Oil routes wobble: Two tankers turn back from Hormuz as US strikes on Iran raise fears of wider conflict
Two
supertankers
, each capable of carrying around 2 million barrels of crude oil, made a U-turn in the
Strait of Hormuz
after
US airstrikes on Iran
triggered fears of retaliation that could affect commercial shipping through the region, Bloomberg reported.
The Coswisdom Lake and South Loyalty had both entered the key waterway before abruptly reversing course on Sunday, according to vessel tracking data compiled by Bloomberg. The two empty tankers then sailed south, away from the entrance to the Persian Gulf.
Although jamming of ship signals and electronics in the Persian Gulf has increased since Israeli airstrikes on June 13, the movement and subsequent turnarounds of the two vessels resemble routine tanker behaviour rather than irregular incidents.
Despite signal interference and attempts by ships to stay further away from the Iranian coastline, oil and gas tankers have continued transiting the strait following the US airstrikes. However, the decision by the Coswisdom Lake and South Loyalty to turn back marks the first indication of possible re-routing.
Vessel owners and oil traders are now watching closely for signs that the broader conflict in the Middle East could begin to influence shipping flows. Earlier on Sunday, the Greek shipping ministry issued a notice advising its vessels to reassess voyages through
Hormuz
and instead take shelter in safe ports until the situation stabilises.
The United States launched one of its largest aerial attacks in decades on Sunday, striking Iran's key nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed that the operation—named
Operation Midnight Hammer
—was 'an incredible and overwhelming success,' carried out on the direct orders of President
Donald Trump
.
Following the strikes, Iran is now considering the option of shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, according to a EuroNews report published on Sunday. The strait is one of the world's most vital maritime chokepoints for oil shipping.
Commercial satellite images suggest the US attack may have severely damaged—or even destroyed—the underground Fordow nuclear facility and the centrifuges used for uranium enrichment. However, experts said on Sunday there was no official confirmation yet.
Sardar Esmail Kowsari, a commander in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and a member of parliament, told local media that closing the Strait of Hormuz 'is under consideration,' and added, 'Iran will make the best decision with determination.'
Given the rising tensions, vessels might now prefer to wait outside the strait rather than proceed to their designated loading ports if delays are expected upon arrival.
Even before the weekend attacks, benchmark tanker earnings had risen by nearly 90%. On Sunday night, freight derivatives appeared to surge, reflecting expectations of disruption.
EuroNews also reported that, in case of further escalation, Iran could use its short- and medium-range missiles to target oil platforms and pipelines in the strait, or launch attacks on commercial ships. Surface-to-surface missiles could be aimed at tankers or coastal facilities, while drones and airstrikes could potentially disable radar and navigation systems at major terminals.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
40 minutes ago
- Mint
Israel-Iran conflict threatens India's agri exports
NEW DELHI : The escalating conflict between Israel and Iran is clouding the outlook for India's agricultural exports, with experts warning of potential disruptions to trade routes, payments, and shipments, particularly via Iran's Bandar Abbas port, a key gateway for India to Afghanistan and Central Asia. Exporters are also calling for urgent action to scale up the Chabahar Port as a strategic alternative to safeguard India's regional trade links. 'Payment mechanisms—already constrained by US curbs—may tighten further, and heightened security risks in the Gulf could push up insurance premiums and delay shipments," said Ajay Srivastava, a former trade services official and co-founder of the economic think tank Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI). Also Read: Mint Primer: Oil shock looms as Iran threatens to shut Strait of Hormuz. What it means for India 'Perishable goods like rice, bananas, and tea are particularly at risk," he added. India's exports to Iran stood at $1.24 billion in 2024-25, with basmati rice alone accounting for $753.2 million. Other major exports include bananas ($53.2 million), soybean meal ($70.6 million), bengal gram ($27.9 million), and tea ($25.5 million). However, the risk of a prolonged conflict could choke this trade pipeline. Hit on exports To be sure, Basmati rice exports have already taken a hit. Nearly 100,000 tonnes of basmati shipments bound for Iran are stranded at Indian ports, as exporters have put deliveries on hold amid growing uncertainty. Iran imports nearly one million tonnes of basmati rice from India annually, accounting for about 20% of India's total basmati exports, said Sushil Kumar Jain, vice president, All India Rice Exporters Association. Jain said payment dues of ₹1,500 crore to Indian exporters are stuck amid the ongoing conflict. 'If the conflict persists for a longer period, the exporters may face huge losses, which is difficult to quantify at the moment, but if it settles down in a few days, then we don't see major losses," he added. The conflict's ripple effects are also being felt in the sugar trade. While direct sugar exports to Iran are limited, India routes shipments to Afghanistan through Bandar Abbas due to its fraught trade relations with Pakistan. 'Operations at the port are currently stable, but any escalation could disrupt sugar movement to Afghanistan," said Deepak Ballani, director general, Indian Sugar and Bio-energy Manufacturers Association (ISMA). Also Read: US attack on Iranian nuclear sites roils oil market, India braces for possible price surge Other commodity markets are also on edge. For instance, edible oil prices have jumped $40-50 in just a week, due to supply chain strains and energy cost concerns, according to the Solvent Extractors' Association of India (SEA). Alternative route Meanwhile, rising tensions have prompted experts to underline the growing strategic urgency of scaling up the Chabahar port as India's alternative trade gateway to Afghanistan, Central Asia, and Eurasia. Bandar Abbas, Iran's largest commercial port located on the Strait of Hormuz, is of significant strategic and economic value not just for Iran but also for regional players like India. For India, the port has long served as a key transit point for exporting goods, particularly to landlocked Afghanistan and Central Asia, bypassing Pakistan. The rising tensions may threaten operations in Bandar Abbas, so the Chabahar port is no longer just an option, as it is becoming a strategic imperative for India to connect to Afghanistan, Central Asia, and Eurasia, said Ajay Sahai, director general and CEO of the Federation of Indian Export Organisations (FIEO). 'Rising Israel-Iran tensions reinforce the urgency to operationalize, scale, and integrate Chabahar into India's core trade corridors, which is time and cost-effective," Sahai said. 'India now has an opportunity to shape the future of regional connectivity. Chabahar could emerge not just as a port, but as India's diplomatic and logistical gateway to West and Central Asia," he added. The news agency Press Trust of India on Sunday reported that Indian exporters urged the Centre to shift cargo operations from the Bandar Abbas port to the Chabahar port at a high-level meeting chaired by commerce secretary Sunil Barthwal. Also Read: Mint Explainer | Strait of Hormuz: Will Iran shut the vital oil artery of the world? The meeting brought together senior officials from the ministries of commerce, petroleum, shipping, revenue, and financial services, along with representatives from shipping lines and airport authorities, highlighting the urgency of safeguarding strategic trade corridors, the news agency reported. The spokesperson of the ministry of agriculture and farmers' welfare and the ministry of commerce and industry didn't respond to emailed queries. Challenges ahead However, an immediate diversion of cargo may not be practical due to infrastructure constraints, experts warned. An immediate diversion is not feasible, as the existing infrastructure at Chabahar is inadequate to handle a sudden spike in cargo and container volumes, said Anil Devli, CEO of the Indian National Shipowners' Association (INSA). 'Even roads connecting the port to the nearest highway are not proper, which would make the onward journey both difficult and expensive," Devli said. Despite recent improvements, Chabahar's handling capacity remains modest. The port managed about 80,000 TEUs and three million metric tonnes (MT) of bulk cargo in 2024-25—up from 64,000 TEUs and 2.12 MT in 2023-24, and just 9,000 TEUs and 2.08 MT in 2022-23, according to the data from the ministry of shipping.
NDTV
44 minutes ago
- NDTV
U-Turning Oil Supertankers Cross Strait Of Hormuz After Avoiding It
Two supertankers, each capable of hauling about 2 million barrels of crude, headed through the Hormuz shipping strait at the mouth of the Persian gulf, having performed U-turns in the past 24 hours. On Sunday, the Coswisdom Lake and South Loyalty entered the waterway and abruptly changed course, according to vessel tracking data compiled by Bloomberg. After a pause, both then headed back through Hormuz. One was almost through and the other entering it, signals from each showed on Monday. The two vessels' movements into the world's most important oil-producing region come as shipbrokers and others in the oil tanker market report a cautious willingness to enter the stretch of water that's pivotal to the global oil trade. Separately, Greece's shipping ministry warned on Sunday that the country's owners should think twice about Hormuz transit and instead head to a safe port. While neither tanker is Greek, the communication from Athens underscored an initial wariness about going through an area that handles about a fifth of the world's oil. Greece is the owner of the world's largest tanker fleet by transportation capacity. Coswisdom Lake is managed by Cosco Shipping Energy and South Loyalty by Sinokor Merchant Marine, according to industry databases. Both are very large crude carriers, or VLCCs. Neither company immediately responded to emailed requests for comment. There remain examples of wariness. Two large Japanese shipping companies said they will cut exposure to the strait, an unavoidable searoute for any vessel entering the Persian Gulf.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
When can US go to war? Here's what its Constitution says
In 1973, a war-weary US Congress passed the War Powers Act to rein in presidents who overstepped in Vietnam. Five decades later, President Donald Trump's unilateral strike on Iran has reignited a debate the Founders thought they had settled in 1787. On June 22, when Trump announced a series of coordinated airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities — hitting targets in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan — he did so without notifying Congress, let alone securing its approval. The sites were hit with precision-guided missiles and 30,000-pound bunker-busters. While Tehran stopped short of a formal declaration of war, officials warned that retaliation was inevitable. At an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, Iran's ambassador, Amir Saeid Iravani, accused the United States of having 'destroyed diplomacy,' warning that the Iranian military would determine the 'timing, nature, and scale' of its retaliation, the Associated Press reported. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi immediately flew to Moscow for consultations with Russia, a sign of how fast this confrontation could escalate beyond bilateral hostilities. Back in Washington, President Trump's aides termed the strike as a limited action. Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared on Fox News to clarify the administration's position: 'This is not a war against Iran,' he said. 'It's a targeted operation to prevent nuclear escalation.' Yet just hours later, President Trump posted a message online: 'If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' The message prompted widespread speculation. Was the administration pursuing regime change in Iran? And if so, was the United States already engaged in war? Global markets reacted nervously. Oil prices surged, and analysts warned of long-term consequences for nuclear non-proliferation and regional stability. More profoundly, Trump's decision reignited a centuries-old question: who gets to declare war? The US Constitution is unequivocal: under Article I, Section 8, only Congress — not the President — holds the authority to declare war. This separation was no accident. It was a deliberate check on executive power, forged in reaction to the British monarchy, where kings could drag nations into conflict at will. The Founders sought to ensure that decisions as grave as war would require the consent of the people's representatives. The Constitution also designates the president as Commander in Chief under Article II, granting authority to direct military operations once war is authorised. The executive also retains the capacity to respond swiftly to sudden attacks. The most notable test came in 1861, when President Abraham Lincoln ordered a blockade of Southern ports at the outset of the Civil War, months before Congress officially declared war on the Confederacy. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld Lincoln's actions, ruling that the President has the authority to 'repel sudden attacks.' For much of US history, this balance endured. From the War of 1812 through World War II, major military engagements were accompanied by formal declarations of war from Congress. Formal declarations of war have remained rare. The United States has declared war only 11 times. (Source: But in the post-1945 world, that constitutional clarity began to blur. The first major rupture came in 1950, when President Harry Truman committed US troops to Korea without seeking congressional approval, framing the war as a 'police action' under the United Nations banner. Subsequent presidents followed suit. John F Kennedy escalated America's presence in Vietnam by sending military advisors and weapons, sidestepping a formal declaration. By 1969, President Richard Nixon was conducting a secret bombing campaign in Cambodia, entirely without the knowledge or consent of Congress. This executive overreach eventually sparked legislative backlash. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, designed to reassert its authority, overriding Nixon's veto in the process. The act required presidents to consult with Congress before engaging in hostilities and to withdraw forces within 60 days unless Congress explicitly authorised further action. In theory, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was crafted to restrain precisely the kind of unilateral action President Trump has now taken. Passed in the aftermath of Vietnam, the law requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying US forces into hostilities and to withdraw them within 60 days unless Congress grants explicit authorisation. In practice, it has proven all but toothless. Every president since its passage has sidestepped or outright ignored its provisions. Trump did not inform Congress before ordering strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, nor, critics argue, has he offered a convincing legal justification under the US or international law. 'The short answer is that this is, in my view, illegal under both international law and U.S. domestic law,' Oona Hathaway, a professor of international law at Yale Law School who has worked at the Defense Department, told the New York Times. The law, like many of its post-Watergate era peers, was built on trust and precedent. It had no true enforcement mechanism. And so, it has repeatedly failed to restrain the very power it was meant to check. Trump's decision fits a well-established pattern of executive overreach in foreign military engagements. President Ronald Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada and airstrikes on Libya without congressional approval. President George HW Bush invaded Panama in 1989, triggering legal debate over constitutional boundaries. President Bill Clinton bombed Serbia in 1999 as part of the Kosovo conflict, again without seeking congressional consent. President Barack Obama launched a prolonged air campaign in Libya in 2011 and later against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, citing outdated authorisations rather than requesting new ones. Even President Joe Biden, a former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, authorised airstrikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen in 2024 without congressional sanction. Each administration justified its actions as necessary and time-sensitive. But cumulatively, these precedents have normalised unilateral war-making, eroding Congress's role and the public's voice in questions of war and peace. Technological change has accelerated this shift. Drones, cyber tools, and remote strike capabilities have made it easier to conduct military operations with minimal personnel and lower political risk. A key enabler of this executive drift has been the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed in 2001, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. The resolution granted the president authority to use 'all necessary and appropriate force' against those responsible for the attacks and those who harboured them. Originally intended to target al-Qaeda and its affiliates, the 2001 AUMF has since been used to justify military actions in at least seven countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan. It has also been invoked against newer groups like ISIS, despite no explicit congressional authorisation for those operations. Multiple presidents have promised to revise or repeal the AUMF. None have succeeded. Its broad language remains a legal foundation for perpetual military engagement. Trump's 2025 strikes have brought these longstanding tensions to a head. Legal scholars, military experts, and members of Congress are warning that US war-making has entered a constitutional grey zone. By allowing the executive to define and initiate acts of war without oversight, Congress risks ceding one of its most fundamental constitutional powers. Trump ran for office promising to end America's entanglements abroad. Instead, with his June strike, he has intensified one of the longest-running debates in US history. At its core, the question remains unchanged since 1787: who gets to take the United States to war? Aishwarya Khosla is a journalist currently serving as Deputy Copy Editor at The Indian Express. Her writings examine the interplay of culture, identity, and politics. She began her career at the Hindustan Times, where she covered books, theatre, culture, and the Punjabi diaspora. Her editorial expertise spans the Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Punjab and Online desks. She was the recipient of the The Nehru Fellowship in Politics and Elections, where she studied political campaigns, policy research, political strategy and communications for a year. She pens The Indian Express newsletter, Meanwhile, Back Home. Write to her at or You can follow her on Instagram: @ink_and_ideology, and X: @KhoslaAishwarya. ... Read More
