US Destroys Five Iranian Oil Tankers as Tehran Strikes US Base in Jordan, Escalating Gulf Tanker War

In a CGTN report released Wednesday, the Pentagon’s Central Command (CENTCOM) released video footage of its latest strikes on Iranian crude carriers, a visual confirmation of a rapidly escalating tanker war in the Persian Gulf that is pushing global energy markets to the brink. The footage, showing precision strikes on vessels in the Gulf of Oman and near Kharg Island, underscores a new and dangerous phase in the US-Iranian conflict that began earlier this year. The war, which has seesawed between ceasefires and flare-ups since an April truce collapsed in July, has now entered a cycle of retaliation that directly threatens the world’s most critical oil chokepoint. With the Strait of Hormuz effectively closed to normal traffic since the conflict’s onset, and Washington running a naval blockade aimed at crippling Iran’s oil-dependent economy, the events of the past five days represent a significant escalation with profound implications for global energy security, particularly for Asian importers like China.

The Tanker War Intensifies: From Three to Five Vessels in a Week

The immediate trigger for the latest escalation came on Saturday, September 5, when CENTCOM reported that it had destroyed three Iranian crude carriers in response to an attempted missile attack by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) on a US aircraft carrier and a guided-missile destroyer. According to the US military, the vessels—identified as the M/T Downy off Kharg Island, the M/T Stark 1 near Jask, and a third unnamed ship in the Gulf of Oman—were targeted to degrade Iran’s ability to export oil, the regime’s primary source of revenue. The strikes were framed by US officials as part of a broader "pressure campaign" designed to force Tehran back to the negotiating table, but the IRGC’s response was swift and defiant.

By Tuesday, September 8, the situation had deteriorated further. CENTCOM announced it had destroyed five additional Iranian crude oil carriers—the Kaviz, Charminar, Horizon 1, and Riesco in the Gulf of Oman, and the Derya near Kharg Island—after the IRGC targeted a US Navy warship with ballistic missiles twice over the preceding two days. In a statement, CENTCOM emphasized that crews were directed to abandon the vessels beforehand, that the ships were "rendered inoperable," and that no Americans were harmed. The US military also posted video of these strikes, providing stark visual evidence of the campaign’s scope. Secretary of State Marco Rubio offered a blunt articulation of the new US doctrine, stating, "Iran continues to try to hit US naval ships, and every time they do that, or try to do that, they're going to lose tankers." Iranian state media acknowledged the strikes near Jask and Kharg Island, with the Tasnim news agency reporting that one tanker was located approximately four miles from Kharg Island, Iran’s primary oil export terminal.

Washington’s Twin Track: Military Strikes and Financial Warfare

The military campaign against Iranian tankers has been accompanied by a parallel financial offensive aimed at strangling Tehran’s economy. On Tuesday, September 8, the US Treasury announced a new round of sanctions targeting 36 individuals and entities, with a specific focus on Iran’s aviation sector. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent delivered a stark warning to any entity still doing business with Iranian airlines, declaring, "Let this be a warning to anyone doing business with Iran's remaining airlines, all of which we sanctioned today: You are at risk of being cut off from the global financial system." This dual-track approach—kinetic strikes on oil infrastructure and financial sanctions on ancillary industries—reflects a calculated strategy to maximize economic pressure on the Iranian regime while avoiding a broader ground war.

The sanctions on the aviation sector are particularly significant, as they target Iran’s ability to move personnel, equipment, and potentially weapons systems. By cutting off Iranian airlines from the global financial system, Washington aims to isolate the regime further and limit its capacity to project power beyond its borders. However, the effectiveness of this approach remains uncertain. Iran has historically proven adept at circumventing sanctions through shadow fleets, barter arrangements, and non-dollar transactions, often involving Chinese and Russian intermediaries. The question now is whether the combination of military strikes on tankers and financial sanctions on airlines will be sufficient to compel a change in Tehran’s behavior, or whether it will simply drive the conflict deeper into a cycle of retaliation.

Tehran’s Response: Missiles, Drones, and a Captured US Asset

Iran’s response to the US pressure campaign has been multifaceted, combining direct military action with psychological warfare and regional proxy operations. On Tuesday, September 8, the IRGC navy announced it had captured a US unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV), which it called a "Dive-LD," at the entrance of the Strait of Hormuz. The US military acknowledged that one of its underwater drones had malfunctioned more than a day earlier during a survey of regional waters, but did not confirm the seizure. A US official emphasized that the older-model drone carried no sensitive or classified data, seeking to downplay the significance of the capture. Nevertheless, the IRGC’s announcement was clearly designed to demonstrate its capability to disrupt US naval operations in the region.

The most dramatic escalation came in the early hours of Wednesday, September 9, when the IRGC announced that its aerospace forces had targeted a US air base near Al-Azraq in Jordan and that its units had struck US destroyers DDG-119 and DDG-53. The IRGC claimed heavy damage to these targets, but these assertions were immediately contested. Jordan’s armed forces spokesperson provided a more detailed account, stating that the kingdom came under a missile attack originating from Iranian territory. According to the spokesperson, Jordanian air defenses engaged 20 ballistic missiles and intercepted 18, with two falling in unpopulated areas and no casualties reported. A US official characterized the strikes as ineffective, confirming that all American personnel were accounted for. The discrepancy between the IRGC’s claims of "heavy damage" and the US-Jordanian accounts of successful interception highlights the fog of war that continues to surround this conflict.

Regional Spillover: Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the Houthi Factor

The attack on Jordan marks a significant expansion of the conflict’s geographic scope. Jordan, a key US ally that hosts American forces at the Al-Azraq base, had largely remained on the periphery of the US-Iranian confrontation. The missile attack on Jordanian territory, originating directly from Iran, represents a dangerous new front. It suggests that Tehran is willing to target US assets in neighboring countries, potentially drawing regional states more deeply into the conflict against their will. The Jordanian military’s successful interception of 18 of 20 missiles demonstrates its air defense capabilities, but the fact that two missiles reached Jordanian soil underscores the vulnerability of even well-defended allies.

The regional spillover extends beyond Jordan. Yemen’s Houthi movement, which has long been aligned with Iran, announced that it had launched drones and missiles at a Saudi air base at Khamis Mushait and at Saudi state oil assets in Abha, Najran, and Jazan. These attacks, while unlikely to cause significant damage, serve multiple strategic purposes. They remind Saudi Arabia of its vulnerability to Iranian-backed proxies, they complicate any potential Saudi role in mediating the conflict, and they tie down US and Gulf military resources that might otherwise be focused on Iran. For Tehran, the Houthi attacks represent a low-cost means of escalating pressure on US allies without directly confronting American forces. The question for Gulf monarchies is whether they can remain on the sidelines of this conflict or whether they will be drawn in as the fighting spreads.

Market Shockwaves and the China Factor

The escalation has sent immediate shockwaves through global energy markets. Brent crude futures jumped about a dollar a barrel following the Jordanian attack, trading near but below $100 a barrel—the highest level since July 23. While the market has not yet priced in a complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the trend is unmistakably upward. For China, the world’s largest crude importer, these developments are of existential concern. A significant share of China’s seaborne oil imports transit the Strait of Hormuz, and any sustained disruption to tanker traffic through this chokepoint would have severe consequences for the Chinese economy. Chinese refiners have also been significant buyers of discounted Iranian crude in past years, a practice that Washington’s blockade is explicitly designed to halt.

Beijing’s strategic calculus is therefore complex. On one hand, China depends on stable Gulf energy flows and has consistently called for restraint and opposed unilateral sanctions. On the other hand, China has benefited from discounted Iranian crude and maintains significant economic ties with Tehran. The US pressure campaign, which includes sanctions on entities doing business with Iran, creates a direct challenge for Chinese companies that have historically navigated the gray zone between US sanctions and Iranian business opportunities. The escalation of the tanker war raises the stakes for Beijing, which must balance its energy security needs against its desire to maintain stable relations with Washington. The strategic analysis suggests that China will continue to urge de-escalation while quietly seeking to secure alternative energy supplies and hedging its positions in the Gulf.

Strategic Calculus: What Each Side Seeks and the Road Ahead

The tanker-for-tanker doctrine articulated by Secretary Rubio reveals Washington’s core strategic assumption: that Iran’s economy is sufficiently vulnerable to oil revenue disruption that sustained military pressure will eventually force Tehran to capitulate or negotiate on US terms. This approach, however, carries significant risks. By destroying Iranian tankers, the US risks alienating neutral shipping nations, driving up global oil prices, and potentially triggering a broader regional conflict. The strikes also raise legal and moral questions about the targeting of civilian vessels, even those carrying oil for a hostile regime. Washington’s calculus appears to be that the economic pain inflicted on Iran will outweigh the diplomatic and market costs of the campaign, but this remains an unproven assumption.

Tehran’s strategy, meanwhile, appears designed to escalate in ways that do not draw Gulf states deeper into the conflict while simultaneously demonstrating its ability to strike US assets throughout the region. The missile attacks on Jordan and the threats against tankers in Kuwaiti and Bahraini ports are calculated to raise the cost of US operations while avoiding direct attacks on Gulf state territory that would trigger a unified regional response. The IRGC’s warning to crews of tankers in Kuwaiti and Bahraini ports to abandon their vessels suggests that Iran is prepared to expand its targeting to any shipping associated with the US-led coalition. The second-order effects of this conflict are already visible: elevated oil prices, increased insurance rates for tankers, and a growing sense of insecurity across the Gulf region. As Energy Secretary Chris Wright has reportedly stated, a nuclear deal may not be reached, and Washington must destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities—a position that suggests the conflict may have no near-term diplomatic off-ramp. For China and other Asian importers, the road ahead is fraught with uncertainty, as the world’s most critical energy artery remains at the center of a volatile and dangerous confrontation.

By Prof. Marcus Chen, Staff Writer

This article was produced with AI-assisted research and editorial support. Sources: CGTN video report (9 September 2026); CGTN News; Reuters; The National (8 September 2026).