U.S. strikes on five Iranian tankers and Iran’s missile attack on Jordan renew escalation fears as Brent crude climbs above $100.
AMMAN, JORDAN — U.S. forces struck five Iranian oil tankers after Iran fired ballistic missiles toward an American warship, while Jordan said its defenses intercepted 18 of 20 Iranian missiles in a subsequent attack. The renewed escalation helped push Brent crude above $100 a barrel.
The latest round of U.S.-Iran military exchanges has spread across several of the Middle East's most strategically sensitive waterways and military positions, combining attacks on oil tankers, attempted strikes against U.S. naval forces and a ballistic-missile barrage into Jordan.
U.S. Central Command said American forces struck five Iranian crude carriers on September 8 after the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps twice targeted a U.S. Navy warship with ballistic missiles over the preceding two days. CENTCOM said the American vessel evaded the attacks and no U.S. personnel were injured. The tankers' crews were ordered to abandon the ships before they were hit. The vessels were identified in subsequent reporting as the Kaviz, Charminar, Horizon 1, Riesco and Derya.
The operation followed another U.S. attack three days earlier. On September 5, CENTCOM announced that its forces had struck three Iranian crude carriers after ballistic missiles were launched toward a U.S. aircraft carrier and a guided-missile destroyer. The command said the Downy and Stark 1 were disabled and the Kylo, also known as Noxen, was destroyed after its crew was told to leave.
Taken together, the two publicly announced U.S. operations targeted eight Iranian tankers in four days. That concentration of strikes represents a significant extension of the conflict into the physical infrastructure used to move Iranian crude, while Iran has continued trying to impose military costs on American forces and regional partners.
Eight Iranian tankers were targeted by U.S. forces in four days
CENTCOM has framed the tanker operations as retaliation for attacks on U.S. warships and as an economic measure against the IRGC. In its September 5 statement, the command described the vessels as part of a network generating revenue for the Revolutionary Guards and affiliated groups. That characterization is a U.S. government assertion; the public statement does not by itself establish the ownership, cargo history or financing arrangements of every vessel independently.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly linked future tanker losses to further Iranian attempts to strike American naval vessels. Speaking during a visit to Colombia, Rubio said the U.S. response would continue when Iran tried to hit Navy ships.
The pattern creates an unusually direct retaliatory mechanism: attempted attacks against American naval assets are being answered not only with strikes on military launch infrastructure but with attacks on vessels Washington says contribute to Iran's oil-financing network.
That policy also increases the importance of unanswered questions about the tankers themselves. Publicly available U.S. statements reviewed for this article do not provide comprehensive information about the cargo aboard every vessel, the precise weapons used against them, environmental damage, or the legal and intelligence assessments underlying each target selection.
Jordan says its defenses destroyed 18 of 20 ballistic missiles
The escalation was not confined to the Gulf.
Jordan's armed forces said on September 9 that 20 ballistic missiles originating in Iranian territory were fired toward the kingdom. Jordanian air-defense systems intercepted and destroyed 18, while the remaining two fell in areas without population concentrations. No casualties were recorded, according to the Jordan Armed Forces statement published by the state news agency Petra.
That gives an interception rate of 90%, based strictly on the Jordanian military's figures: 18 intercepted missiles divided by 20 engaged. This is a newsroom calculation from the official numbers, not a separate Jordanian government statistic.
Jordan said specialized teams were securing locations where fragments and debris had fallen and warned residents not to approach or handle unidentified objects. The military said surveillance, early-warning and air-defense systems remained on heightened readiness.
Iran's Revolutionary Guards said the attack was directed at a base used by U.S. forces near Al Azraq. Iranian claims of damage to American facilities could not be established from the Jordanian statement; Jordan's official account confirmed the missile attack and interceptions but reported no casualties.
The distinction is significant: the missile barrage itself and Jordan's defensive response are officially confirmed by Amman, while competing claims about damage to particular U.S. military facilities require separate verification.
Kharg Island and Hormuz put the tanker strikes close to the heart of the oil system
The geography of the confrontation magnifies its economic significance.
One of the September 5 tanker strikes occurred off Kharg Island. NASA describes Kharg as Iran's primary oil export terminal and satellite imagery shows its tanker docks, storage facilities and associated infrastructure.
The nearby Strait of Hormuz is even more consequential for the international market. U.S. Energy Information Administration data show that 20.9 million barrels a day of oil moved through Hormuz in the first half of 2025, equivalent to roughly 20% of global petroleum-liquids consumption and about one-quarter of seaborne oil trade.
The same EIA analysis estimated that Saudi and Emirati pipelines capable of bypassing Hormuz could provide about 4.7 million barrels a day of alternative capacity. That is only about 22% of the 20.9 million barrels a day that crossed Hormuz in the first half of 2025, according to a newsroom calculation based on the EIA figures. The comparison illustrates why a prolonged disruption cannot simply be replaced by existing bypass routes.
The exposure extends beyond crude oil. EIA estimated that more than 20% of global liquefied natural gas trade also passed through Hormuz in the first half of 2025, much of it originating in Qatar.
The conflict has already radically reduced traffic compared with prewar conditions. In its August 2026 Short-Term Energy Outlook, EIA estimated that crude oil and petroleum liquids transported through Hormuz averaged 4.9 million barrels a day in the second quarter of 2026, down from 21.6 million barrels a day in the fourth quarter of 2025, before the current conflict began.
That is a decline of about 77%, according to a newsroom calculation using EIA's two period averages.
Houthi attacks on Saudi energy facilities squeeze an alternative oil route
Pressure on Hormuz is being compounded by renewed attacks elsewhere.
Saudi Arabia said Houthi attacks on September 8 hit civilian and economic targets in Abha, Khamis Mushait, Jazan and Najran, injuring 73 civilians, including women and children. The Saudi Energy Ministry said energy installations in the south were struck, fires broke out and some operations were temporarily halted.
Saudi authorities said they were assessing damage and working to maintain operations. Riyadh also said it reserved the right to take measures to defend its territory and national assets.
The location of those attacks matters because Saudi Arabia has used its East-West pipeline to redirect crude toward the Red Sea as Hormuz traffic has fallen. EIA said flows through the Bab el-Mandeb route increased as Saudi crude was rerouted through the pipeline to Yanbu.
The result is a two-chokepoint problem: disruption around Hormuz constrains the Persian Gulf outlet, while attacks connected to Yemen and the Red Sea threaten routes that have helped compensate for those constraints.
Brent breaks $100 as traders price another round of supply risk
Energy markets reacted rapidly.
Brent crude futures rose above $100 a barrel on September 9. At 0930 GMT, Brent was trading around $100.39, up 2.5%, while U.S. benchmark crude was about $94.85, up 1.9%.
Reuters reported Brent at $100.07 earlier in the session and said the benchmark had risen about a quarter since early August as expectations of a lasting resolution to the conflict faded.
The price move cannot be attributed to a single tanker strike. Markets are simultaneously weighing curtailed Hormuz traffic, the attacks on Saudi energy infrastructure, Red Sea insecurity, production disruptions and the possibility that repeated retaliation will affect additional export infrastructure.
The economic transmission is broader than the price paid for crude. Sustained increases in petroleum costs can raise refinery inputs, transport expenses and ultimately consumer fuel prices, while complicating inflation and interest-rate calculations. Those effects depend on how long the disruption lasts and how much supply is removed; a temporary price spike does not by itself establish a lasting inflationary impact.
The latest exchange leaves crucial military and maritime questions unresolved
Several important elements remain unverified or incomplete.
CENTCOM has not publicly identified, in the material reviewed for this article, the U.S. warship targeted in the September 7-8 attacks. Nor has it released a full public account of the missiles' trajectories, interception or evasion procedures, or the intelligence used to connect each tanker with IRGC financing.
Iran has separately claimed attacks on American vessels and other tankers. Those claims should not be treated as established without corroborating evidence. Similarly, Iranian claims concerning damage at the Jordanian base go beyond what Jordan's armed forces have confirmed publicly.
There is also an environmental question. Repeated attacks on crude carriers can create pollution risks even when crews are evacuated, but no verified comprehensive assessment of spills from the five September 8 vessels was available in the authoritative material reviewed here.
What is established is a rapid sequence of escalation: three Iranian tankers were struck on September 5 after attacks on two U.S. warships; five more were struck on September 8 following further attempted missile attacks; Jordan then reported a 20-missile barrage from Iranian territory; and Saudi Arabia was simultaneously dealing with Houthi attacks that injured 73 people and affected energy installations.
The combination matters beyond the immediate battlefield. The confrontation now intersects with the maritime corridors responsible in normal conditions for a substantial share of global oil and LNG trade. With Hormuz flows already sharply below prewar levels, further attacks on tankers, terminals or alternative routes carry consequences that can move quickly from regional military calculations into international energy markets.
The reporting approach used here follows the supplied editorial requirement to treat the original article as a lead, trace important claims toward primary sources, distinguish claims from confirmed information and build a new article rather than mechanically rewriting the source.
COMMENTS