
Exclusive: Iran made preparations to mine the Strait of Hormuz, US sources say
The previously unreported preparations, which were detected by U.S. intelligence, occurred some time after Israel launched its initial missile attack against Iran on June 13, said the officials, who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence matters.
The loading of the mines - which have not been deployed in the strait - suggests that Tehran may have been serious about closing one of the world's busiest shipping lanes, a move that would have escalated an already-spiraling conflict and severely hobbled global commerce.
About one-fifth of global oil and gas shipments pass through the Strait of Hormuz and a blockage would likely have spiked world energy prices.
Global benchmark oil prices have instead fallen more than 10% since the U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, driven in part by relief that the conflict did not trigger significant disruptions in the oil trade.
On June 22, shortly after the U.S. bombed three of Iran's key nuclear sites in a bid to cripple Tehran's nuclear program, Iran's parliament reportedly backed a measure to block the strait.
That decision was not binding, and it was up to Iran's Supreme National Security Council to make a final decision on the closure, Iran's Press TV said at the time. Iran has over the years threatened to close the strait but has never followed through on that threat.
Reuters was not able to determine precisely when during the Israel-Iran air war Tehran loaded the mines, which - if deployed - would have effectively stopped ships from moving through the key thoroughfare.
It is also unclear if the mines have since been unloaded.
The sources did not disclose how the United States determined that the mines had been put on the Iranian vessels, but such intelligence is typically gathered through satellite imagery, clandestine human sources or a combination of both methods.
Asked for comment about Iran's preparations, a White House official said: "Thanks to the President's brilliant execution of Operation Midnight Hammer, successful campaign against the Houthis, and maximum pressure campaign, the Strait of Hormuz remains open, freedom of navigation has been restored, and Iran has been significantly weakened."
The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Iranian mission at the United Nations also did not respond to requests for comment.
The two officials said the U.S. government has not ruled out the possibility that loading the mines was a ruse. The Iranians could have prepared the mines to convince Washington that Tehran was serious about closing the strait, but without intending to do so, the officials said.
Iran's military could have also simply been making necessary preparations in the event that Iran's leaders gave the order.
The Strait of Hormuz lies between Oman and Iran and links the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman to the south and the Arabian Sea beyond.
It is 21 miles (34 km) wide at its narrowest point, with the shipping lane just 2 miles wide in either direction.
OPEC members Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Iraq export most of their crude via the strait, mainly to Asia. Qatar, among the world's biggest liquefied natural gas exporters, sends almost all of its LNG through the strait.
Iran also exports most of its crude through the passage, which in theory limits Tehran's appetite to shut the strait. But Tehran has nonetheless dedicated significant resources to making sure it can do so if it deems necessary.
As of 2019, Iran maintained more than 5,000 naval mines, which could be rapidly deployed with the help of small, high-speed boats, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency estimated at the time.
The U.S. Fifth Fleet, which is based in Bahrain, is charged with protecting commerce in the region. The U.S. Navy has typically kept four mine countermeasure vessels, or MCM vessels, in Bahrain, though those ships are being replaced by another type of vessel called a littoral combat ship, or LCS, which also has anti-mine capabilities.
All anti-mine ships had been temporarily removed from Bahrain in the days leading up to the U.S. strikes on Iran in anticipation of a potential retaliatory attack on Fifth Fleet headquarters.
Ultimately, Iran's immediate retaliation was limited to a missile attack on a U.S. military base in nearby Qatar.
U.S. officials, however, have not ruled out further retaliatory measures by Iran.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
19 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
'Maga Mark' Zuckerberg unceremoniously kicked out of Oval Office after White House tour
Meta head honcho Mark Zuckerberg was reportedly asked to leave a meeting at the Oval Office after he 'walked in unexpectedly' while President Trump met with high-ranking military leaders. Sources familiar with the recent meeting told NBC News that military leaders were shocked when Zuckerberg waltzed into the Oval Office during a discussion on the Air Force's next-generation fighter jet platform. The exact date of the reported incident was not divulged. Officials were reportedly concerned about Zuckerberg's presence, citing that he didn't have the security clearance to be a part of the conversation. He was then asked to leave the office and forced to wait outside. The White House didn't respond when asked about the context of the meeting. The Daily Mail reached out to Meta for comment on the claims. Sources told the outlet that officials in the meeting were 'mystified and a bit unnerved' with the lack of privacy in the Oval Office. One official even referred to the meeting as 'bizarro world.' Zuckerberg has had a complicated history with politics, initially voicing pro-immigration policies and supporting liberal politicians before pivoting towards the MAGA agenda amid Trump's re-election campaign. Zuckerberg attended Trump's inauguration earlier this year, cozying up to fellow billionaires Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. New reporting has revealed that Zuckerberg's allegiance to Trump has even extended to meetings at the White House, leading to this embarrassing ejection from the Oval. Trump reportedly refers to the infamous room as 'Grand Central Terminal' because of the frequent visitors, with one official telling NBC there were concerns about 'spillage' of sensitive information. Chief of Staff Susie Wiles is said to attend 'virtually every meeting that matters,' former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said. Trump affectionately refers to Wiles as the 'Ice Maiden,' with sources crediting her for balancing the president's informalities. Adding to Trump's anything-but-ordinary White House, sources told NBC that cabinet officials frequent the Oval Office. 'They should be running their bureaucracies. They shouldn't be hanging around the White House,' one former White House official said. In response to the source's allegations, Trump's deputy chief of staff for communications Taylor Budowich said, 'President Trump has assembled the greatest cabinet in American history—a group of talented individuals who embody the diverse coalition that delivered his historic election victory. 'Cabinet Member and White House Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, has played an integral role in operationalizing his agenda through his administration and has ensured everyone is empowered with the tools to deliver on the president's mandate.' Sources also revealed that Trump would 'spontaneously pick up the phone' during meetings to call confidantes, including the CEO of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, Dana White, and the former chairman of News Corp. Rupert Murdoch. 'He'll say: "Let's call Rupert. Fox is killing me today,'' an anonymous source revealed to NBC. White has been a longtime ally of Trump's, showing support for the president at the last Republican National Convention and joining him on stage during his election victory party. The UFC CEO joined Meta's board earlier this year, just two weeks before Trump took office. The move signaled Zuckerberg's shift to the right, as he also named prominent Republican Joel Kaplan to Meta's head of global policy in January.


The Guardian
21 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Caution has turned to cowardice – the BBC is failing viewers with its Gaza coverage
Tonight, audiences can finally watch Gaza: Doctors Under Attack on Channel 4 and Zeteo. This timely film was originally produced for the BBC by award-winning production company Basement Films. The BBC has been delaying it since February, arguing it couldn't go out before a review into an entirely different film, Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone, had culminated. That was a poor editorial decision with no precedent. But poorer still: after months of leaving the film in limbo, last week the BBC announced it wouldn't air it – leaving it for Channel 4 to pick up. Why? The BBC said it might create 'the perception of partiality'. You'd be forgiven for thinking this was lifted from a dystopian novel. Perception, after all, has nothing to do with impartiality – at least in an ideal world. The BBC seems to have said the quiet part out loud. Impartiality, as far as it's concerned, is about PR, optics and managing the anger of certain groups, rather than following the evidence and championing robust journalism – no matter who's angered, no matter how it looks. More than 100 BBC journalists have now anonymously signed a letter, calling the choice not to broadcast Gaza: Doctors Under Attack a 'political decision' that doesn't reflect the quality of journalism in the film. The BBC, they say, is 'an organisation crippled by the fear of being perceived as critical of the Israeli government'. The letter says the decision not to air this film came straight from the top, and many BBC staff – junior and senior – are unhappy with it. They feel it doesn't reflect the organisation's values, and that there was no acceptable editorial justification for delaying and then canning it. Some have been brave enough to voice this internally, but their concerns haven't been heard. It's no surprise to me that the BBC isn't listening to its own journalists over this film. It's also no surprise to me that more than 100 BBC journalists felt they needed anonymity to criticise the board's decision. Because this isn't the first anonymous letter. Twenty months ago, while I was working as a journalist in a BBC newsroom, covering Gaza day in and day out, I realised that my news organisation wasn't accurately telling this story. But I didn't feel I could openly criticise editorial policy without being taken off the story or coded as biased, and I wasn't alone. In November 2023, I wrote the first letter out of the BBC, expressing concerns about the Gaza coverage. It was signed by just seven other BBC journalists, and reported on by Al Jazeera. By the time I wrote my last letter, published in the Independent a year later, more than 100 BBC journalists had signed anonymously, alongside hundreds of industry professionals and respected media lecturers. This was around the time I left the organisation, unable to continue in good conscience. Dissent was clearly growing. But people were still afraid to speak openly. Last week in parliament, the BBC's director of news, Richard Burgess, claimed the organisation listens to its journalists. But my letters weren't heard, and nor were my efforts to raise the alarm internally. In the year from October 2023, I organised staff, attended multiple 'listening sessions' with executives, helped put together dossiers of poor coverage, wrote to executives and relevant teams, and did my best to cover Gaza while hamstrung by obstructive editorial policy and an unwillingness to cover the story. I was a BBC-trained journalist horrified at the contradiction between the ideals of our public broadcaster – accuracy, transparency, public trust – and its actions. Editorial caution had become editorial cowardice. Decisions were being shaped by fear – of complaint campaigns and lobby groups, of being told off by higher-ups. This had left us with coverage that was overall inaccurate, failing to communicate the disproportionality, scale, gravity and illegality of Israel's actions in Gaza – actions now deemed a genocide by various experts and humanitarian organisations. Inaccuracy is more than telling an overt lie. Inaccuracy comes in many forms: omitting key stories, omitting key context, speaking to one group far more than another. Good journalism is about following the evidence. And if the BBC's approach has been shaped by evidence, why did it speak to more than double the number of Israelis, compared with Palestinians, in the year after 7 October 2023? Why did it omit key legal context – such as the January 2024 international court of justice ruling – from its coverage? These choices skew reality. Both are findings from a recent damning Centre for Media Monitoring report on the BBC's Gaza coverage, with data-backed insights into how it has failed to tell the full story. And it hasn't learned its lesson. Perhaps if the BBC had listened to these journalists over the past year and a half, Gaza: Doctors Under Attack would have aired in February when it was ready, instead of becoming another gaping omission in BBC coverage. BBC impartiality is dead. The fiction that our public broadcaster can stay perfectly neutral, without being influenced, is fracturing around us. Every so-called 'controversial' story has exposed a new fault line, showing how unwilling the BBC is to wade through influence and disinformation to get to the truth – in certain cases. Gaza, climate breakdown, migration: these are stories where public opinion has been polarised, powerful lobby groups are at play, or where the government or major corporations have come down on one side. This is where the BBC is most needed but fails most catastrophically. Those at the top of the BBC now have a choice. They can once again ignore the alarm raised by their own journalists, and continue to chip away at the trust of audiences and staff. Or they can finally – after 20 months – listen. Karishma Patel is a former BBC journalist and newsreader turned media critic Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.


Daily Mail
41 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Elon Musk does surprise U-turn amid heated Trump feud to give the president 'credit' on a major conflict
Elon Musk took to his X account to talk about President Donald Trump but, in a surprising twist, he was there to praise him instead of criticize him. He made his complimentary comment after re-tweeting Trump's update on peace talks between Israel and Gaza including a 60-day ceasefire deal. 'Credit where credit is due. @realDonaldTrump has successfully resolved several serious conflicts around the world,' the world's richest man wrote. It was a remarkable change in tone considering the two men have spent the month sniping at each other on social media, each trying to out top the other with threats and insults. The Tesla CEO has come out publicly against Trump's signature spending and tax 'big, beautiful bill' that is snaking its way through the House and Senate this week. He slammed the bill over its cuts to electronic vehicle subsidies and says it increases the country's deficit. After Musk's public condemnation of the legislation, Trump even indicated he was open to the idea of deporting the Tesla founder, who was born in South Africa and is a naturalized American. The president also threatened to turn Musk's DOGE agency against him, telling the Daily Mail that he might have the agency 'eat Elon' - which likely meant Trump was threatening to cancel Musk's billions in government contracts. The simmering tensions between the two men have boiled over in the past week as Musk railed against Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' and Trump snapped back. It was a throw back to their breakup last month, which was public and messy. Their long alliance appears to be over but Musk, who said he was leaving DOGE to concentrate on his private businesses, appears to be making a return to politics. Musk spent almost $300 million to support Trump and other Republican candidates in the 2024 election. And now he's threatening to start a new political party. In response, Trump escalated matters, saying he is open to deporting Musk and adding that additional threat: turning DOGE - the agency Musk founded - against him. 'I don't know. We'll have to take a look,' the president told Daily Mail on Tuesday when asked about deporting Musk. 'We might have to put DOGE on Elon. You know what DOGE is? DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon,' Trump added. Musk responded on X, writing: 'So tempting to escalate this. So, so tempting. But I will refrain for now.' Their feud, which had quieted down, reignited after the Tesla founder spent much of the weekend railing against Trump's signature bill, complaining about its cuts to electronic vehicle subsidies and showing that it increases the country's deficit. The Senate, however, ultimately approved the 'big, beautiful bill' on Tuesday. It now faces another vote in the House. Trump shrugged off Musk's criticism and warned the Tesla founder has more to lose than EV subsidies that help support his car business. 'Elon is not getting his mandate,' Trump said Tuesday. 'He's not going to get his mandate and he better be careful. He might not get anything else.' Trump also appeared to regret his Tesla purchase, which he made earlier this year, paying cash. He turned the South Lawn into a Tesla showroom in a nod to his relationship with the world's richest man. 'Not everybody wants an electric car. I don't want an electric car,' Trump said. At the time, Musk was the head of the Department of Government Efficiency and his auto dealerships became the target of protests due to his sweeping cost-cutting. Musk was a top contributor to Trump's 2024 presidential campaign, spending millions to help the president win a second term. But their relationship went South after Musk left the government to return to the private sector. They sparred on social media after Musk amped up his criticism of the Big, Beautiful Bill. But Trump made it clear that Musk knew the subsidies for electronic cars was not an option from the start. And he said Musk may have to go back to his homeland of South Africa. 'Elon Musk knew, long before he so strongly endorsed me for president, that I was strongly against the EV Mandate,' Trump wrote on Truth Social early Tuesday. Musk, in response, threatened to start a new political party and target Republicans who ultimately vote for the president's package. 'If this insane spending bill passes, the America Party will be formed the next day,' he wrote on X. 'Our country needs an alternative to the Democrat-Republican uniparty so that the people actually have a VOICE.' Musk, the world's richest man, gave nearly $300 million to Republican candidates last year. Now he may leverage that seismic war chest among the very GOPers he once aided, writing he would work to dislodge GOP incumbents in primaries 'if it is the last thing I do on this Earth.'