logo
US mulls plan to disrupt Iran's oil by halting vessels at sea

US mulls plan to disrupt Iran's oil by halting vessels at sea

Zawya06-03-2025
President Donald Trump's administration is considering a plan to stop and inspect Iranian oil tankers at sea under an international accord aimed at countering the spread of weapons of mass destruction, sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.
Trump has vowed to restore a "maximum pressure" campaign to isolate Iran from the global economy and drive its oil exports to zero, in order to stop the country from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Trump hit Iran with two waves of fresh sanctions in the first weeks of his second-term, targeting companies and the so-called shadow fleet of ageing oil tankers that sail without Western insurance and transport crude from sanctioned countries.
Those moves have largely been in line with the limited measures implemented during former President Joe Biden's administration, during which Iran succeeded in ramping up oil exports through complex smuggling networks.
Trump officials are now looking at ways for allied countries to stop and inspect ships sailing through critical chokepoints such as the Malacca Strait in Asia and other sea lanes, according to six sources who asked not to be named due to the sensitive subject.
That would delay delivery of crude to refiners. It could also expose parties involved in facilitating the trade to reputational damage and sanctions, the sources said.
"You don't have to sink ships or arrest people to have that chilling effect that this is just not worth the risk," one of the sources said.
"The delay in delivery ... instills uncertainty in that illicit trade network."
The administration was examining whether inspections at sea could be conducted under the auspices of the Proliferation Security Initiative launched in 2003, which aims to prevent the trafficking of weapons of mass destruction.
The U.S. drove that initiative, which has been signed by over 100 governments.
This mechanism could enable foreign governments to target Iran's oil shipments at Washington's request, one of the sources said, effectively delaying deliveries and hitting supply chains Tehran relies upon for revenue.
The National Security Council, which formulates policy in the White House, was looking into possible inspections at sea, two of the sources said.
It was unclear if Washington had yet approached any signatories to the Proliferation Security Initiative to test their willingness to cooperate with the proposal.
John Bolton, who was the U.S. lead negotiator for the initiative when it was formed, told Reuters: "it would be fully justified" to use the initiative to slow down Iran oil exports. He noted that selling oil was "obviously critical to raise revenue for the government of Iran to conduct both its proliferation activities and support for terrorism."
The White House National Security Council did not respond to requests for comment.
Iran's oil and foreign ministries did not respond to separate requests for comment.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian told Iran's parliament on March 2 that Trump "has once again signed an order sanctioning many of our ships at sea, leaving them uncertain about how to unload their oil and gas cargo". He was referring to Trump's latest round of sanctions.
POTENTIAL BLOWBACK
Previous attempts to seize Iranian oil cargoes have triggered retaliation by Iran.
The U.S. tried to interdict at least two cargoes of Iranian oil in 2023, under Biden. This prompted Iran to seize foreign ships - including one chartered by Chevron Corp, which sent crude prices higher.
The current low oil price environment gives Trump more options to block Iranian oil flows, from sanctions on tanker companies to seizing ships, according to Ben Cahill, an energy analyst at the Center for Energy and Environmental Systems at the University of Texas.
"I think if prices stay below $75 a barrel, the White House has more latitude to look at sanctions that would affect, you know, supply from Iran and other countries. It would be much harder to do this in a $92 per barrel environment," Cahill said.
Aggressive U.S. action could cut Iran exports by some 750,000 barrels per day in the short term, he said, but the longer the sanctions are in place, the less effective they are as Iran and buyers figure out ways around them.
A speedy resumption of oil exports from Iraq's semi-autonomous Kurdistan region would help offset any fall in Iranian exports. Reuters previously reported that the White House is piling pressure on Iraq to allow Kurdish oil exports to restart or face sanctions alongside Iran.
Despite U.S. sanctions in recent years, Tehran's oil exports brought in $53 billion in 2023 and $54 billion a year earlier, largely in trades with China, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates.
Iran relies on oil exports to China for vital revenue. Russia, which faces restrictions on oil exports and broader Western sanctions, is similarly focused on shipping oil to buyers in China and India.
Finland and other Nordic countries have warned in recent months of the dangers of ships sailing close to their shores and the environmental risks they pose to their shores in oil spills if there is an accident.
While European countries have spoken about inspections of ships transporting Russian oil suspected of not having valid insurance, little action has been taken and none mooted for vessels hauling Iranian oil.
(Reporting By Jonathan Saul in London, Jarrett Renshaw in Washington, additional reporting by Timothy Gardner in Washington and Parisa Hafezi in Dubai, editing by Richard Valdmanis and David Gregorio)
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Washington is ceding its firm leadership on Ukraine in favour of a tripolar dynamic
Washington is ceding its firm leadership on Ukraine in favour of a tripolar dynamic

The National

time36 minutes ago

  • The National

Washington is ceding its firm leadership on Ukraine in favour of a tripolar dynamic

This week's White House meetings on the Ukraine war have demonstrated how drastically the world has changed. The US president wants to broker a deal that ends the fighting but doesn't seem overly concerned about the details. As long as Donald Trump can claim the status of international peacemaker and perhaps win a much-coveted Nobel Peace Prize, he will probably be satisfied. It's unmistakable political theatre. Until now, in any such situation, there would be two camps: Russia versus a US-led western front backing Ukraine. But US policy has become so unrecognisable that there are now instead three poles – Russia, the US, and Ukraine backed by Europe – creating a triangle with Washington as the hypotenuse. That means valuable European leverage and energy that could be used to pressure Russia is being diverted to prevent the US president from abandoning Ukraine, Europe, Nato and traditional US national security doctrines. They're succeeding on that thus far, but there's no progress towards ending the conflict. Russian President Vladimir Putin appears happy to continue talks with the fighting ongoing, confident his far more numerous forces can wear down the Ukrainian military. He's concentrating on shifting Mr Trump's attention and rhetoric away from demands for an immediate ceasefire, with some apparent success. Mr Trump is instead focused on triangular talks between the three sides. Were this summit to take place, it could have a questionable outcome because neither party may be willing to make concessions to the other. They will only make concessions, if at all, to third parties such as the US or Europeans. It's difficult to imagine a positive result emerging from a trilateral meeting while negative scenarios abound. Were this summit to take place, it could have a questionable outcome because neither party may be willing to make concessions to the other The sensible approach would be what has been, not entirely unsuccessfully, pursued between Israel and Hamas, with third party negotiators talking to both delegations. But proximity talks between professional diplomats is box office poison. To Mr Trump – once a highly experienced and skilful television producer – a three-way summit may sound like a potential blockbuster. The cast is perfect if they play their roles together in person, and numerous readily available settings, such as the White House or a similar venue in Western Europe, would be a perfect backdrop for a magnificent peace-making spectacle. But it's hard to see how the Ukrainian and Russian positions can be bridged without a major change in the military and strategic equation on the ground. One side will have to essentially win. It's not impossible to imagine a ceasefire or even armistice in which Ukraine refuses to formally cede any land but that leaves parts of it in Russian hands. But even this bitter struggle over land isn't the core of the conflict. Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 with the confident expectation of establishing its own governing authority in Kyiv and eliminating Ukraine's increasingly western-oriented state and society it found profoundly threatening. Ukraine, democratising despite rampant corruption, was even a 'bad example' to Russians about their own political alternatives. Certainly, Russia may want to annex Ukrainian territory, now packaged as potential 'land swaps'. But what it really wants is to ensure that Ukraine doesn't integrate further into the West creating, from Mr Putin's perspective, an intolerable threat to Russia along much of its western border. But greater integration into the West and Europe is precisely what Ukraine intends. These two positions are clearly irreconcilable and far more significant than the land deal on which Mr Trump seems focused. Potential US or western 'security guarantees' for Ukraine cut precisely to the point. Ukraine already received guarantees from the west, and Russia itself, in their denuclearisation agreements between 1991–1994. None of this protected Ukraine from Russia in 2014 or 2022. The closest thing to a reliable guarantee would be for Ukraine to join Nato, the ultimate Russian red line. Mr Trump's negotiator, Steve Witkoff, spoke about the potential for new guarantees that would mimic Article 5 of the Nato treaty that is commonly interpreted to commit the US and other signatories to militarily defending any Nato member that comes under attack. It would effectively throw an American and European nuclear umbrella over Ukraine. Unfortunately, Mr Trump has indicated several times that not only is he highly suspicious of Nato in general, he does not accept that Article 5 commits the US to defending anyone. Indeed, the Article was originally crafted to allow isolationist Americans to read it in this manner, although this has never been a White House perspective until now. This conflict is simultaneously simple yet profound. Ukraine wants to be independent, increasingly democratic and gradually join the EU and possibly even Nato. It sees its future as shaped by an identity that looks West rather than East. For Russia, all of that is simply unacceptable. That leaves Mr Trump seeking an agreement he probably can't get, especially if he allows Mr Putin to keep steering him away from the necessity for an immediate ceasefire. Russia can continue to wear down Ukraine on the battlefield, although a resumption of robust US military aid might eventually make that prohibitively costly. Mr Putin wants time to press for additional advantage, while Ukraine needs all the help it can get. Ukraine still has rational hopes that even under Mr Trump, Washington will eventually resume backing its resistance to Moscow. But Mr Putin appears to skilfully be playing for time, equally rationally confident that his larger forces can wear the Ukrainians down, especially without US military aid. We clearly see the extraordinary transformation of the global strategic landscape. What ought to be two sides is now three, with the US appearing to no longer lead, or even participate in, a western alliance defending Ukraine. The 2022 Russian invasion may well be remembered as the turning point to a new era in international relations in which, for a time at least, whatever rules once existed are gone, and only might makes right. Under Mr Trump, Washington seems perfectly OK with that.

Trump ally Alina Habba has been unlawfully serving as US attorney, judge says
Trump ally Alina Habba has been unlawfully serving as US attorney, judge says

The National

time4 hours ago

  • The National

Trump ally Alina Habba has been unlawfully serving as US attorney, judge says

, US President Donald Trump 's choice to be the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey, was blocked from handling cases by a district court judge who said her appointment was invalid. The ruling on Thursday rejected Mr Trump's decision to keep Ms Habba as acting US attorney when her interim term expired, even though the state's federal judges chose her deputy to succeed her. Mr Trump instead fired the deputy, Desiree Grace, and used an unusual set of legal manoeuvres to keep Ms Habba, Bloomberg reported. US District Judge Matthew Brann ruled that the Trump administration circumvented existing laws to appoint Ms Habba, without confirmation from the Senate in accordance with federal law. The judge embraced some arguments by criminal defendants who claimed she does not deserve the powerful post. They sought to block the charges against them, arguing that Ms Habba did not have the authority to prosecute the case after her 120-day term as interim US attorney expired in July. 'Faced with the question of whether Ms Habba is lawfully performing the functions and duties of the office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, I conclude that she is not,' Mr Brann said. The decision disqualifies Ms Habba from supervising or engaging in prosecution of criminal defendants who challenged the appointment. The ruling also applies to any prosecutor working under her direction. Mr Brann said he would stay the effect of his decision pending the resolution of any appeal. Ms Habba made headlines when Mr Trump named her US attorney for New Jersey in March. She said the state could 'turn red', a rare, overt political expression from a prosecutor, and said she planned to investigate the state's Democratic Governor and Attorney General, AP reported. She then brought a trespassing charge, which was eventually dropped, against Newark Mayor Ras Baraka after he visited a federal immigration detention centre. Ms Habba later charged Democratic Representative LaMonica McIver with assault after the same incident, in a rare federal criminal case against a sitting member of Congress other than for corruption. She denies the charges and has pleaded not guilty. Problems over Ms Habba's tenure emerged in late July when the four-month temporary appointment was coming to a close and it became clear that she would not get support from state senators Cory Booker and Andy Kim, both Democrats, effectively ending her chances of Senate approval. Ms Habba is of Iraqi descent. She was part of Habba Madaio & Associates. She represented Mr Trump in a series of legal challenges, including in a defamation lawsuit from a former Apprentice contestant who accused him of sexual assault.

Trump to increase scrutiny of 55 million visa holders in search for breaches
Trump to increase scrutiny of 55 million visa holders in search for breaches

The National

time5 hours ago

  • The National

Trump to increase scrutiny of 55 million visa holders in search for breaches

The administration of President Donald Trump is increasing its efforts to scrutinise and possibly deport US visa holders who it considers to be in violation of immigration rules. What the Trump White House determines to be a breach, however, is likely to cause a lot of concern and probably legal action. The US State Department says it will review the records of about 55 million foreigners holding US visas, a report from AP said. It will look closely for any signs of ineligibility, such as overstaying, criminal activity, threats to public safety, engaging in any form of terrorist activity, or providing support to a terrorist organisation. Since taking office for his second term in January, Mr Trump has pushed to arrest and deport those holding student visas who have taken part in demonstrations supporting the rights of Palestinians amid the Israel-Gaza war. Many of those moves have come under legal scrutiny, ending in several losses for the Trump administration. Last week, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended a decision to suspend visitor visas for Gazans – even those seeking medical treatment after being injured in Israel's war on the enclave – which was made after inquiries from members of Congress. Mr Rubio told CBS on Sunday that the State Department was warned by politicians that some of the non-government organisations assisting Gazans with the visas had connections to Hamas. The recent move from the State Department is a significant escalation from the stance at Mr Trump's 2024 campaign rallies. There have also been reports that the State Department will be using AI to potentially revoke visas, adding to concern that such a vast undertaking could overlook nuance and context that many legal experts consider to be necessary.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store