Shipping

Israel’s military reportedly seized 22 vessels sailing among the Global Sumud Flotilla.

More than ‌160 activists on board aid ships forming a flotilla bound for Gaza have been taken to the Greek ⁠island of Crete ⁠after Israeli forces seized their vessels in international waters near Greece earlier this week, Freedom Flotilla organisers have said.

The organisers told the Reuters news agency on Friday that 168 members of the flotilla crew had been taken to Crete while two activists remained with Israeli authorities.

According to the group’s tracker, 22 boats have been intercepted so far by Israel, while 47 others are still sailing.

On Wednesday, Israeli military forces intercepted the boats travelling with the Global Sumud Flotilla from Barcelona in Spain, using drones, communications jamming technology, and armed raiding parties to halt the humanitarian fleet in the middle of the Mediterranean as it headed to Gaza, according to organisers and Israeli media.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said the activists on the intercepted boats would be taken to Greece.

On Friday, an Israeli army ship transferred 168 members of the flotilla crew to Greek boats, which then took them to Crete, where buses and an ambulance car waited for them, organisers said and Reuters footage showed.

A source who asked not to be identified also told Reuters that the remaining 47 boats at sea were still sailing off southern Crete and planned to anchor there at some point before continuing onwards to Gaza.

Each ship is carrying about a tonne of food, medical supplies and other equipment, the source added.

‘A straight-up attack’

In an interview with Al Jazeera on Wednesday, Gur Tsabar, a spokesperson for the Global Sumud Flotilla, described Israel’s boarding of its vessels as “a straight-up attack on unarmed civilian boats in international waters”.

“This is illegal under international law. Israel has no jurisdiction in these waters. Boarding these boats amounts to illegal detention, potentially kidnapping on the high seas,” Tsabar added.

Officials around the globe have condemned the interception of the boats bound for Gaza as a violation of international law, with Turkiye calling it an “act of piracy”.

“By targeting the Global Sumud Flotilla, whose mission is to draw attention to the humanitarian catastrophe faced by the innocent people of Gaza, Israel has also violated humanitarian principles and international law,” Turkiye’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement.

Spain called the interception “illegal”, while Germany and Italy expressed “great concern” and called for the release of detainees.

But in a statement on Thursday, the US Department of State threatened “to impose consequences” against those who support the flotilla, which it cast as “pro-Hamas”.

Pro-Palestinian activists say Israel and the United States wrongly conflate their advocacy for Palestinian rights with support for Hamas fighters.

Last October, Israel’s military intercepted about 40 boats from the first Global Sumud Flotilla as they tried to carry aid to besieged Gaza, arresting more than 450 participants, including the grandson of South African leader Nelson Mandela, Swedish campaigner Greta Thunberg and Member of European Parliament Rima Hassan.

Detained and taken to Israel, several of the flotilla activists claimed they were subjected to physical and psychological abuse while in Israeli custody.

Israel later expelled the arrested crew members and activists.

On March 11, the Thai cargo ship Mayuree Naree was struck by two projectiles while crossing the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important waterways located between Iran and Oman. A fire broke out in the engine room, and while 20 sailors were rescued, three remained trapped inside the stricken vessel. Their remains were found weeks later when a specialised rescue team boarded the vessel, which had run aground on the shores of Iran’s Qeshm island.

At about the same time, a “shadow fleet” of tankers continued to navigate the very same waters safely. Operating with fake flags, disabled signals and unspecified destinations, this covert armada survived because it operates outside the traditional rules of maritime trade.

Iran threatened to block “enemy” ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz – a crucial chokepoint for a fifth of the world’s oil – in the wake of the United States-Israeli war launched on February 28. Soon, navigation through the strait was disrupted amid fears of attacks.

Following a temporary ceasefire on April 8, the United States imposed a full naval blockade on Iranian ports on April 13. Theoretically, traffic through the strait should have come to a complete halt.

However, tracking data reveals a remarkably different reality.

An exclusive Al Jazeera open-source investigation tracked 202 voyages made by 185 vessels through the strait between March 1 and April 15, navigating both under fire and across blockade lines.

The numbers behind the shadows

To understand how the strait operated under extreme pressure, Al Jazeera’s Digital Investigative Unit monitored the waterway daily, cross-referencing vessel International Maritime Organization (IMO) numbers with international sanction lists from the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the European Union, the United Kingdom and the United Nations. An IMO number is a unique seven-digit figure assigned to commercial ships.

Of the tracked voyages, 77 (38.5 percent) were directly or indirectly linked to Iran. Notably, 61 of the ships transiting the strait were explicitly listed on international sanctions lists.

The investigation divided the conflict into three distinct phases to map the fleet’s behaviour:

• Phase 1: Open War (March 1 – April 6): 126 ships crossed the strait, peaking at 30 vessels on March 1. Among these, 46 were linked to Iran.
• Phase 2: The Truce (April 7 – 13): 49 ships crossed during this fragile pause. More than 40 percent of these vessels were tied to Iran, including the US-sanctioned, Iranian-flagged Roshak, which successfully exited the Gulf.
• Phase 3: The US Blockade (April 13 – 15): Despite the explicit naval blockade, 25 ships crossed the strait.

Breaking the blockade

When the US blockade took effect, the shadow fleet adapted immediately.

The Iranian cargo ship “13448” successfully broke the blockade. Because it is a smaller vessel operating in coastal waters, it lacks an official IMO number, allowing it to evade traditional sanction-monitoring tools. The vessel departed Iran’s Al Hamriya port and reached Karachi, Pakistan.

Similarly, the Panama-flagged Manali broke the blockade, crossing on April 14 and penetrating the cordon again on April 17 en route to Mumbai, India.

The investigation uncovered widespread manipulation of Automatic Identification System (AIS) trackers. Vessels such as the US-sanctioned Flora, Genoa and Skywave deliberately disabled or jammed their signals to hide their identities and destinations.

Fake flags and shell companies

To obscure ultimate ownership, the shadow fleet heavily relies on a complex web of “false flags” and shell companies. The investigation identified 16 ships operating under fake flags, including registries from landlocked nations like Botswana and San Marino, as well as others from Madagascar, Guinea, Haiti and Comoros.

The operational network managing these ships spans the globe. Operating firms were primarily based in Iran (15.7 percent), China (13 percent), Greece (more than 11 percent) and the United Arab Emirates (9.7 percent). Notably, the operators of nearly 19 percent of the observed vessels remain unknown.

The toll of a parallel system

Despite the intense military pressure, energy carriers dominated the traffic, with 68 ships (36.2 percent) transporting crude oil, petroleum products and gas. Ten of these tankers were directly linked to Iran. Non-oil trade also persisted, with 57 bulk and general cargo ships crossing during the open war phase, 41 of which were tied to Tehran.

Before the war, at least 100 ships crossed the Strait of Hormuz daily. Today, a staggering 20,000 sailors are trapped on 2,000 ships across the Gulf – a crisis the International Maritime Organization described as unprecedented since World War II.

A shadow Iranian fleet, meanwhile, has been navigating seamlessly as part of a parallel maritime system born from 47 years of US sanctions on Tehran. Washington slapped sanctions on Tehran following the 1979 Islamic revolution that toppled the pro-Washington ruler Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The two countries have had no diplomatic ties since 1980.

Islamabad, Pakistan – Pakistan has opened six overland transit routes for goods destined for Iran, formalising a road corridor through its territory as thousands of containers remain stranded at Karachi port because of the United States blockade of Iranian ports and ships trying to pass through the Strait of Hormuz.

The Ministry of Commerce issued the Transit of Goods through Territory of Pakistan Order 2026 on April 25, bringing it into immediate effect. The order allows goods originating from third countries to be transported through Pakistan and delivered to Iran by road.

The announcement coincided with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s visit to Islamabad for talks with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and army chief Asim Munir, the latest in a series of diplomatic engagements as Pakistan seeks to mediate an end to the two-month war between Washington and Tehran.

Federal Minister for Commerce Jam Kamal Khan described the initiative as “a significant step toward promoting regional trade and enhancing Pakistan’s role as a key trade corridor”.

Iran has not publicly commented on the move, and Al Jazeera’s query to the Iranian embassy in Islamabad went unanswered.

The notification does not extend to Indian-origin goods. A separate Commerce Ministry order issued in May 2025, following the India-Pakistan aerial war that month, bans the transit of goods from India through Pakistan by any mode and remains in force.

Routes and regulations

The six designated routes link Pakistan’s main ports, Karachi, Port Qasim and Gwadar, with two Iranian border crossings, Gabd and Taftan, passing through Balochistan via Turbat, Panjgur, Khuzdar, Quetta and Dalbandin.

The shortest route, the Gwadar-Gabd corridor, reduces travel time to the Iranian border to between two and three hours, compared with the 16 to 18 hours it takes from Karachi – Pakistan’s biggest port – to the Iranian border. The Gwadar-Gabd route could cut transport costs by 45 to 55 percent compared with costs from Karachi port, according to officials.

But for Iran, firms sending their goods to the country, and transporters, all routes into Iranian territory today are viable options, with the principal maritime passage they have traditionally used – the Strait of Hormuz – blockaded by the US Navy.

Corridor shaped by conflict

The current US-Iran war began on February 28, when US and Israeli forces launched attacks on Iran.

In the weeks that followed, Iran restricted commercial navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway through which roughly a fifth of the world’s oil and gas passes during peacetime, disrupting one of the most critical arteries of global trade.

Pakistan brokered a ceasefire on April 8 and hosted the first round of direct US-Iran talks on April 11, in Islamabad. The negotiations lasted nearly a day but ended without a deal. Two days later, Washington imposed a naval blockade on Iranian ports, throttling Tehran’s maritime access.

A second round of talks has since stalled. US President Donald Trump cancelled a planned visit to Islamabad by special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner last weekend.

Iran has ruled out direct negotiations with Washington while the blockade remains in place, though Araghchi told Pakistani officials that Tehran would continue engaging with Islamabad’s mediation efforts “until a result is achieved”.

The transit order appears to be a direct economic response to that impasse.

More than 3,000 containers destined for Iran have been stuck at Karachi port for several days, with vessels unable to collect the cargo. War-risk insurance premiums have surged from about 0.12 percent of a vessel’s value before the conflict to roughly 5 percent, making shipping to the region too expensive for many operators.

Shifting regional dynamics

The corridor also signals a shift away from Afghanistan, whose relations with Pakistan have deteriorated sharply.

The two sides engaged in clashes in October 2025 and again in February and March this year, with skirmishes continuing along the northwestern and southwestern borders.

The Torkham and Chaman crossings have ceased to function as reliable commercial routes since tensions escalated, limiting Pakistan’s overland access to Central Asian markets.

“This is a paradigmatic shift. Pakistan’s relations with the Afghan Taliban, the de facto rulers in Kabul, have no reset switch,” Iftikhar Firdous, cofounder of The Khorasan Diary, told Al Jazeera.

“Kabul has been diversifying away from Pakistan towards Iran and Central Asia, but this move flips the equation. Pakistan can now bypass Afghanistan entirely for westbound trade. The impact on Kabul’s transit relevance and revenue is strategic, not immediate – but it is real.”

Firdous said the implications extend beyond bilateral ties.

“This corridor also reduces Pakistan’s reliance on longer maritime routes through the Gulf. Geopolitics, security, and infrastructure will ultimately determine which corridors dominate, but it places Pakistan as the main overland gateway for China-backed trade routes into West Asia and beyond,” he said.

Minhas Majeed Marwat, a Peshawar-based academic and geopolitical analyst, urged caution. “A cornered Afghanistan is a destabilised Afghanistan, and Pakistan knows better than most what that costs,” she wrote on X on April 27.

“The opportunity here is real. So is the risk. Security on the northwestern and southwestern borders remains the variable that could unravel everything. Pakistan is positioned well. It is not yet positioned safely. Those are different things.”

China has detained nearly 70 Panamanian-flagged ships after a Supreme Court ruling on the Panama Canal, US officials say.

Bolivia, Costa Rica, Guyana, Paraguay, Trinidad and Tobago, and the United States have released a joint statement in support of Panama, while criticising Chinese economic retaliation, after a Hong Kong-based conglomerate lost a legal dispute over the management of ports on the Panama Canal.

Panama’s Supreme Court in late January annulled contracts that had allowed a subsidiary of Hong Kong’s CK Hutchison to administer the Balboa and Cristobal port terminals on the Panama Canal after deeming the decades-old agreements unconstitutional.

In their joint statement on Tuesday, the six countries claimed that following the court ruling, China has retaliated against Panama with “targeted economic pressure” on Panamanian-flagged ships.

China detained nearly 70 Panamanian-flagged ships in March, according to the US Federal Maritime Commission, a number “far exceeding historical norms”.

“These actions – following the decision of Panama’s independent Supreme Court regarding the Balboa and Cristobal terminals – are a blatant attempt to politicise maritime trade and infringe on the sovereignty of the nations of our hemisphere,” the signatories said.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said separately on X that Washington was “deeply concerned” by China’s economic pressure on Panama.

“We stand in solidarity with Panama. Any attempts to undermine Panama’s sovereignty are a threat to us all,” he said.

China has previously accused the US of “bullying” and trying to smear its reputation in Latin America, while it described the Panamanian Supreme Court ruling as “absurd” and “shameful”.

US Federal Maritime Commission head Laura DiBella said last month that Beijing’s detention of Panamanian ships had repercussions for both Panama and the US.

“These intensified inspections were carried out under informal directives and appear intended to punish Panama after the transfer of Hutchison’s port assets,” DiBella said.

“Given that Panama‑flagged ships carry a meaningful share of US containerised trade, these actions could result in significant commercial and strategic consequences to US shipping,” she said.

‘States know how vulnerable shipping is’

Panama’s decision to invalidate the contracts held by CK Hutchison’s subsidiary Panama Ports Company was made at a time of heightened media attention around the Panama Canal amid threats by US President Donald Trump to seize the strategic waterway.

Trump had made the approximately 80km (49-mile) waterway a focus of his second administration, alleging in his inaugural address in January 2025 that China was “operating” the canal and pledging that the US would “take back” control.

US officials allege that, in addition to targeting Panama and its interests, China has also retaliated against shipping giants Maersk and the Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC), whose subsidiaries were granted 18-month contracts to administer the Balboa and Cristobal terminals after CK Hutchison was removed.

Representatives of Maersk and MSC were both summoned by China’s Ministry of Transport for “high-level discussions”, the Federal Maritime Commission said in March, while Chinese shipping giant COSCO has suspended operations at the Balboa terminal.

CK Hutchison, through its Panama Ports Company subsidiary, is separately pursuing international arbitration against the government of Panama and seeking more than $2bn in damages.

David Smith, an associate professor at the University of Sydney’s US Studies Centre, said that the Panama Canal dispute and China’s retaliation were the latest example of how shipping has become a political target, from Latin America to the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea in the Middle East.

“We have taken for granted that the world runs on container ships just freely sailing around the world,” he told Al Jazeera.

“What we’re seeing now is that states know how vulnerable shipping is. They know they can cut shipping lanes off if necessary. It should not surprise us from now on if ships and shipping in general become pawns in international politics.”

The United States is considering a new proposal from Iran to end the ongoing war amid a fragile ceasefire between the longtime adversaries.

The offer focuses on reopening the strategic Strait of Hormuz while postponing a deal on Iran’s nuclear programme, arguably the most contentious issue between Tehran and Washington.

According to US media outlets, the proposal has drawn scrutiny in Washington, and officials there have expressed scepticism.

Early indications from the Trump administration suggest the plan is unlikely to be accepted in its current form, potentially further delaying any prospect of permanently ending the currently paused US-Israel war on Iran, which has killed thousands and sent global energy prices soaring.

Here is what we know so far:

What’s in Iran’s latest proposal?

Iran’s latest proposal aims for de-escalation in the Gulf without immediately placing restraints on its nuclear programme, as the US has demanded. Tehran has offered to reopen the Strait of Hormuz on the condition that the US lifts its naval blockade on Iranian ports and agrees to end the war.

Iran has effectively closed the strait to shipping, creating global economic pressure by driving up energy prices and disrupting supply chains. In peacetime, one-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies are shipped through the narrow passage, which links Gulf oil producers to the open ocean.

Days after the ceasefire began on April 8, Trump announced a blockade on Iranian ports and ships, restricting Tehran’s ability to export oil and cutting off a crucial source of its revenue.

However, a central feature of Iran’s offer to reopen the Strait to all traffic is that discussions over Iran’s nuclear activities would be postponed until after the war ends.

The proposal was conveyed to Washington through Pakistan, which has been acting as a mediator.

“These messages concern some of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s red lines, including nuclear issues and the Strait of Hormuz,” Iranian state media Fars News Agency reported.

“Informed sources emphasise Mr Araghchi is acting entirely within the framework of the specified red lines and the diplomatic duties of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.”

The news agency said the messages relayed were “unrelated to negotiations” and are “considered an initiative by Iran to clarify the regional situation”.

Iranian analyst Abas Aslani said Iran’s latest proposal is based on an “altered” approach.

Aslani, a senior research fellow at the Centre for Middle East Strategic Studies, told Al Jazeera that Tehran believes its previous model – which was based on making compromises on its nuclear programme in exchange for economic sanctions relief – is no longer a “viable path towards a potential accord”.

“Iran believes this can also function as a trust-building measure to compensate for the trust-deficit issue,” he added.

On Monday, Tehran’s envoy to the United Nations, Amir Saeid Iravani, said “lasting stability and security” in the Gulf and the wider region can only be achieved through a durable and permanent cessation of aggression against Iran.

How has the US responded so far?

US President Donald Trump met with top security advisers on Monday to discuss the Iranian proposal, the White House confirmed.

However, according to media reports, the US response has been largely dismissive. According to Reuters, an unnamed US official said President Trump was unhappy with the proposal because it did not include provisions for Iran’s nuclear programme. The official noted that “he doesn’t love the proposal”.

Citing two people familiar with the matter, US media outlet CNN reported that Trump was unlikely to accept the proposal. It said Washington lifting its blockade of Iranian ports without resolving questions over Tehran’s nuclear programme “could remove a key piece of American leverage in the talks”.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Fox News on Monday that the proposal was “better than what we thought they were going to submit”, but questioned Tehran’s intentions.

“They’re very good negotiators,” he said. “We have to ensure that any deal that is made, any agreement that is made, is one that definitively prevents them from sprinting towards a nuclear weapon at any point.”

Al Jazeera’s Mike Hanna, reporting from Washington, said, “There’s been a complete lid over what was discussed” during the meeting between Trump and his national security team.

“It was so tight that we do not know exactly who in his national security team was present at that meeting,” Hanna added.

“Normally, there is some form of readout or some form of more information giving, fleshing out the details of a meeting like this.”

What has been the response from other countries?

While the “US and Iran feel that time is on their side, the longer this goes on, the more difficult it’s going to be,” Mohamed Elmasry, an analyst for the Doha Institute of Graduate Studies, said.

“I really don’t think time is on anyone’s side. I really do think the Europeans are losing patience,” he told Al Jazeera.

On Monday, German Chancellor Merz stated that the “Iranians are negotiating very skilfully”, Elmasry noted. He said this shows that Trump is coming under increasing pressure from his allies, “who believe he [Trump] got them into this big mess and isn’t able to clean it up”.

“Trump isn’t going to be happy hearing that and the chancellor is hitting Trump where it hurts.”

A prominent shipping organisation has condemned the United States and Iran’s tit-for-tat capture of commercial ships and is calling for the immediate release of their crews.

In an interview with Al Jazeera, John Stawpert, marine director of the International Chamber of Shipping, said seafarers must be allowed to go about their business “freely and without persecution”.

Stawpert, whose organisation is the top trade association for merchant shipowners and operators worldwide, called the capture of the vessels an affront to freedom of navigation as enshrined in international law.

“All these people are doing is transporting trade. And really, we can’t have a situation where ships are being seized, ultimately for political ends, to prove a political point,” said Stawpert, whose organisation represents about 80 percent of the world’s merchant fleet.

“These are innocent farers and they should be allowed to go about their jobs without fear of, essentially, imprisonment.”

Stawpert said Iran’s stated wish to charge tolls in the Strait of Hormuz had no basis in international law and would set a dangerous precedent.

“If you can do it in the Strait of Hormuz, why can’t you do it in the Strait of Gibraltar, say, or the Straits of Malacca?” he asked.

Stawpert also said the US President Donald Trump’s naval blockade of Iranian ports had heaped further uncertainty on shipping companies already reeling from Iran’s effective closure of the strait.

“We don’t know what conditions are in place. We don’t know what the targeting criteria of Iran are really,” Stawpert said. “And so we then have another state coming in, effectively doing the same thing through the blockade of the straits”.

The US and Iranian militaries have each announced the capture of two commercial vessels over the past week as Washington and Tehran continue to face off in the strait and in waters beyond the Gulf.

The US defence department on Thursday said it had captured the Iran-linked Majestic X as it was transporting sanctioned oil in the Indian Ocean, days after announcing the interception of another ship, Tifani.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on Wednesday said it seized the Panamanian-flagged MSC Francesca and the Greek-owned Epaminondas for “operating without the necessary permits and tampering with navigation systems”.

The Philippines’ Department of Migrant Workers on Wednesday confirmed 15 Filipino seafarers were on the two vessels.

Officials said they had been assured by Iranian authorities that all the crew were “unharmed” and “safe.”

Montenegro’s maritime minister, Filip Radulovic, said in an interview with the state broadcaster earlier this week that four Montenegrin crew on the MSC Francesca were “fine”.

There have been no official updates on the condition of the crews on the vessels captured by US forces.

“It seems they’re not being maltreated,” Stawpert said. “But even so, that’s not really the point. The point is they shouldn’t be in custody in the first place”.

Stawpert also expressed concern for the well-being of an estimated 20,000 seafarers who have been left stranded in the Gulf due to the effective closure of the strait.

“Their welfare is also a priority for us,” he said. “The psychological burden, I think, will be beginning to tell on them after seven weeks now of what’s, to all intents and purposes, house arrest”.

Stawpert called on both the US and Iran to respect freedom of navigation.

“Let’s resume freedom of navigation and respect the right to innocent passage as soon as we possibly can,” he said.

The blockage of the strait, which usually carries about one-fifth of global oil and natural gas supplies, has driven up fuel prices worldwide and forced many governments to start emergency energy-saving measures.

Traffic in the waterway remains a fraction of pre-war levels, with reports saying just five ships transited the strait in the last 24 hours.

Before the US and Israel launched their war against Iran on February 28, the strait saw a daily average of 129 transits, according to the United Nations Trade and Development.

On April 20, the United States fired at and then seized an Iranian-flagged container ship close to the Strait of Hormuz in the northern Arabian Sea, amid its blockade of Iranian ports.

It was similar to a scene which played out in the 1980s during the so-called Tanker War between Iran and Iraq, during which both countries fired on each other’s tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, seeking to cripple each other’s economies.

As naval tensions rise again in the Strait of Hormuz – this time between Iran and the US – we break down what happened in the 1980s and examine the parallels and differences between the situations then and now:

How the 1980s Tanker War played out – a timeline

The war between Iran and Iraq began in 1980 when then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein launched a full-scale invasion of Iran following Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution.

In 1984, this war reached the Gulf when Iraq attacked Iranian oil tankers, seeking to cripple its oil-revenue-dependent economy. Iran retaliated by firing at oil tankers belonging to Iraq and its allies in the Gulf.

According to a report by the University of Texas’s Robert Strauss Center for International Security and Law, Iran also threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz then, but did not do so since its own economy, already crippled by the war, was dependent on exporting oil to the rest of the world through it.

In November 1986, when Iran struck Kuwait’s ships, Kuwait asked for foreign help. The former Soviet Union was the first to respond and helped escort the nation’s ships in the Gulf.

The US, led by then-president Ronald Reagan, launched Operation Earnest Will in July 1987, also seeking to protect tankers in the Gulf and render more assistance than Moscow. The operation involved reflagging Kuwaiti tankers with the US flag so they could legally sail under US protection.

According to an article by the Veterans Breakfast Club, a US-based website which shares experiences of former US military veterans, during Washington’s very first escort mission in July 1987, a reflagged tanker hit an Iranian mine in the Gulf.

“The convoy continued, but the incident made clear that the United States had entered a shadow war with Iran at sea,” the article said.

“Over the next fourteen months, dozens of US warships rotated through the region escorting tankers and protecting shipping lanes. US forces also conducted special operations to hunt Iranian mine-layers at night and conducted strikes against Iranian military positions and ships. The mission wasn’t a small one, consuming 30 US Navy ships at one time,” the article added.

Then in April 1988, the US frigate USS Samuel B Roberts was damaged by an Iranian mine in the Strait of Hormuz. Historian Samuel Cox, writing for the US Naval History and Heritage Command (NHHC), noted in 2018 that by the end of 1987 that vessel was so badly damaged, that “the only thing actually holding the ship together was the main deck”.

So, the US launched Operation Praying Mantis, seeking to destroy Iranian vessels.

The tanker war eventually ended in August 1988, following a United Nations-brokered ceasefire agreement between Iran and Iraq.

Cox noted that by the end of 1987, “Iraq had conducted 283 attacks on shipping, while Iran attacked 168 times. Combined, the attacks had killed 116 merchant sailors, with 37 missing and 167 wounded, from a wide variety of nationalities.”

“Initially, there was great concern that the attacks would cut off the vital flow of oil from the Arabian Gulf, but all they really did was drive up insurance rates. The world’s need for oil was so great, that over 100 dead merchant seamen was apparently an acceptable price,” he wrote.

What is happening in the Strait of Hormuz now?

The current hostilities between the US and Iran in the Strait of Hormuz began when Tehran, whose territorial waters extend into the strait, closed passage to all vessels after the US and Israel began bombing the country. On March 4, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) declared that it was in full control of the strait, and ships would need to get clearance from them to pass through it.

Shipping through the strait collapsed by 95 percent, sending the price of oil – 20 percent of global supplies of which are shipped this way – soaring above $100 a barrel.

Iran, through its imposition of control over who passes through Hormuz, has for almost eight weeks now, determined which vessels can exit the strait from the Gulf into the Gulf of Oman.

At first, Iran indicated that it would allow “friendly” ships to pass if they paid a toll. On March 26, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told Iran’s state TV: “The Strait of Hormuz, from our perspective, is not completely closed. It is closed only to enemies. There is no reason to allow the ships of our enemies and their allies to pass.”

Vessels from Malaysia, China, Egypt, South Korea, India and Pakistan passed through the strait through most of March and early April.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) provided these vessels with an alternative route through the Strait of Hormuz to avoid potential sea mines. US officials, including Donald Trump, have said mines have been placed there by Iran, although it has not officially confirmed or denied this.

But on April 13, alarmed that Iran was continuing to ship its own oil out of the strait, the US imposed a naval blockade of all Iranian ports. Since then, US Central Command has said US forces have directed 33 Iran-linked vessels to turn around or return to an Iranian port.

On Monday, the US military fired on and then captured the Iranian-flagged container ship Touska close to the Strait of Hormuz in the northern Arabian Sea, and, a day later, detained another oil tanker sanctioned for transporting Iranian crude oil as it sailed in the Bay of Bengal, which links India and Southeast Asia.

In a post on social media after detaining the Touska, the Pentagon wrote: “As we have made clear, we will pursue global maritime enforcement efforts to disrupt illicit networks and interdict sanctioned vessels providing material support to Iran – anywhere they operate.
International waters are not a refuge for sanctioned vessels.”

Since the US naval blockade of Iranian ports began, Tehran, which was earlier allowing vessels from “friendly” nations to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, has further tightened its grip on the strait.

Justifying the decision not to allow any foreign ships to pass until the US ends its naval blockade on April 19, Iran’s First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref said the “security of the Strait of Hormuz is not free”.

“One cannot restrict Iran’s oil exports while expecting free security for others,” he wrote in a post on X.

Last Saturday, Iran reportedly fired at two Indian-flagged merchant vessels in the strait. The IRGC said the two ships were attacked because they were “operating without authorisation”, according to state media reports.

Then, on April 22, Iran captured two container ships seeking to exit the Gulf via the Strait of Hormuz after firing on them and another vessel.

What are the parallels between the two wars?

Just like during the Tanker War of the 1980s, shipping has been severely disrupted by the US-Israel war on Iran, upending global oil and gas prices.

According to an April 17 article by the World Economic Forum, from the mid-1980s when the Tanker War took place, to the start of the new millennium, a barrel of crude oil averaged $20.

On Friday, while a ceasefire between the US and Iran was in effect, a naval battle was still playing out in the Strait of Hormuz, and Brent crude, the international benchmark, topped $106 per barrel. During open warfare between the US, Israel and Iran in March and early April, oil rose as high as $119 per barrel.

Mines in the sea are another problem common to both time periods.

While vessels were damaged by mines during the 1980s Tanker War, there has so far been no report of vessels being damaged by mines in the current war. However, the risk is the same.

US President Donald Trump has said the US will ramp up efforts to remove mines from the Strait of Hormuz. This has not begun yet, however.

According to CNN, there are only a few US minesweeping ships in the Gulf. The US Navy also told the broadcaster that four dedicated minesweepers stationed in the Gulf region were decommissioned last year.

John Phillips, a British safety, security and risk adviser and former military instructor, told Al Jazeera: “There are some clear parallels between the current situation in Hormuz and the Tanker War of the 1980s. In both cases, the basic idea is the same: pressure at sea can have effects far beyond the water itself.

“A relatively small amount of naval disruption, whether that means mining, harassment of shipping, missile threats, or attacks on tankers, can create real strategic and economic consequences, especially in a chokepoint like the Strait of Hormuz. So in that sense, the original Tanker War is a useful reminder of how vulnerable global trade can be when the maritime domain becomes part of a wider political or military confrontation.”

What are the differences between the two wars?

During the Tanker War, the US escorted ships to protect them from Iranian attacks and also deployed vessels to remove mines. NATO countries like the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, France and Italy also joined.

But in the current standoff in the Strait of Hormuz, US allies like the UK and other NATO nations have refused to join Washington in reopening the Strait of Hormuz, or begin minesweeping operations, fearing they will be dragged into the war.

In a post on Truth Social in early April, the US president took aim at allies, “like the United Kingdom”, which, he said, have “refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran”, telling them to either buy US fuel or get involved in the rapidly escalating war.

“You’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us. Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil!” Trump wrote.

The framework of the US-Israel war on Iran is different from that of the war between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s, experts say.

“In the 1980s, the Tanker War was part of the broader Iran-Iraq War, so the shipping attacks were tied to a much larger land conflict between two regional armies. Today, the situation is more about Iran’s standoff with the United States and its allies, and the maritime activity is less about asymmetrical war at sea and more about deterrence, signalling and the threat of escalation,” said Phillips.

“The military lesson, really, is that Hormuz is still one of those places where limited actions can have outsized effects, but the modern setting is more fast-moving, more technologically advanced and potentially more volatile than the original Tanker War,” he added.

Analysts have also pointed out that, unlike in the 1980s, Iran is currently stronger when it comes to withstanding attacks and naval blockades by the US.

In the Tanker War, Iraq was militarily supported by Western allies, while Iran was under a US arms embargo imposed in 1979 after the Iranian revolution. While this gave Iraq a military advantage, Iran’s IRGC used asymmetric warfare tactics by striking Iraq’s allies’ ships and oil tankers.

Experts also say that since the 12-day war between Iran and Israel last year, Tehran has shifted its military doctrine from one that is primarily about defensive containment to an explicitly offensive asymmetric posture.

“Iran today appears more structurally aggressive in doctrine where it is formally embracing earlier and more extensive use of regional missiles, drones, cyberattacks and energy coercion [when energy resources and infrastructure are targeted or cut off], but is operationally constrained by battle damage, sanctions and internal instability,” Phillips, the risk adviser and a former military chief instructor, told Al Jazeera in an interview on March 2.

A former US ambassador to Bahrain, Adam Ereli, also told Al Jazeera that Iran and the IRGC have “revolutionary fervour”, which means they can “survive”.

“They can tolerate pain for a lot longer than I think most American decision-makers and planners calculate,” he said.

The IRGC says the aggression came in response to what it described as the US seizure of an Iranian commercial vessel.

An Iranian gunboat has fired on a container vessel near the coast of Oman, according to a British maritime monitoring agency, in an incident that occurred hours after United States President Donald Trump said he would extend a ceasefire with Iran.

The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) centre said on Wednesday that the ship’s captain reported that the vessel had been approached by a vessel of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) before shots were fired.

It “has caused heavy damage to the bridge. No fires or environmental impact reported,” the agency added. No casualties were reported, and all crew members were said to be safe.

British maritime security firm Vanguard Tech said the ship was sailing under a Liberian flag and had been informed it had permission to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most strategically important waterways.

Iranian news agency Tasnim, however, said the vessel had ignored warnings issued by Iran’s armed forces.

The incident followed a warning from the IRGC’s Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters after what it described as the US seizure of an Iranian commercial ship in the Sea of Oman, the IRNA news agency reported.

It accused Washington of violating the ceasefire and carrying out “armed piracy” after allegedly firing on the Iranian vessel and disabling its navigation systems.

Trump extends ceasefire

Trump earlier announced he would delay a planned military attack on Iran after requests from Pakistan’s army chief Asim Munir and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.

Writing on Truth Social, Trump said the decision was made because Iran’s government was “seriously fractured” and needed time to present a unified position.

“We have been asked to hold our Attack on the Country of Iran until such time as their leaders and representatives can come up with a unified proposal,” he wrote.

He added, however, that the US naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz would remain in place and said the military had been ordered to stay “ready and able”.

The announcement marked a shift from comments made a day earlier, when Trump said it was “highly unlikely” he would extend the truce beyond Tuesday.

‘Positive and negative signals’ from Tehran

Al Jazeera’s Tohid Asadi, reporting from Tehran, said Iranian officials were sending mixed messages over the ceasefire and the prospects for negotiations.

“Tehran is saying they won’t negotiate under imposed terms and conditions … when we compare the initial 10-point and 15-point proposals by the Iranians and Americans, we can understand that the two sides are poles apart,” he said.

“The atmosphere is also clouded by this mistrust in Tehran towards the United States, as well as the simultaneous military rhetoric related to a potential failed negotiation … It is a warning that another round of confrontation may be ahead.”

He said Iran still viewed the Strait of Hormuz as a key source of leverage in any talks.

“It’s trying to exercise authority over the ships and vessels transiting this strategically significant chokepoint,” he said.

Asadi added that Iranian officials framed their regional position as based on mutual security. “Iranians are saying that the basis of their foreign policy behaviour, particularly when it comes to Israel, is security for all versus security for none,” he said.

The global fallout of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz may create the impression that the world cannot function without fossil fuels. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every single industry can and must decarbonise.

For global shipping, this process would be relatively easy because technological solutions exist and a single United Nations agency can set legally binding rules for all ships. The first steps have already been made.

In 2025, member states of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) agreed on a policy mechanism to cut shipping emissions: the Net-Zero Framework (NZF). But they opted to postpone a decision on formal adoption of this landmark agreement.

This delay is emblematic of obstructive tactics used by countries opposing climate action.

The IMO Framework – the world’s first global carbon price on any international polluter – took years of compromises and watering-down. As it stands, it is the lowest possible bar Pacific Island states like the one I represent can accept. We cannot give in another inch.

While I join the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia, next week, delegates will gather again at the IMO in London to decide whether to uphold their unanimous commitment to phase out fossil fuels in a just and equitable way.

The delegates of Vanuatu who travel to London have a mandate to push for the adoption of the NZF this year.

Should anyone reopen the framework to water it down, our position is clear: We will revert to our original Pacific demand for a universal levy on emissions of $150 per tonne of carbon dioxide.

Last year my country abstained from the vote on the NZF agreement. We reached that decision because the mechanism is not nearly ambitious enough. Even so, it is a starting point we can work with.

But since then, the tide has shifted dramatically.

After the delay in adoption, a small group of countries is now suggesting further weakening the ambition in the framework to meet the demands of particularly influential states whose current policy positions are not aligned with climate ambition. This strategy is problematic as reducing our collective actions to align with those that want no climate action at all is incompatible with our people’s continued survival.

The world’s poorest countries, and the planet, simply cannot afford anything less than what is already on the table.

The framework, as it is, gives the world and the industry some chance of meeting the climate obligations that IMO countries committed to in 2023, namely reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 in a just and equitable way.

The NZF introduces penalty fees – eg emission pricing for noncompliance with the regulation. This provides the regulation with a “stick” to ensure ships comply or else they must pay.

The penalties also represent revenues, up to $10bn to $12bn a year, to both incentivise industry transition and enable a fair transition for all. This fund is a lifeline for developing – and especially least developed – states to be able to afford clean maritime energy upgrades and compensate for the rising trade costs because of this transition.

Some claim that revenues raised by the NZF will blow out transport costs. This is preposterous.

The penalties charged through this framework come down to less than $1.50 per year for every living human being – although the biggest polluters should pay this cost. If the richest 10 percent of the world’s population foots this bill, it adds up to less than $15 per person. That’s a few coffees a year, which the world’s richest can easily spare.

Losing both financial penalties for noncompliance and financial support for countries like mine in the name of a political compromise with rich oil-producing states is a bad deal. Not just for all climate-vulnerable states but also for the industry that demands and deserves clarity.

If anything, we need more action and more ambition in the framework.

For years, Pacific states have pushed for the IMO regulation to be in the form of a universal levy on emissions, by pricing all emissions. We managed to get the majority of IMO member states on board, including the European Union, South Korea and Japan, as well as important Global South states, such as Panama and Liberia. However, the US has been very effective in exerting its influence in this area, which is resulting in shifts to some positions to the detriment of us all.

Our position was always backed by the best available scientific evidence.

A levy on all shipping emissions is the best way to send an unambiguous signal to the industry: Invest in the future now! The revenues, up to 10 times more than those from the NZF, serve as both a bigger stick for polluters and a bigger carrot for first movers and cash-poor countries.

This is not a handout: Hitting net zero by 2050 is not possible if our countries cannot invest in clean ships.

The bridge we have built in the form of the NZF through years of compromise and evidence is still standing. Let us cross it together by adopting it as agreed without any further dilution.

Pacific states stand ready to fight for what science and justice demand, and we call on our partners to stand with us.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Shipping companies said several things had to be clarified, including the presence of mines, Iranian conditions, practical implementations.

Shipping companies have cautiously welcomed Iran’s announcement that the Strait of Hormuz is open but said they would require clarifications, including about the risk of mines, before vessels move through the entry point to the Gulf.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Friday that the Strait of Hormuz was open to all commercial vessels during a 10-day Lebanon ceasefire accord, prompting a fall in oil and other commodity prices while stock markets rose.

All commercial ships, including United States vessels, can sail through the strait, although their plans need to be coordinated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a senior Iranian official told the Reuters news agency.

Transit would be restricted to lanes which Iran deemed safe, adding that military vessels were still prohibited, the official said.

“We are currently verifying the recent announcement related to the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, in terms of its compliance with freedom of navigation for all merchant vessels and secure passage,” said Arsenio Dominguez, secretary-general of the United Nations shipping agency, the International Maritime Organization.

The Norwegian Shipowners’ Association said several things had to be clarified before any ships could transit the strait, including the presence of mines, Iranian conditions and practical implementation.

“If this represents a step towards an opening, it is a welcome development,” said Knut Arild Hareide, CEO of the association which represents 130 companies with some 1,500 vessels.

Shipping association BIMCO cautioned members on returning to the strait.

“The status of mine threats… is unclear and BIMCO believes shipping companies should consider avoiding the area,” said Jakob Larsen, BIMCO’s chief safety and security officer.

The threat posed by mines in parts of the strait is not fully understood, and avoidance of the area by ships should be considered, a US Navy advisory on Friday, seen by Reuters, also said.

German shipping group Hapag-Lloyd on Friday said it was working for its ships to sail through the strait “as soon as possible”, but added that several questions remained.

“Our crisis committee is in session and will try to resolve all open items with the relevant parties within the next 24-36 hours,” it added.

Its Danish peer Maersk said it was closely monitoring the security situation and would act based on its risk assessment.

France’s CMA CGM and Norwegian oil tanker group Frontline declined to comment.

A recent route imposed by Tehran through its territorial waters near Larak Island would present navigational challenges even if vessels were not required to pay a toll, and would raise questions regarding compliance and insurance, said Matt Wright, lead freight analyst at data intelligence firm Kpler.

US President Donald Trump on Friday said Iran had agreed to never close the strait again, and that it was removing sea mines from it.

One of the world’s most important maritime chokepoints, disruption in the strait has forced shipping companies to suspend sailings, reroute cargo and rely on costly workarounds to keep goods moving in and out of the Gulf.

Iran says ‘passage for all commercial vessels through Strait of Hormuz’ open during the Israel-Lebanon ceasefire.

The Strait of Hormuz is “completely open” for all commercial vessels and will remain so during the Israel-Lebanon ceasefire, Iran’s foreign minister has said.

“In line with the ceasefire in Lebanon, the passage for all commercial vessels through Strait of Hormuz is declared completely open for the remaining period of ceasefire,” Abbas Araghchi said in a post on X on Friday.

A 10-day ceasefire was agreed between Israel and Lebanon late on Thursday.

The passage of ⁠vessels through the ⁠strait will be on the coordinated route as ⁠already announced by ⁠Ports and ⁠Maritime Organisation of Iran, Araghchi added.

United States President Donald Trump confirmed in a social media post that the strait was “completely open and ready for business and full passage”.

More to come…

The US started a blockade on Iranian ports, but Trump said there is still a chance for Tehran to reach a deal.

President Donald Trump said there is still room for Iran to strike a deal, despite the US blockade of Iranian ports, as Israel intensified its invasion of southern Lebanon.

Iran has accused Washington of “piracy” as thousands rally in Tehran against the move, which targets shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

The Associated Press news agency reported on Tuesday that diplomatic efforts to revive US-Iran talks are continuing, with Pakistan offering to host a second round of negotiations in Islamabad this week.

Here is what we know:

In Iran

• US blockade and protests: The US measures are now being enforced, prompting Iranian accusations of “piracy” and demonstrations in Tehran against the restrictions on maritime traffic.
• Tehran calls blockade ‘illegal’: Iran’s armed forces condemned the move as unlawful, warning that targeting its ports could put shipping across the Gulf at risk.
• IRGC warns of escalation: A Revolutionary Guard spokesperson said Iran still has “unused capabilities” and could deploy new tactics if the conflict deepens.
• Tehran backs pope: Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf praised Pope Leo XIV for condemning the war, calling his stance “fearless”.
• Russia withdraws nuclear staff: Russia has pulled most of its personnel from Iran’s only nuclear power plant, built with Moscow’s support, according to the head of the country’s atomic energy agency.

War diplomacy

• Qatar urges mediation: Qatar’s Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani urged Iran and the US to engage constructively in mediation efforts.
• Pakistan says truce ‘holding’: Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said the ceasefire between the US and Iran was “holding”, with efforts ongoing to reach a deal after weekend talks failed.
• Shipping disruption grows: A UN spokesperson said there is “no military solution”, warning that instability in the Strait of Hormuz is worsening global economic fragility. About 20,000 vessels are reported stranded, with supply chains, including fertiliser, under strain.
• Push to include Lebanon: The United Kingdom urged Lebanon’s inclusion in a broader US-Iran ceasefire framework, which currently excludes fighting involving Hezbollah.
• Talks planned with Lebanon despite fighting: Israeli and Lebanese ambassadors will hold talks on Tuesday in Washington, DC, aimed at halting the war.
• Hezbollah rejects negotiations: Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem on Monday urged Lebanon to cancel the planned meeting in Washington, reiterating his group’s opposition to any direct engagement with Israel.
• Russia to accept Iran’s uranium: The Kremlin has repeated an offer to accept Iran’s enriched uranium as part of a potential agreement with the US. In comments carried by Russia’s state-owned RIA Novosti news agency, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the proposal “was voiced by President [Vladimir] Putin in contacts with both the United States and regional states”.

In the US

• Iran ‘wants a deal’: Trump said Iranian representatives had reached out to pursue a peace agreement after talks in Pakistan ended without a breakthrough. “They’d like to make a deal. Very badly,” he told reporters, without specifying who made contact.
• No apology over pope remarks: Trump said he had “nothing to apologise for” after criticising Pope Leo XIV for calling for an end to the conflict. He described the pope as “weak” on key issues, including Iran.
• Warning over Iranian vessels: Trump said US forces would destroy any Iranian “fast attack ships” approaching the naval blockade now in effect.
• Domestic politics and war powers: Senate Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer, are pushing for another vote to curb Trump’s authority to wage war on Iran. Schumer criticised the campaign as an “epic fail”, citing rising US fuel prices, while previous efforts have been blocked by Republicans.
• Arrests of protesters: Police in New York City have arrested about 90 protesters in Manhattan as they stopped traffic to protest against the war on Iran and the US’s arms sales to Israel. Jewish Voice for Peace, the group leading the protest, said those taken into custody included whistleblower Chelsea Manning, actor Hari Nef and New York City Council Member Alexa Aviles.
• Trump rails at pope: Trump has doubled down on his criticism of Pope Leo XIV, saying the pontiff’s opposition to the war in Iran was “wrong” and accusing him of being “weak on crime”.

In Israel

• Israel pushes ‘buffer zone’: Israel’s military is continuing ground operations and air raids across southern Lebanon, bulldozing buildings in border towns such as Naqoura as part of efforts to create a “buffer zone”.
• Hezbollah steps up attacks: Fighters have launched rockets and drones at Israeli troops and vehicles in areas including Bint Jbeil and Biyyada.
• Accusations against Israel: Hezbollah chief Qassem accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of pursuing a “Greater Israel” agenda with US backing.
• Tensions with Italy: Israel summoned Italy’s ambassador after Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani condemned attacks on Beirut as “unacceptable”, following reports of more than 300 deaths.
• The Israeli military said one soldier has been killed and three others have been wounded during battle in southern Lebanon.

In Lebanon

• Israel continues to attack Lebanon: Israel has intensified its invasion of southern Lebanon, as the death toll from Israeli attacks since March 2 rises to at least 2,089.
• An Israeli drone attack has hit a car travelling near southern Lebanon’s Nabatieh, killing at least two people, the National News Agency reported on Tuesday. Our colleagues at Al Jazeera Arabic say Israeli forces have launched two raids on the towns of Machgharah and Sohmor in the eastern Bekaa Valley.
• Public opinion divided: Lebanese citizens appear split about negotiations, with some expressing fatigue from the war and hoping for a diplomatic breakthrough, while others remain sceptical of Israel’s intentions and doubt any deal will hold.
• Canadian Foreign Minister Anita Anand confirmed in a statement posted on X that a Canadian national has died in southern Lebanon. The minister did not provide details on the events that led to the Canadian’s death.

Strait of Hormuz and energy crisis

• The Reuters news agency is reporting that a Chinese tanker sanctioned ⁠by Washington has passed through the Strait of Hormuz despite a ⁠US blockade on the waterway. The tanker and its ‌owner, Shanghai Xuanrun Shipping Co Ltd, were previously sanctioned by the US for dealing with Iran.
• US Energy Secretary Chris Wright said oil prices could keep rising until “we get meaningful ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz”.

Shipping costs have increased by more than 10 percent in the past month due to the US-Israel war on Iran.

Shipping and oil costs have continued to surge a month after United States President Donald Trump issued a waiver for the Jones Act, a maritime law that bars foreign-flagged vessels from transporting goods between US ports.

The 60-day waiver came into effect on March 18, as the movement of energy supplies through the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway that carries roughly 20 percent of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas supply, was choked off on account of the US-Israel war on Iran.

Under the Jones Act, goods shipped between US ports must be carried on vessels that are US-built, US-flagged and mostly US-owned, limiting the number of tankers available for domestic shipments.

The Trump administration argued that the temporary waiver of the law would lower energy costs. As the waiver approaches the 30-day mark, it has had little impact on oil prices.

“It is estimated that it’s going to be about 3 cents on the East Coast and it might go up on the Gulf Coast, but these changes are so small that they’re overshadowed by the spikes in oil prices, and the oil prices keep going up,” Usha Haley, a professor of management at the Wichita State University, told Al Jazeera.

“It is minuscule, a drop in the bucket compared to the rise in oil prices.”

Oil prices have continued to rise amid the ongoing conflict, which is disrupting transit through the Strait of Hormuz.

Brent crude futures rose 4 percent on the day amid a US blockade of Iranian ports, reaching $98.91 after hitting $101.03 earlier in the day. US West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude rose $2.53, or 2.6 percent, to $99.10.

The US Navy imposed a blockade of Iranian ports on Monday to prevent the movement of oil to and from Iran after talks between US and Iranian negotiators failed to reach an agreement.

The strain is also hitting consumers at the petrol pump in the US. The American Automobile Association reports that the average price of gas is $4.125 per gallon (3.78 litres), compared with $3.63 at this time last month.

Meanwhile, shippers have adapted their routes, with more than 34,000 ships diverting from the strait over the past month.

The Containerized Freight Index, the benchmark for shipping container costs, jumped more than 10 percent over the last month, and is up more than 35 percent from this time last year, amid pressure on the market to find alternative shipping strategies.

In March, Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd suspended vessel routes through the strait, a waterway connecting the Gulf of Oman and the Gulf.

Also in March, within days of the start of the US-Israel war on Iran, several major vessel insurers cancelled war risk coverage for ships travelling through the waterway, including Norwegian insurers Gard and Skuld, as well as the United Kingdom’s NorthStandard, dissuading ship owners from going through the Gulf.

Since then, even though maritime insurance has become available – at 10 times the price as before the war on Iran – fuel prices are expected to normalise only once traffic through the strait goes back to pre-war levels, experts have said.

Vessels will still be able to transit Strait of Hormuz to and from non-Iranian ports, says CENTCOM; Iran warns any approaching military vessels will be breaching ceasefire.

The United States military has announced it will begin blockading all Iranian ports on Monday, its latest move to exert pressure on Tehran after marathon peace talks in Pakistan concluded without a deal.

In a statement on Sunday evening, US Central Command (CENTCOM) said the blockade would apply to “all maritime traffic entering and exiting Iranian ports” from 10am Eastern Time (14:00 GMT) on April 13. That includes “vessels of all nations entering or departing Iranian ports and coastal areas”, including those on the Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.

However, US forces “will not impede freedom of ⁠navigation for vessels transiting the Strait ⁠of Hormuz to and ⁠from non-Iranian ports,” CENTCOM said, in an apparent scaling back from President Donald Trump’s earlier threat to blockade the entire strait and pursue ships paying tolls to Iran.

“There are a lot of questions here,” said Al Jazeera’s Heidi Zhou-Castro from Washington, DC, pointing to “conflicting information” coming out of the US side.

“Trump said the blockade would target any and all ships trying to enter or leave the Strait of Hormuz. But CENTCOM is saying this would only target ships going to or from Iranian ports.”

The price of US crude oil jumped 8 percent to $104.24 a barrel after the US blockade threat. Brent crude oil, the international standard, increased 7 percent to $102.29.

Iran has essentially taken control over the Strait of Hormuz, a vital chokepoint for the global energy market, since the US and Israel launched a war against the country on February 28. Traffic through the waterway has since slowed to a trickle, nearly paralysing about one-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas shipments.

Iran has continued to move its own vessels through the strait, while allowing limited passage of ships from other countries. Iranian officials have discussed setting up a toll system after the fighting ends.

In a statement responding to Trump’s blockade threat, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said any approaching military vessels would be in breach of a US-Iran ceasefire – meant to be in effect until April 22 – and “will be dealt with severely”.

The US-declared blockade appears to be triggered by the failure of the talks in Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad, raising fears of renewed fighting.

Iranian officials blamed the US side for failing to reach a deal, with Minister of Foreign Affairs Abbas Araghchi saying US negotiators shifted the “goalposts” and obstructed efforts when a memorandum of understanding was “just inches away”.

Zohreh Kharazmi, an associate professor at the University of Tehran, said the US “is not in a position to dictate” to Iranians how to behave, or “to choose which vessels may pass”.

“If this blockade becomes a contest between the resilience of the Islamic Republic and the resilience of global markets, it will not take long to see who is losing,” she said, adding that Iran “is ready for a prolonged war”.

“Technically, they [the US] cannot control the situation. With Hollywood-style strategies, they cannot prevail in this battleground.”

Washington and Tehran accuse each other of not honouring truce agreement.

Shipping remains at a standstill in the Strait of Hormuz despite the ceasefire agreement between the United States and Iran, dampening hopes for a resolution to one of the worst global energy disruptions in history.

Only a handful of vessels have transited the critical strait since Washington and Tehran on Tuesday announced a two-week pause in fighting, according to ship tracking data.

Five vessels crossed the strait on Wednesday, down from 11 the previous day, and seven transited on Thursday, according to data from market intelligence firm Kpler.

More than 600 vessels, including 325 tankers, are still stranded in the Gulf due to the blockage of the strait, according to Lloyd’s List Intelligence.

“While some vessel movement has resumed, traffic remains very limited, compliant shipowners are likely to stay cautious, and safe transit capacity is expected to remain constrained at maximum 10–15 passages a day if the ceasefire holds, without consideration of tolls applied,” Kpler trade risk analyst Ana Subasic said in an analysis on Thursday.

The waterway, which usually carries about one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies, typically handled about 120-140 transits before the US and Israel launched their attacks on Iran on February 28.

On Thursday, US President Donald Trump accused Iran of failing to live up to its part of the ceasefire agreement, which includes a commitment to allow “safe passage” through the waterway for two weeks.

“Iran is doing a very poor job, dishonorable some would say, of allowing Oil to go through the Strait of Hormuz,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

“That is not the agreement we have!”

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi earlier accused the US of not honouring the deal, warning, in reference to Israel’s ongoing attacks on Lebanon, that it had to choose between a ceasefire or “continued war” via its ally.

“The world sees the massacres in Lebanon,” Araghchi said in a post on social media.

“The ball is in the US court, and the world is watching whether it will act on its commitments.”

After plummeting on the back of the ceasefire announcement, oil prices have begun to tick up as markets digest the reality that maritime traffic remains effectively halted despite the truce.

“This moment requires clarity. So let’s be clear: the Strait of Hormuz is not open,” Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, the CEO of the United Arab Emirates’ state-run oil company, ADNOC, said in a social media post on Thursday.

“Access is being restricted, conditioned and controlled. Iran has made clear – through both its statements and actions – that passage is subject to permission, conditions and political leverage. That is not freedom of navigation. That is coercion.”

Brent crude, the international benchmark, stood at $96.39 as of 02:00 GMT on Friday, after falling below $95 a barrel on Wednesday.

Asia’s main stock markets opened higher on Friday, following overnight gains on Wall Street driven by hopes of a resolution to the war.

Japan’s benchmark Nikkei 225 was up 1.8 percent in early trading, while South Korea’s KOSPI and Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index were up about 2 percent and 1 percent, respectively.

The Strait of Hormuz, which links the Gulf to the Gulf of Oman, has held global attention since Israel and the US began their war on Iran in February.

Until fighting began, the narrow channel, through which 20 per cent of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies are shipped from Gulf producers in peacetime, remained toll-free and safe for vessels. The strait is shared by Iran and Oman and does not fall into the category of international waters.

After the US and Israel began strikes, Iran retaliated by attacking “enemy” merchant ships in the strait, effectively halting passage for all, stranding shipping, and creating one of the worst-ever global energy distribution crises.

Tehran continued to refuse to re-open the strait to all traffic at the start of this week, despite US President Donald Trump’s threats to bomb Iran’s power plants and bridges if it did not relent. Trump backed away from his threat on Tuesday night when a two-week ceasefire, brokered by Pakistan, was declared.

That followed a 10-point peace proposal from Iran that Trump described as a “workable” basis on which to negotiate a permanent end to hostilities.

As part of the truce, Tehran has now issued official terms it says will guide its control of the Strait going forward. The US has not directly acknowledged the terms ahead of talks set to begin in Islamabad on Friday. However, analysts say Tehran’s continued control will be unpopular with Washington, as well as other countries.

During the crisis, only a few ships from specific countries deemed friendly to Iran and those which pay a toll have been granted safe passage. At least two tolls for ships are believed to have been paid in Chinese yuan, in what appears to be a strategy to weaken the US dollar, but also to avoid US sanctions. China, which buys 80 percent of Iran’s oil, already pays Tehran in yuan.

Here’s what we know about how shipments will work from now on:

Who is controlling the strait now?

On Tuesday, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi said Iran would grant safe passage through the strait during the ceasefire in “coordination with Iran’s Armed Forces and with due consideration of technical limitations”.

On Wednesday, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) released a map of the strait showing a safe route for ships to follow. The map appears to direct ships further north towards the Iranian coast and away from the traditional route closer to the coast of Oman.

In a statement, the IRGC said all vessels must use the new map for navigation due to “the likelihood of the presence of various types of anti-ship mines in the main traffic zone”.

It is unclear whether Iran is collecting toll fees during the ceasefire period.

However, Trump said on Tuesday the US would be “helping with the traffic buildup” in the strait and that the US army would be “hanging around” as the negotiations go on.

The Strait will be “OPEN & SAFE” he posted on his Truth Social media site on Thursday, adding that US troops would not leave the area, and threatening to resume attacks if the talks don’t go well.

It’s not known to what extent US troops are directing what happens in the strait now.

Delhi-based maritime analyst C Uday Bhaskar told Al Jazeera that there is a lot of “uncertainty” about who can sail through the strait, and that only between three and five ships have transited since the war was paused.

How does Iran’s 10-point plan affect the Strait?

Among Tehran’s main demands listed on its 10-point plan are that the US and Israel permanently cease all attacks on Iran and its allies – particularly Lebanon – lift all sanctions, and allow Iran to retain control over Hormuz. The plan has not been fully published but is understood to be a starting point for talks.

Iranian media say Iran is considering a plan to charge up to $2m per vessel to be shared with Oman on the opposite side of the strait. Other reports suggest Iran could charge $1 per barrel of oil being shipped.

Revenues raised would be used to rebuild military and civilian infrastructure damaged by US-Israeli strikes, Tehran said.

Oman has rejected the idea. Transport minister Said Al-Maawali said on Wednesday that the Omanis previously “signed all international maritime transport agreements” which bar taking fees.

What does international law say about tolls on shipping?

Critics of Iran’s plan to charge tolls say it violates international law guiding safe maritime passage, and should not be part of a final ceasefire agreement.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) says levies cannot be charged on ships sailing through international straits or territorial seas.

The law allows coastal states to collect fees for services rendered, such as navigation assistance or port use, but not for passage itself.

Neither the US nor Iran has ratified that particular convention, however.

Even if they had, there could be ways to get around this law anyway. Analyst Bhaskar told Al Jazeera that if Iran instead charged fees to de-mine the strait and make it safe for passage again, that could be allowable under maritime laws.

There is no precedent in recent history of countries officially taxing passage through international straits or waterways.

In October 2024, a United Nations Security Council report alleged that the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen were collecting “illegal fees” from shipping companies to allow vessels to pass through the Red Sea and the Bab-el-Mandeb strait, where it was targeting ships linked to Israel during the Gaza war.

Last week, a top adviser to Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei suggested the Houthis could shut the Bab al-Mandeb shipping route again in light of the war on Iran.

How might countries react to a Hormuz toll?

Tolls for passage through the Strait of Hormuz would likely most affect oil and gas-producing countries in the Gulf, but ripple effects will spread to others as well, as the current supply shocks have shown.

Gulf countries, which issued statements calling for the reopening of the passage and praising the ceasefire on Wednesday, would also face a continuing degree of uncertainty, analysts say, as Iran could again disrupt flows in the future.

Before the ceasefire was announced, Bahrain had already proposed a resolution at the UN Security Council calling on member states to coordinate and jointly reopen the passage by “all necessary means”. It was backed by Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan. On April 7, 11 of 15 UNSC members voted in favour of that resolution.

But Russia and China vetoed the resolution, saying it was biased against Iran and did not address the initial strikes on Iran by the US and Israel.

Beyond the region, observers say the US is unlikely to accept indefinite toll demands by Iran as part of the negotiations expected to begin on Friday.

A toll to pass through the Strait of Hormuz “is not going to go down well with President Trump and his expectations that the strait should be open for everyone”, Amin Saikal, a professor at the Australian National University, said.

Other major powers have also voiced opposition. Ahead of the ceasefire, Britain had begun discussions with 40 other countries to find a way to reopen the strait.

Practical realities in the strait might see a different scenario play out with ship owners losing millions each day their vessels remain stranded seeking to get them out quickly and undamaged experts say. They are more likely to comply with Iran, at least for now.

“If I were the owner of a VLCC [very large crude carrier] which weighs about 300,000 tonnes, whose value could be a quarter billion dollars…I would believe the Iranians if they said we have laid mines,” Bhaskar said.

The US-Israel war on Iran has sparked a global fuel crisis as thousands of tankers carrying crucial deliveries of oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) remain stranded on either side of the Strait of Hormuz, currently under a blockade imposed by Iran.

On Saturday, Egypt’s government said it is among the “best-performing” countries in tackling the crisis because of the measures it has implemented to save on fuel.

Here is what we know about the steps Egypt is taking and whether other countries are doing the same.

Why has the Iran war caused an energy crisis?

Pressure on oil and gas markets is mounting due to the almost complete halt to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz as well as air strikes on and around key energy facilities in the Gulf as the United States-Israel war on Iran enters its sixth week.

One-fifth of the world’s oil and LNG is shipped from producers in the Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz in peacetime. This is the only route from the Gulf to the open ocean.

On March 2, two days after the US and Israel began strikes on Iran, Ebrahim Jabari, a senior adviser to the commander in chief of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), announced that the strait was “closed”. If any vessels tried to pass through, he said, the IRGC and the navy would “set those ships ablaze”. Since then, traffic through the strait, carrying cargoes including 20 million barrels of oil each day, has plunged by more than 95 percent.

Now, Tehran is allowing just a handful of tankers through after reaching agreements with some countries to do so.

Besides this, energy infrastructure in the Middle East has suffered damage over the course of the war.

On March 24, QatarEnergy declared force majeure on some of ⁠its long-term LNG supply contracts after an Iranian attack on Qatar’s Ras Laffan LNG facility – the largest in the world – wiped out about ⁠17 percent of the country’s LNG export capacity, causing an estimated $20bn in lost annual revenue and threatening supplies to Europe and ⁠Asia.

All of this disruption has sent energy prices soaring. On Tuesday, global oil benchmark Brent crude was around $109 per barrel, compared to around $65 per barrel right before the war started.

How is Egypt tackling the energy crisis?

Egypt’s Petroleum Ministry has announced rises in fuel prices ranging from 14 percent to 30 percent.

On March 28, Egyptian Prime Minister Mostafa Madbouly’s office told a press conference that the country’s energy import bill had increased from $1.2bn in January to $2.5bn in March.

Egypt is both one of the region’s largest energy importers and among its most heavily indebted economies. While domestic gas and oil account for the majority of its total energy supply, the country still relies on imported fuels, especially refined oil products and some natural gas, from Israel and the Gulf states.

Madbouly announced measures Egypt is taking to mitigate this and preserve state energy resources.

• From March 28, shops, malls and restaurants are closing at 9pm (19:00 GMT) every day for one month, except Thursdays and Fridays.
• On Thursdays and Fridays, the closing time will be 10pm (20:00 GMT).
• Fuel allocations for government vehicles will be reduced by 30 percent.
• Street lighting and street advertisement lighting will be cut by 50 percent.
• From April 1, eligible employees will work remotely on Sundays, the first day of the working week. Some essential services, such as pharmacies, grocery stores and tourist facilities, will be exempted from this.

Which other countries have introduced energy conservation measures?

Besides Egypt, other countries are also taking steps to save energy.

Last week, Malaysia ordered civil servants to work from home to save energy in government offices.

In mid-March, it was revealed that government offices in the Philippines had moved to a four-day work week, officials in Thailand and Vietnam were being encouraged to work from home and limit travel, and Myanmar’s government had imposed alternating driving days.

Pakistan, which imports about 80 percent of its energy from the Gulf, announced on Monday of this week that markets and shopping malls would close at 8pm (15:00 GMT) across the country, except in Sindh province. The government’s statement added that food outlets would close at 10pm (17:00 GMT), which is also when marriage ceremonies at private properties and houses must end.

Bangladesh has reduced working hours for government and private workers and banking services hours in a bid to conserve electricity.

In Sri Lanka and Slovenia, authorities have introduced fuel rationing and purchase limits to manage shortages and soaring costs.

Tehran says Iraq will face no restrictions in waterway, praising country’s ‘struggle’ against the US.

Iran has announced that Iraqi ships are free to pass the Strait of Hormuz, the latest sign of Tehran easing its stranglehold on the critical conduit for global energy supplies.

Iraq will be exempt from all restrictions in the strait, with controls only applying to “enemy countries”, Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters said in a statement on Saturday.

“We hold profound respect for Iraq’s national sovereignty,” the military command said in the statement carried by the semi-official Tasnim News Agency.

“You are a nation that bears the scars of American occupation, and your struggle against the US is worthy of praise and admiration.”

Iran’s announcement came as US President Donald Trump reiterated his demands for Tehran to make a deal or relinquish control of the waterway, warning in a social media post that “all hell” would rain down within 48 hours otherwise.

Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters rejected Trump’s demand, calling his threat a “helpless, nervous, unbalanced and stupid action”.

Iran has effectively blockaded the strait, which usually carries about one-fifth of global oil and liquified natural gas supplies, since the US and Israel launched their war on the country on February 28.

While maritime traffic has ticked up in recent weeks under a de facto toll booth system imposed by Tehran, it is still down more than 90 percent from normal levels, according to ship tracking data.

According to Lloyd’s List Intelligence, there were 53 transits through the strait last week, up from 36 the previous week and the most since the war began.

The collapse of shipping in the waterway has thrown a wrench in global energy markets, pushing up fuel prices and prompting authorities in many countries to roll out emergency energy conservation measures.

Brent crude, the international benchmark, has hovered above $109 a barrel in recent days, with many analysts predicting prices to surge much higher if the waterway is not unblocked soon.

Iraq’s oil production, which provides most of Baghdad’s revenues, has been hit especially hard by the war.

Iraq’s oil ministry announced last month that production had fallen to 1.2 million barrels a day, down from 4.3 million barrels, amid declining crude shortage capacity due to the effective halt of exports through the strait.

Iraq was the world’s six-biggest oil producer in 2023, accounting for 4 percent of global supply, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

April 3 (UPI) — A French-owned shipping vessel on Friday was the first Western ship permitted to transit the Strait of Hormuz since the United States and Israel started the war in Iran.

The container ship, owned by the company CMA CGM, is one of several that were permitted to transit the Strait after weeks of Iran permitting few, if any, vessels to pass through it.

The French ship sailed under the flag of Malta and is believed to have been idling in the Persian Gulf since early March, similar to many other vessels, after Iran choked off non-Iranian traffic in response to the war.

The ship switched on its transponder and looked to leave the gulf Thursday afternoon after Iran permitted several ships to transit the Strait, Euronews and The Guardian reported.

The other vessels were three tankers, at least one of which was a liquefied natural gas tanker with a Panamian flag that is owned by a Japanese company.

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the busiest trade routes in the world and, among other things that are shipped through it, sees roughly 20% of the world’s oil and gas supply transit daily under normal circumstances.

The United States has discussed sending U.S. Navy vessels to escort ships through the Strait, although that could be expensive, time consuming and put U.S. troops and assets in danger. Other nations — including Britain — were beginning to look for ways to move vessels through the Strait regardless of the war in Iran.

France, for example, struck a deal with South Korea on Friday to work together to secure safe passage for their vessels through the strait.

Both nations rely on oil and gas from the region, on top of other parts of the global supply chain in which they participate, and said they are working together to deal with the economic and energy crises that have been triggered by the war in Iran.

Gurdaspur, Punjab, India – Ramesh Kumar, 42, is anxiously doing the calculations for his crops this year.

Standing at the edge of his wheat field in northwest Punjab’s Gurdaspur, he runs through the numbers in his head, totting up fertiliser costs, expected yield, and market prices.

Then he shifts to more personal concerns: School fees, household expenses, loan repayments and the money he has been saving for his daughter Varsha’s wedding.

“I don’t know if we can afford it this year,” he says. “Everything depends on the crop.”

The uncertainty has crept in quietly.

Fertiliser, once a fairly predictable staple in farming, has become more expensive and harder to secure in time. For Kumar, it is not so much a question of cost as it is the difference between stability and strain.

“If prices go up more, we will have to cut somewhere,” he says. “Maybe delay the wedding. If things get worse … even children’s education becomes difficult.”

School fees for his eldest son, Amit, 12, are due in the coming weeks, and Kumar has been setting aside money for his younger daughter Varsha’s future wedding.

It’s never easily affordable, even in good times. “We somehow manage,” Kumar says. “But if the harvest is weak, then we have to think about what to prioritise, what to delay.”

For farmers like him across South Asia, the United States-Israel war on Iran – unfolding thousands of kilometres away – is not just a matter of distant geopolitics.

It is shaping decisions inside their homes.

A distant crisis with local consequences

At the centre of the unfolding crisis is the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow shipping lane more than 2,000km (1,240 miles) from India’s northern plains. It lies between Iran and Oman, linking the Gulf and its oil producers to the open ocean and, from there, to global markets.

About one-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies pass through this body of water, which Iran closed down shortly after the first US-Israeli strikes on Tehran on February 28.

Vast volumes of LNG, essential for manufacturing nitrogen-based fertilisers, are transported from Gulf producers to Asia via this route. Any disruption can delay shipments, push up freight and insurance costs and place a stranglehold on supply.

Interruptions to the supply of fertiliser can ripple quickly, reducing crop yields, increasing costs and raising food prices.

The risks are already being felt thousands of kilometres away.

South Asia, home to nearly two billion people, relies heavily on fertiliser-intensive farming to produce staple crops such as wheat and rice. Over the past few decades, the increasing use of fertilisers – which can hugely boost crop yields – has played a key role in agricultural productivity across the region.

The agriculture sector now employs about 46 percent of the workforce in India, about 38 percent in Pakistan, nearly 40 percent in Bangladesh, and more than 60 percent in Nepal.

The degree to which countries in the region depend on the Strait of Hormuz varies, but all rely heavily on the trade in fertilisers that this shipping route facilitates.

In India, the agriculture sector is worth $400bn, according to Indian government and World Bank data, and supports the livelihoods of more than half the population, either directly or indirectly. More than 100 million farming families are directly dependent on the sector.

The country imports a substantial share of its fertiliser requirements and other key raw materials, particularly phosphates and potash, as well as natural gas used to manufacture fertiliser, with about 30–35 percent of these supplies moving through or originating from routes that pass via the Strait of Hormuz.

In Pakistan, the agriculture sector contributes close to 20 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), according to Pakistan government estimates, and employs millions. About 20-25 percent of Pakistan’s fertiliser imports, particularly DAP (diammonium phosphate), pass through the Strait of Hormuz at some point in transit. Additionally, the sector relies on domestic natural gas for the production of urea, a key nitrogen-based fertiliser and, with Gulf natural gas supplies held up in the Strait of Hormuz, the price of natural gas everywhere – even at home – is on the rise.

In Bangladesh, where millions of smallholder farmers rely heavily on imported fertilisers, the agricultural sector accounts for about 12-13 percent of GDP, according to government data. The country’s farming industry relies heavily on imported fertilisers to sustain crops, meaning farmers are highly exposed to international supply shocks and price swings.

Furthermore, roughly 25-30 percent of Bangladesh’s imported fertiliser is shipped via routes passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

Nepal, where agriculture contributes about 24 percent of GDP, imports nearly all of its fertiliser needs, with about 25-30 percent of arriving via India, via the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

Livelihoods at stake

Overall, even minor disruption in the Gulf – let alone the complete closure of the critical Strait of Hormuz – can have dire consequences for hundreds of millions of people.

The Indian government has sought to reassure farmers that supplies remain secure – for now.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi told Parliament on March 23: “Adequate arrangements have been made for fertiliser supply for the summer sowing season…The government has diversified options for oil, gas and fertiliser imports… Domestic production of urea, DAP and NPK [nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilisers] has been expanded… Farmers now have access to Made in India Nano Urea and are encouraged to adopt natural farming…”

He added: “Under the PM Kusum scheme, more than 22 lakh (2.2 million) solar pumps have been provided, reducing dependence on diesel… I am confident that through joint efforts, India will manage these challenges effectively and continue to support our farmers.”

On the ground, however, confidence is low. Farmers say uncertainty is already influencing decisions.

In Pampore, in the south of Indian-administered Kashmir, 53-year-old mustard farmer Ghulam Rasool says price signals travel faster than supply disruptions.

“We hear about war, about shipping problems,” he tells Al Jazeera. “Even before shortages happen, fertiliser becomes expensive.”

Rasool says farmers often respond early by cutting down on the amount of fertiliser they are using, even before actual shortages emerge.

“If we use less, production will fall,” he says. “But sometimes we have no choice.”

In Pakistan’s South Punjab, wheat farmer Muneer Ahmad, 45, is preparing for the next sowing cycle.

“If fertiliser becomes expensive, it will affect everyone here,” he says.

Government officials have expressed confidence in Pakistan’s fertiliser supply amid the Middle East conflict, and claim the government is fully prepared to ensure adequate supplies during the region’s peak sowing period, which typically begins between April and June, depending on the crop.

According to a statement by Pakistan’s federal secretary for agriculture to Al Jazeera, Federal Minister Rana Tanveer Hussain told a meeting on March 25 that the government has started proactive monitoring, is expanding domestic urea and DAP production and taking steps to ensure fertilisers reach farmers at affordable prices.

However, urea production requires supplies of natural gas, meaning global energy price shocks can still translate into rising production costs.

For farmers, even small increases matter

“We already have loans and expenses,” Ahmad says. “If costs go up, we feel it immediately.”

In Rangpur, northwestern Bangladesh, farmer Mohammad Ibrahim, 41, says fertiliser supplies are already becoming unpredictable.

“Sometimes it is available, sometimes not,” he says. “And when it comes, the price is higher.”

Meanwhile, in Nepal’s Gulmi district, farmer Meghnath Aryal, 38, worries that crops will be reduced if a major supply problem does appear.

“If fertiliser does not arrive on time, the crop suffers,” he says. “If it becomes expensive, we reduce use.”

Bangladesh’s Agriculture Secretary Rafiqul Mohammad told Al Jazeera the government is “closely monitoring the situation” and officials have tried to reassure farmers that fertiliser supplies are sufficient for the coming months.

The government has finalised plans to import about 500,000 tonnes of urea in the near term, while also exploring alternative suppliers such as China and Morocco to secure additional supplies in the longer term.

There is no immediate shortage at present, the Agriculture Ministry says.

Ram Krishna Shrestha, joint secretary at Nepal’s Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development, told Al Jazeera that fertiliser distribution within the country remains largely stable for now, with supplies already secured for the upcoming rainy season, particularly for paddy crops such as rice.

However, he warned that there may be delays to contracted shipments as a result of the Middle East crisis.

“We have managed fertilisers for the upcoming season, but there could be challenges in timely supply because of the current situation,” he said, pointing to global price increases and logistical disruptions, including those caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

Shrestha added that as companies report shortages and rising prices in international markets, the government has asked suppliers to expedite deliveries.

“Authorities are also advising farmers to increase the use of traditional nutrient sources such as farmyard manure, compost, green manuring and azolla [a natural fertiliser] to offset any potential shortfall in chemical fertilisers,” he said.

No immediate new fertiliser subsidies have been announced, he said, though adjustments remain under discussion as the situation evolves.

Rising food prices on the horizon

The implications extend beyond individual farmers.

Across South Asia, fertiliser use has been central to maintaining crop yields – and keeping large populations fed. Any reduction in availability or increase in costs can quickly lower production. That, in turn, pushes up food prices, a sensitive issue in a region where households spend a large proportion of their income on food.

For governments, the challenge is complex.

In the past, subsidies have kept fertilisers affordable for farmers, but this becomes a fragile balancing act if global prices rise, placing additional pressure on public finances.

In India, Ramesh Kumar is already making adjustments – but he is walking a tightrope.

He has decided to use less fertiliser this season, even though he knows it could reduce yields.

“It is a risk,” he says. “But what choice do we have?”

Lower production will mean less income and harder decisions at home.

“School fees have to be paid,” he says. “Household expenses cannot stop.” He looks across his field.

“And the wedding… we will see.”

Ultimately, sacrifices will have to be made in his household.

Across borders, the same uncertainty is unfolding.

In Pakistan, Ahmad is worried about rising costs. In Bangladesh, Ibrahim is mostly concerned about the availability of fertiliser and, in Nepal, Aryal fears delays in supply.

For Ramesh Kumar, the stakes are clear.

“For others, this is about war,” he says. “For us, it is about whether we can take care of our family.”