tensions

IRGC commander says oil flows through US-supervised route in Hormuz are ‘negligible’.

Crude oil exports from the Middle East have risen above pre-war levels on four of the seven days in the last week of September, provisional data from ship-tracking firm Kpler showed.

However, senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander Ali Fadavi said in a televised interview on Sunday night that only three to four million barrels of oil per day (bpd) are now moving through the route, dismissing the amount as “negligible” when compared with pre-war traffic.

Fadavi said, for the first time, no US vessels were present in the Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, the Sea of Oman or even the northern Indian Ocean and US warships are “100 percent vulnerable” to IRGC attacks.

Kpler data showed crude exports from the region exceeded pre-war levels on September 24 and between September 27 and 29, rising to 19.5-22.5 million bpd.

Around that time, Iran claimed success in attacking ships – including US Navy vessels – near the Strait of Hormuz, saying the strikes had forced Washington to move its warships further from the Iranian coast.

Before the US-Israel war on Iran began, exports averaged 18 million bpd between March 2025 and February 2026.

According to Kpler data, the overall tally for crude, oil products, chemicals and non-gas liquids averaged 22.4 million bpd in the seven days to September 30.

On October 1, the seven-day moving average for crude exports was at 18.5 million bpd. This includes transits via the Strait of Hormuz, the Red Sea, exports from terminals and ship-to-ship transfers in the Gulf of Oman.

The number of liquefied natural gas cargoes exiting the Strait of Hormuz also rose in September to its highest monthly level since February.

The figures exclude any vessels that might have crossed the strait with their automatic identification system transponders turned off to avoid detection.

The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations agency reported at least one attack a day in the Strait of Hormuz or in the Gulf of Aden since October 2.

On Sunday, Iran’s top negotiator and parliament speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, said the Strait of Hormuz would remain closed until the United States accepts Tehran’s seven-day plan to reopen the waterway.

South Korea has accused North Korea of planting mines that caused an explosion in the Demilitarized Zone last week, injuring two South Korean personnel and violating the armistice agreement that ended the Korean War.

South Korean Defence Minister Kang Shin-chul told a parliamentary committee on Tuesday that the mines were North Korean and appeared to have been planted as part of Pyongyang’s efforts to strengthen its border defenses near the Military Demarcation Line that divides the DMZ.

Kang said the incident warranted a response from Seoul, although he declined to specify what measures the South Korean military might take.

Seoul Blames North Korea for the DMZ Explosion

“The responsibility lies with North Korea, so we will take corresponding measures,” Kang said, adding that the military had several response options and would implement them in stages.

He said a key question was whether North Korea had planted the mines knowing that South Korean troops could enter the area and potentially be injured.

The South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff said an investigation conducted jointly with the United Nations Command had also uncovered another North Korean resin anti personnel mine close to the site of the September 21 explosion.

The newly discovered mine was different from those believed to have caused last week’s blast.

Another Mine Found South of the Military Line

JCS Vice Chairman Kwon Dae-won said the mines did not appear to have drifted into the area where they were discovered.

The United Nations Command assessed that the additional mines were clearly located south of the Military Demarcation Line, according to South Korean officials.

The findings have heightened concerns about the dangers created by North Korea’s ongoing efforts to fortify its side of one of the world’s most heavily militarized borders.

The DMZ has remained a highly sensitive area since the 1953 armistice, with even limited incidents carrying the potential to trigger a broader military confrontation.

A New Mine Incident Revives Memories of 2015

The latest blast has echoes of a 2015 confrontation, when North Korean mines seriously injured South Korean soldiers inside the DMZ.

South Korea responded by restarting loudspeaker broadcasts aimed at North Korea across the border. Pyongyang condemned the broadcasts, and tensions escalated into a military standoff before the two sides reached a high level agreement.

The current incident is unfolding under different political circumstances, however, as Seoul is simultaneously attempting to reopen dialogue with Pyongyang.

South Korea’s Dialogue Push Faces a Fresh Challenge

South Korean President Lee Jae Myung has sought to encourage North Korea to return to dialogue after years of worsening relations.

Pyongyang has instead moved in the opposite direction, declaring South Korea an enemy state and abandoning its previous policy goal of peaceful reunification.

That shift has made military incidents along the border increasingly sensitive.

For Seoul, the challenge is to respond to the alleged mine deployment while avoiding measures that could further damage its efforts to restore communication with Pyongyang.

North Korea Remains Silent as Seoul Warns of a Response

North Korean state media has not publicly commented on the explosion or South Korea’s accusations.

North Korea’s mission to the United Nations and its embassies in Beijing and Singapore also did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

With the South Korean military warning that it will take corresponding measures, the incident could become another source of confrontation between the two Koreas.

The immediate priority is preventing further injuries and dealing with the mines around the Military Demarcation Line. But the larger concern is whether the latest explosion will trigger another cycle of military responses at a time when relations between Seoul and Pyongyang are already deeply strained.

The blast therefore carries significance beyond the two injured personnel. It has placed South Korea’s attempt to pursue dialogue with North Korea alongside the more immediate question of how Seoul responds to what it considers a violation of the armistice.

With information from Reuters.

Abbas Araghchi’s warning comes after Washington rejected a seven-day roadmap to end the war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

Tehran, Iran – Hours after US President Donald Trump rejected a diplomatic solution put forward by Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, explosions were heard in the waterway, according to Iranian media.

Reports of blasts near southern Iran’s Qeshm Island in the Strait of Hormuz suggested that multiple antiship missiles and drones were fired at vessels transiting the waterway against Tehran’s wishes.

While Iranian authorities did not confirm any attacks in the Strait of Hormuz that day, shipping continues to be attacked in the waters, including an Indian cargo ship last week, which killed a sailor.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) maintains that the strait is closed to any ship that does not coordinate with Iranian authorities. On Sunday afternoon, it released video of what it said was a second US underwater drone seized this month.

Tehran has issued instructions to shipping companies transiting the Strait of Hormuz to use a temporary route approved by Iranian authorities and pay relevant fees. But it has also said the strait will not fully reopen until the US blockade on Iranian ports ends.

Iran’s Persian Gulf Strait Authority announced on Saturday that it would blacklist any shipping charterer company which orders crews to use routes it considers to be unauthorised.

It also published what it described as an apology from an unnamed shipowner blaming commercial pressure from its charterer for trying to pass through the strait.

Washington still insists that its warships are successfully guiding oil tankers out of the strait via a different route. US Energy Secretary Chris Wright told Fox News on Sunday that the “running average” of crude oil in transit was nearly 13 million barrels per day.

A September 19 operational update by US Central Command claimed that its forces had helped move more than one billion barrels of crude out of the Gulf over roughly two months.

The US military also says its forces have redirected 122 commercial vessels to enforce the naval blockade of Iran’s ports, halting all Iranian crude exports.

Tehran has claimed that the US is providing false information regarding Strait of Hormuz traffic to project control over the key waterway. Shipping has been severely disrupted since the US and Israel started their war on Iran on February 28.

Andreas Krieg, associate professor at King’s College London, said Iran’s strategy of launching maritime attacks has spread the economic costs of the conflict beyond its borders.

While Iran has suffered economically from war damages, the US naval blockade and sanctions, it would be a mistake “to assume that reaching that threshold produces submission”.

“The next Iranian move is therefore likely to be an attempt to increase the pain experienced by the Gulf rather than simply absorb further American pressure,” Krieg said.

“That could mean more aggressive vessel interdictions in Hormuz, attacks on energy infrastructure, greater Houthi pressure around Bab al-Mandeb and pressure from Iranian-aligned groups against alternative Saudi export routes. We are already seeing how pressure on Hormuz, the Red Sea and Saudi infrastructure can interact.”

More escalation on the way

At the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Iran projected a message of defiance while also proposing to reopen the Strait of Hormuz within a week if its seven conditions were met.

They included lifting the blockade on Iran, the release of frozen Iranian funds and an end to attacks on all fronts, including Israel’s assault on Lebanon. The demands mostly amounted to a return to the June memorandum of understanding between the US and Israel.

Tehran has added that reopening the strait must be undertaken through a bilateral arrangement already finalised with Oman, the only other country with territorial waters in Hormuz.

US President Donald Trump told reporters he rejected the offer, but Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Sunday they were adamant about the conditions and would await an official response through mediators, such as Pakistan, Qatar and Oman.

Abolfazl Shekarchi, chief spokesman of the Iranian armed forces, warned that if the US further intervenes in the Strait of Hormuz, “it will get slapped”.

“The Americans have no way out other than withdrawing from the West Asia region. The sooner they leave, the fewer losses they will incur and the region will certainly become safe after that,” he said.

Iranian army spokesman Mohammad Akraminia  said conditions were deteriorating so badly for the US that it might launch another “military aggression” on Iran.

Krieg said that as the US moves to isolate Iran via sanctions, Tehran, unable to respond with mutual financial measures against Washington, will be forced to rely on continued coercion in the Strait of Hormuz.

“The most likely level remains controlled attrition rather than an immediate return to the massive air campaign of the opening months,” Krieg said.

“Over the coming weeks, I would expect further attacks or attempted attacks on tankers, US-enabled shipping and regional infrastructure, followed by limited US strikes against IRGC maritime assets, coastal missile positions, drones or vessels involved in those operations. That tit-for-tat cycle has already re-emerged around Hormuz.”

Islamabad, Pakistan — More than 16 months after India and Pakistan fought a four-day air war, firing missiles and drones at each other, the South Asian neighbours came the closest since then to a military face-off — this time in the Arabian Sea.

Indian and Pakistani naval vessels collided on Tuesday, setting off tit-for-tat accusations. Pakistan’s government summoned India’s top diplomat in Islamabad on Wednesday, mirroring action New Delhi had taken hours earlier when it summoned Pakistan’s charge d’affaires and lodged a protest of its own over the incident.

The collision is the first direct military encounter between the nuclear-armed neighbours since their four-day conflict in May 2025, when Indian air strikes and Pakistani retaliation brought both countries closer to full-scale war than at any point in decades.

So far, details of what happened remain disputed. Neither government has released video, track data or an independent account – and each statement places the blame on the other’s vessel.

But analysts say it underscored the risks of unintended incidents in the seas that could potentially escalate into broader crises, when India and Pakistan have few military and diplomatic mechanisms left in place to defuse tensions.

Two accounts

According to Pakistan’s Foreign Office statement issued on Wednesday evening, the navy has been conducting its biennial SEASPARK-26 exercise inside its exclusive economic zone since September 1 .

A country’s EEZ extends 200 nautical miles (370km) from its coast. Its territorial waters are only 12 nautical miles (22km) from the coast, with the rest of the EEZ in international waters. While vessels from other countries can pass through a nation’s EEZ in international waters unencumbered, they cannot exploit the waters economically: that right belongs only to the country whose EEZ it is.

Pakistan said that an Indian vessel, identified as the guided-missile destroyer INS Kolkata, had “repeatedly” tried to enter the exercise area since September 7 .

On September 15 , it said, Kolkata made a “dangerous” change of course that brought it into contact with a Pakistani vessel identified in local media as PNS Hunain, an offshore patrol vessel.

“Pakistan strongly rejects this belligerent Indian action,” the Pakistani Foreign Office said, calling it a violation of a 1991 bilateral agreement requiring warships to stay at least three nautical miles (5.5km, 3.4 miles) apart in international waters.

India’s Ministry of External Affairs said the warship was on “routine surveillance” in international waters when a Pakistani vessel approached at high speed and manoeuvred unsafely.

Neither government has named the vessels in its own on-record statement, and India has not confirmed or denied the Kolkata identification.

The two navies last collided in June 2011, when Pakistani frigate PNS Babur brushed against Indian frigate INS Godavari in the Gulf of Aden, while escorting a merchant vessel freed from Somali pirates.

Each side blamed the other then too. That row faded within weeks.

The risks

Retired Vice Admiral Ahmad Saeed of the Pakistan Navy said the pattern — two ships pressing close without a clear intent to collide — was familiar from Cold War-era “bumping” incidents between Soviet and US ships in the Black Sea.

But he argued that India and Pakistan are worse placed to manage similar encounters.

“There’s no bilateral Incidents at Sea agreement, the kind the US and USSR signed in 1972, and no navy-to-navy hotline,” Saeed told Al Jazeera. “Article 10 sets a distance, but it gives no manoeuvring rules and no procedure for investigating an incident afterwards. That gap is exactly why each side can just accuse the other.”

Article 10 of the 1991 confidence-building agreement between the two nations requires warships to stay at least three nautical miles (5.6km, 3.5 miles) apart in international waters.

Saeed said the greater risk was what might follow the collision: sharper tactics such as fire-control radar lock-ons or helicopter overflights and eventually “a contact with actual casualties.”

Muhammad Shareh Qazi, a Lahore-based security and maritime analyst, however, pointed to the same 1991 agreement, which he said requires 30 days’ written notice before a military exercise, as well as international collision regulations that apply to both countries as signatories to the UN maritime convention.

“If this collision really had the potential to escalate militarily, you’d have noticed by now,” Qazi said. “There’s a tool for that, called chaff, fired just above the bow or stern purely to signal you could escalate if needed. Nothing like that happened here.”

Both navies also have their own internal accountability channels, he added, with a captain found to have acted without authorisation facing a court martial process separate from any diplomatic protest.

On fishermen routinely detained for straying across the Sir Creek boundary, which is not demarcated between India and Pakistan further south, Qazi said the link to incidents further out at sea was indirect but real.

“Clear demarcation could help close those ambiguities over time, by reducing the ambiguity around where and how these interactions are expected to occur,” he added.

Saeed was more cautious about how contained an incident like this would remain.

“This hasn’t stayed quiet. Both governments went public with protests within a day of each other,” he said, adding that what made the moment riskier than 2011 was that “both publics are primed after last year’s conflict, which was not the case in 2011.”

Similar close-quarters confrontations have become more frequent between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea.

In the most recent flare-up, on July 24 , Philippine officials said a Chinese vessel came within about seven metres (23 feet) of a Philippine fisheries boat near Scarborough Shoal, the Philippine-claimed reef that China has controlled since 2012, and that Chinese coast guard ships fired water cannon at Philippine vessels.

Whether this week’s collision follows that pattern or fades like the 2011 incident depends less on the ships than on what comes next diplomatically, Qazi said.

“If, in the next 24 to 48 hours, an official statement suggests there was a genuine cause to manufacture an incident for the purpose of escalation, then yes, there may be a real possibility of this happening again,” he added.

BEIJING: Oil prices jumped more than two percent on Monday, after new Houthi strikes on Saudi Arabia and Iranian attacks on ships in the Gulf compounded supply concerns following the closure of a key Saudi oil pipeline.

Brent crude futures rose $2.90, or 2.77 percent, to $107.51 per barrel as of 2313 GMT. WTI futures rose $2.27, or 2.27 percent, to $102.32 per barrel. Prices had initially risen more than ‌3 percent at market ‌open.

Saudi Arabian state media on Sunday released ​video ‌footage of ⁠damage to ​homes ⁠and a mosque from what it said was a Houthi attack on the country’s southern Jazan province. The Houthis said they had also struck a Saudi military base in a neighboring province.

A vessel in the Strait of Hormuz was struck by a projectile, causing a fire and forcing the crew to be evacuated, the British maritime security agency UKMTO said on Sunday.

Iran said one person was killed ⁠and four crew wounded aboard an Iranian commercial vessel struck ‌off its coast.

Oil prices had been ‌expected to rise on Monday amid growing concerns about ​risks to supply from Saudi Arabia, ‌the world’s largest oil exporter, whose East-West oil pipeline was shut on Friday ‌by a drone strike that originated in Iraq.

The loss of the pipeline, which helped Saudi Arabia re-route its exports avoiding the Strait of Hormuz, threatens up to 4 percent of global oil supply.

Meanwhile, Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthis had reached the strategic island of Perim on ‌Friday, moving to tighten their control over the Bab Al-Mandab Strait, another key oil transit lane that has been shipping ⁠4-5 percent of ⁠global supply in recent months.

Oil surged 8 percent higher on the week due to the disruptions, rising above $100 for the first time since July.

“Looking ahead, unless this week’s talks in Oman produce something operational — or the East-West pipeline is brought back online quickly — the risk is that crude oil continues to extend its gains toward the $119.48 high of early March,” IG market analyst Tony Sycamore said in a note on Sunday.

Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi said on X later on Sunday, however, that a scheduled Monday meeting in Oman between Gulf countries and Iran to discuss the Strait of Hormuz had been postponed.

No peace talks ​have been held in the ​war, launched six months ago by the United States and Israel, since an interim agreement in June collapsed after a few weeks.

World War Two continues to shape relations between Russia, China, Taiwan and Japan, with competing interpretations of the conflict increasingly intersecting with present day geopolitical tensions.

The issue resurfaced last week when Russian diplomats in Taiwan screened a film about Japanese militarism and World War Two. The screening raised concerns in Taiwan that Moscow was helping Beijing promote a narrative of a rising Japanese military threat while also creating divisions between Taipei, Tokyo and their Western partners.

The disagreement reflects fundamentally different interpretations of who fought Japan, who ultimately defeated Japanese forces in East Asia and which governments have the right to claim that legacy.

What’s Happening

Russia’s presentation of Japan’s wartime history comes against the backdrop of its own unresolved dispute with Tokyo over territory captured at the end of World War Two.

Soviet forces entered the war in East Asia only during its final weeks, when the Red Army moved into Japanese occupied northeastern China. Soviet forces withdrew from most of the region in 1946 and transferred many captured Japanese weapons to Mao Zedong’s communist forces.

The Soviet Union quickly recognized Mao’s government after the People’s Republic of China was established in October 1949 following the communist victory over Chiang Kai shek’s Republic of China.

Soviet forces also seized four islands off Japan’s Hokkaido at the end of the war. Russia calls them part of the Kurils, while Japan refers to them as the Northern Territories. Moscow continues to control the islands.

Russia and Japan have never signed a formal World War Two peace treaty, with the territorial dispute remaining a major obstacle.

China’s View of World War Two

Beijing presents the history of the war as a central part of China’s national narrative.

The Chinese government says China sacrificed 35 million people during its struggle against Japan, which Beijing dates back to Japan’s 1931 invasion of Manchuria.

China officially refers to the conflict as the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and describes World War Two as the World Anti Fascist War.

Beijing argues that China and the Soviet Union were the mainstays of resistance against Japan and Germany, while Chinese communist guerrilla forces formed the backbone of the resistance inside China.

This interpretation gives the wartime struggle an important role in China’s broader political narrative and its portrayal of Japan’s contemporary military posture.

Taiwan’s View

Taiwan strongly disputes Beijing’s interpretation.

Taiwan’s government argues that the People’s Republic of China cannot claim credit for a war fought before the PRC was established in 1949.

During World War Two, the Republic of China under Chiang Kai shek was China’s government, while Taiwan itself was under Japanese colonial rule. Republican forces carried out much of the fighting against Japan.

The Chinese civil war was temporarily suspended during the conflict as Chiang’s forces and Mao’s communists formed an uneasy alliance against Japan.

Taiwan also points to the formal Japanese surrender at the end of the war. The Republic of China, represented by Chiang’s government, signed the surrender alongside the other Allied powers, including the Soviet Union.

From Taipei’s perspective, Mao’s communist forces used the war to strengthen themselves and subsequently benefited from the civil war that resumed after Japan’s defeat.

Why It Matters

The competing historical narratives are not simply disagreements about the past. They influence how the governments involved portray present day security threats and diplomatic relationships.

For China, Japan’s wartime history remains an important element of its criticism of Japanese military development. For Taiwan, however, Beijing’s use of that history is also connected to its claim over Taiwan and its attempt to define the historical legitimacy of the Chinese state.

Russia’s involvement adds another layer because Moscow has its own unresolved territorial dispute with Japan stemming directly from the final stages of World War Two.

The screening of a film about Japanese militarism in Taiwan therefore carries significance beyond historical commemoration. Taipei sees the issue through the lens of its current relations with Japan and the West, while Russia and China share interests in challenging what they portray as a resurgence of Japanese military power.

Key Stakeholders

Russia retains control of the disputed islands off Hokkaido and has never concluded a formal World War Two peace treaty with Japan.

China presents itself as a central force in the wartime resistance against Japan and emphasizes the enormous Chinese sacrifice during the conflict.

Taiwan argues that the Republic of China, rather than the People’s Republic of China, represented China during World War Two and carried out much of the fighting against Japan.

Japan remains directly affected by the competing historical narratives, particularly because of its territorial dispute with Russia and its increasingly important relationship with Taiwan.

What’s Next

The dispute over World War Two history is likely to remain intertwined with current tensions in East Asia.

For Taiwan, the concern is that Russia and China could use wartime history to portray Japan as an emerging military threat and undermine Taipei’s growing ties with Tokyo and other Western partners.

For Japan, historical disputes remain connected to its relationships with both Russia and China.

For Russia and China, emphasizing their wartime resistance against Japan provides a historical framework through which they can criticize what they see as a revival of Japanese military power.

Analysis

The significance of the dispute lies in how history is being used as a tool of contemporary geopolitics. The same war produces fundamentally different political narratives depending on which government is telling the story.

Beijing emphasizes China’s enormous wartime sacrifice and the role of communist forces. Taipei emphasizes the Republic of China’s role as the government that fought Japan and signed the Japanese surrender. Moscow emphasizes the Soviet Union’s final campaign against Japan and retains territory captured during that period.

These competing narratives matter because they provide historical legitimacy for present day political positions. As Japan strengthens its security relationships with Taiwan and Western partners, wartime memory can be used to frame those developments not simply as responses to current security concerns, but as part of a longer historical confrontation.

The dispute therefore shows how the legacy of World War Two remains an active element of East Asian power politics rather than simply a question of historical interpretation.

With information from Reuters.