal at Kharg Island, northwest of the strait, in part to provoke an Iranian retaliation that would draw the U.S. into the conflict. Afterward, in what was called the Tanker War, the two sides attacked 451 vessels between them. That significantly raised the cost of insuring tankers and helped push up oil prices. When sanctions were imposed on Iran in 2011, it threatened to close the strait, but ultimately backed off. Commodore Alireza Tangsiri, head of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps naval forces, said shortly before the MSC Aries seizure that Iran has the option of disrupting traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, but chooses not to. How did the U.S. and allies respond to threats to Hormuz shipping in the past? During the Tanker War, the U.S. Navy resorted to escorting vessels through the Gulf. In 2019, it dispatched an aircraft carrier and B-52 bombers to the region. The same year, the U.S. started Operation Sentinel in response to Iran's disruption of shipping. Ten other nations — including the UK, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain — later joined the operation, known now as the International Maritime Security Construct. Since late 2023, much of the focus on protecting shipping has switched away from the Strait of Hormuz and onto the southern Red Sea, the region's other vital waterway, and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait that connects it to the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean. Attacks by the Iran-backed Houthis on shipping entering or exiting the Red Sea became a greater concern than the Strait of Hormuz. UK-flagged tanker Kohzan Maru reversed course in the Strait of Hormuz overnight after the strikes became public. At least one tanker in the Strait of Hormuz appears to have paused its transit after the US struck Iran overnight. Seen here, the UK-flagged tanker Kohzan Maru reversed course after the strikes became public and is now racing south at top speed. — OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) June 22, 2025 Latest ship tracking data via Bloomberg shows tankers are still flowing through the maritime chokepoint. Other critical maritime chokepoints to keep an eye on in the region. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued this warning to Iran on Fox News: 'If Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, it will be another terrible mistake. It's economic suicide for them if they do it and we retain options to deal with that.' Rubio:'If Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, it will be another terrible mistake. It's economic suicide for them if they do it and we retain options to deal with that' — Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) June 22, 2025 Now the West waits for Iran's retaliatory attack. Also read: Here's How US Strikes On Iran Unfolded
