The military and diplomatic confrontation between Tehran and Washington over control of the Strait of Hormuz is intensifying, with both sides issuing competing accounts of who effectively controls one of the world’s most important energy shipping routes.
Thousands of commercial vessels and oil tankers carrying more than a billion barrels of oil pass through the strait annually. Yet developments on the ground have increasingly become part of a direct contest between US Central Command, or CENTCOM, on one side, and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and armed forces on the other.
CENTCOM Rejects Iran’s Claim of Control
In the latest exchange, CENTCOM rejected claims by an IRGC commander that Iranian naval forces exercise complete control over the Strait of Hormuz.
The US command argued that Iran does not control the waterway and pointed to the continued passage of commercial vessels and oil shipments as evidence. CENTCOM has previously publicly rejected Iranian declarations that Tehran controls entry to and exit from the strait.
Washington has meanwhile tightened enforcement of its naval blockade on Iranian ports. CENTCOM resumed the blockade in July, declaring that vessels travelling to or from Iranian ports and coastal areas would be subject to enforcement measures.
According to the latest US account cited in the report, CENTCOM says it has redirected 122 commercial vessels since the blockade was resumed as part of what it calls the “Steel Wall”, an effort intended to restrict access to Iranian ports while maintaining other international shipping movements.
Iran Responds at Sea
Iran, however, has offered a sharply different picture of control in and around the strait.
Iranian state media reported on Sunday, citing the IRGC Navy, that Iranian forces had seized a US Remus 600 autonomous underwater vehicle while it was allegedly carrying out an intelligence mission in the Strait of Hormuz.
The IRGC said the operation relied on intelligence capabilities and electronic warfare techniques and that Iranian specialists were examining the vehicle to recover its stored data. The seizure was announced by Iranian authorities, while the US military disputed Iran’s account and said it retained control of its operational drone assets.
The confrontation has also included direct attacks at sea.
NBC News, citing three US officials, reported that an Iranian cruise missile attack on 14 September struck a vessel in the Strait of Hormuz carrying US Marines. Eight Marines suffered minor injuries, including effects from smoke generated by the explosion, before later returning to duty.
Other US reporting described the vessel as non-military, illustrating the importance of distinguishing the attack itself from competing descriptions of the ship involved.
The attack came amid Iran’s stated policy of challenging vessels that cross the strait without coordination with Iranian authorities or that operate outside routes designated by Tehran.
US Warships Repositioned After Iranian Missile Attacks
The maritime contest has also raised questions over the positioning of major US naval assets.
Defence Security Asia, citing Sentinel-2 satellite imagery, reported that USS George Washington, USS George H.W. Bush, USS Boxer and accompanying destroyers were no longer visible in their previously observed positions near the Gulf of Oman blockade line and had subsequently been associated with locations further into the Arabian Sea.
The reported repositioning followed an Iranian missile attack on 5 September.
CENTCOM confirmed that day that Iran had launched ballistic missiles towards a US aircraft carrier and a guided-missile destroyer. The US command said the two vessels evaded the attacks and that no American personnel were injured.
Satellite imagery alone does not establish the precise reason for the repositioning, but the timing has fuelled debate over whether Washington moved the ships further away to reduce their exposure to Iranian missile systems. Defence Security Asia noted that the vessels remained capable of supporting US operations from positions further into the Arabian Sea.
Tehran Expands Its Own Navigation Rules
Iran has also moved to impose its own administrative and operational rules over shipping through the strait.
The Iranian armed forces said they intercepted 19 vessels within two days after the ships allegedly attempted to travel outside maritime routes approved by Tehran.
The official website of Iran’s Strait of Hormuz administration also published a new blacklist containing 24 vessels it accused of violating its regulations, bringing the announced total to 81 vessels facing potential fines or detention.
An analysis by Al Jazeera’s open-source unit identified a duplicated International Maritime Organization identification number involving two tankers, reducing the actual number of individual vessels on the list to 80.
The analysis found that 51 per cent of those vessels were owned or operated by companies headquartered in the Gulf.
Iran’s chief of the General Staff and the army’s deputy coordinator told Mehr News that the Strait of Hormuz, the area west of the strait and the Gulf were under the full control of the IRGC Navy.
They said Iran’s regular navy controlled the northern Gulf of Oman, the eastern side of the strait and the northern Indian Ocean, while insisting that Iranian forces were fully prepared to respond to threats and would not permit unauthorised passage.
The competing Iranian and American claims reveal the central dispute: Washington points to continued international shipping as evidence that Tehran does not control Hormuz, while Iran points to interceptions, navigation rules, missile attacks and its military presence as evidence of operational authority over the waterway.
Trump and the Symbolic Battle Over Hormuz
The confrontation has also entered the political and symbolic arena.
According to the report, US President Donald Trump posted a map on Truth Social on Monday referring to the Strait of Hormuz as the “Trump Strait”, while repeating his claim that the waterway is under complete US control and could be regarded as American territory.
The rhetoric comes amid a broader confrontation that began on 28 February following the war launched by the United States and Israel against Iran and the subsequent exchange of strikes.
The Strait of Hormuz and the question of who determines the rules governing navigation through it have since become central obstacles in indirect negotiations between Tehran and Washington.
Iran Offers to Reopen Hormuz in Exchange for Ending Hostilities
The strategically vital waterway has emerged as one of the central bargaining points in the seven-month confrontation.
Iran proposed last week that hostilities be halted and the Strait of Hormuz reopened as part of a wider agreement.
Axios reported that indirect talks between Washington and Tehran could resume, following earlier indirect contacts in New York involving US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.
Axios reported that Iran presented conditions for reopening the strait and resuming negotiations, while Trump rejected the initial Iranian proposal.
Tehran’s conditions included a seven-day halt to hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon, the release of frozen Iranian assets, the lifting of sanctions on Iranian oil and the termination of the US naval blockade on Iranian ports.
In return, Iran offered to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
Trump rejected the proposal on Saturday, although diplomatic efforts through regional mediators have continued. Reuters reported that US and Iranian officials subsequently engaged separately with mediators in renewed efforts to reach an agreement.
The United States has not carried out strikes against Iran since 1 September, despite subsequent attacks on vessels in the Strait of Hormuz.
For now, the battle over Hormuz is being fought on several fronts at once: through naval deployments, vessel interceptions, missile attacks, competing navigation rules and indirect negotiations. Neither Washington nor Tehran accepts the other’s claim to determine how the strategic waterway should operate.
