The Strait of Hormuz, crucial for maritime oil traffic, is consolidated as the epicenter of tensions between the US and Iran after the Islamic Republic claimed new attacks and seizures of ships in the area on Wednesday, April 22. The movements are not isolated events, but part of a dynamic of action and reaction between the two countries in the midst of a double naval blockade.

First modification: 04/22/2026 - 20:04 Last modification: 04/22/2026 - 22:39

The strait is consolidated as a critical point where military tensions, political messages and growing risks for international maritime trade come together.

The vital maritime crossing, between the Persian Gulf to the northwest and the Gulf of Oman to the southeast, is once again located at the center of global geopolitical tension as a space where each naval movement acquires a meaning that goes beyond the tactical. The interceptions and attacks carried out by Iran against commercial vessels this Wednesday, April 22, demonstrate a strategy that combines territorial control, political pressure and deterrence capacity in one of the most sensitive energy routes in the world.

Far from being isolated incidents, Tehran's actions seem to respond to a logic of reciprocity compared to previous operations by the United States, which days before had seized Iranian vessels on the high seas. This pattern of mirror measures suggests a contained escalation, in which both parties avoid direct confrontation, but progressively raise the level of confrontation through indirect actions.

In this scenario, the militarization of maritime traffic introduces new risks for third parties, especially foreign flag vessels operating in the area. The Iranian warning to consider the unauthorized passage as a “red line” reinforces the perception that control of the strait is not only a strategic objective, but also a negotiating tool in the fight with Washington.

All of this occurs in a context of contradictory messages and changes in position from the White House, which adds uncertainty to an already volatile crisis. Thus, Hormuz not only remains an energy bottleneck, but also consolidates itself as a thermometer of the relationship between Washington and Tehran, where each maritime incident reflects the real—and fragile—state of their tensions.

Read alsoEveryone is looking at Hormuz: what does a prolonged reopening of the strait depend on after Iran's announcement?

How did the latest attacks in the Strait of Hormuz occur?

The Iranian Navy intercepted two ships this Wednesday and attacked a third in the Strait of Hormuz, accusing them of committing repeated infractions, interfering with navigation systems and endangering maritime security, all in the midst of the blockade of the sea route decreed by Tehran since the beginning of March.

Initially, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran (IRGC) reported the interception of two container ships, identified as the MSC Francesca, with the Panamanian flag, and the Epaminondas, with the Liberian flag.

The ships were trying to leave the strait without authorization when they were identified through "intelligence" work, says a statement from the military body.

The Epaminondas ship, operated by Greece, confirmed to have been fired upon about 15 nautical miles northwest of Oman. The bridge was damaged by gunfire and grenades launched from an Islamic Revolutionary Guard boat, according to maritime security and UK Maritime Trade Operations sources.

Meanwhile, the MSC Francesca was hit by gunfire about eight nautical miles west of Iran, without suffering any damage to its structure. No injuries were reported among the crew of either vessel, according to the British Maritime Operations Authority (UKMTO) and naval security sources cited by the Reuters agency.

The Revolutionary Guard reported the transfer of the two ships to the territorial waters of the Islamic Republic to inspect the cargo and documentation. And he added that he will take "firm and legal measures against violators" who cross Hormuz without his authorization, an attitude he described as a "red line" for Tehran.

However, a spokesperson for the Greek Merchant Marine Ministry, cited under anonymity by the EFE agency, assured that the Epaminondas ship "has neither been seized nor seized."

Hours after firing on the vessels, the Iranian Navy attacked a third ship about eight nautical miles west of Iran, identified as the Euphoria, which had become "stranded" on the Iranian coast, semi-official news agencies in Tehran such as Nour News, Fars and Mehr reported.

Luciano Zaccara, professor at the Center for Gulf Studies at Qatar University, warns that "as long as Iranian ports remain blocked by the United States, there will be situations in which third-flag ships will be involved" in hostile scenarios, "both with the United States and Iran."

Read alsoTrump affirms that there is a possibility of resuming talks with Iran on Friday; Tehran seizes three ships in Hormuz

Direct response to Washington?

Tehran did not have to directly attack the American flotilla for its shots in the Strait of Hormuz to be interpreted as a direct message to the White House.

The temporality of the events seems to reveal a cause and effect relationship. The announcement this Wednesday of the first seizure of ships by Iran in Hormuz—since the closure of the strait began in early March—came a couple of days after the US Navy intercepted and confiscated two Iranian merchant ships on the high seas, within the framework of a second blockade of the sea route imposed by Washington.

In the last of these events, on Monday, April 20, a US missile launcher fired twice at an Iranian-flagged cargo ship, the Touska, before the US Navy captured the ship. Washington later detailed that the ship was sanctioned by the Treasury Department "due to its previous history of illegal activities."

These seizures were described by the Iranian Foreign Ministry as "maritime piracy and state terrorism", while Iran's joint military command promised a prompt response. Two days later, the Islamic Republic could not resist the temptation to replicate the same modus operandi that had disfigured Washington.

In total, 25 ships have been called to a U.S. halt since the naval blockade began, according to U.S. Central Command.

Tehran has interpreted the retention of its ships as a violation of the ceasefire, even before the indefinite extension of the truce unilaterally decreed on Tuesday by Trump, after changing its position a couple of times.

Read alsoMillion dollar tolls and selective opening: the plan approved in the Iranian Parliament for the Strait of Hormuz

What is Trump looking for with the extension of the truce after a change of versions?

The naval seizures by the Iranian Navy come as a response to Donald Trump's announcement on Tuesday to extend the truce indefinitely, a decision that, however, does not contemplate the end of the naval blockade of Iranian ports.

The speaker of the Iranian Parliament, Mohamad Baqer Qalibaf, stated this Wednesday that his country will not reopen the Strait of Hormuz until the United States lifts the naval blockade imposed against its ports and ships.

However, the White House's stance on the war in the Middle East is changing rapidly, with retractions by Trump on issues sometimes as simple as the location of Vice President J.D. Vance.

Every day it is more noticeable that what is discussed privately in diplomatic approaches is not faithfully reflected on the American president's social networks.

Hormuz remains strangled by Tehran, after Trump predicted last week that the Islamic Republic had agreed to reopen the strait "forever." Likewise, Iran has claimed uranium enrichment as a "sacred" issue, despite the Republican even stating that that country's reserves would be voluntarily handed over to Washington.

"These types of statements by Trump are being an obstacle to the negotiation process," highlights Luciano Zaccara, professor at the Center for Gulf Studies at Qatar University, before adding that "these changes of opinion reflect that there is no clear strategy" from Washington to advance the war.

The expert highlights that "Trump is clearly not meeting the established objectives, neither from the military nor the diplomatic point of view," as he is forced into a war "without a deadline, without clear objectives and without it being clear what is going to be discussed in Islamabad."

"No one is buying the argument that war is necessary anymore, especially if it is generating an economic disaster worldwide," says Zaccara.

To display this YouTube content, you must allow advertising and audience measurement cookies.

An extension on your browser appears to be blocking the video player from loading. In order to view this content, you must disable it on this site.

The situation in the Middle East, after weeks of prominence on the global agenda, threatens to carry a political cost for Trump with a view to the November midterm elections in the United States.

In this context, with almost six months to go to the polls, "Trump cannot convince even his own MAGA followers that this is a just war," concludes Zaccara.

Read alsoCrossed signals and military tensions: the Iran-US dialogues falter as the truce runs out

With Reuters, AP and EFE

Related keywords

The content you requested does not exist or is no longer available.