Seventy tankers were being blocked from Iranian ports after exchanges of fire in the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran's foreign minister said on Friday as he accused the United States of pursuing a "reckless military adventure". Abbas Araghchi posted on X that Washington had chosen military action over diplomacy and rejected US intelligence estimates of Iran's missile readiness. US Central Command said American forces had struck or interdicted vessels and facilities it said were involved in attacks on US warships, while Iran's military and foreign ministry condemned the moves as a ceasefire violation. A diplomatic deadline for an Iranian reply to a US proposal was due on May 8.
Iran's top diplomat, Abbas Araghchi, posted on X on Friday that "every time a diplomatic solution is on the table, the U.S. Opts for a reckless military adventure" and asked whether Washington's actions were "a crude pressure tactic" or the result of a "spoiler" dragging the US president into "another quagmire", adding, "Iranians never bow to pressure." Araghchi also rejected a Washington Post report and a US intelligence assessment that Iran's missile inventory stood at 75% of its February 28 level, saying instead it was at "120%" and boasting Iran's readiness "to defence our people: 1,000%." That numerical rebuttal appeared only in one account and hasn't been independently verified.
Exchanges at sea and competing accounts
US Central Command described a series of interdictions and strikes around the Strait of Hormuz, saying American forces had disabled vessels and military facilities involved in attacks on US warships. Centcom said precision munitions were fired into the smokestacks of two Iranian-flagged unladen tankers to prevent them entering Iran, and that US forces were blocking more than 70 tankers from entering or leaving Iranian ports.
Iran's military and the foreign ministry strongly condemned the US action as a violation of the Pakistan-mediated ceasefire that began on April 8. Tehran said US forces had struck civilian areas in Hormozgan province and targeted vessels near the strait, and warned that Iran remained prepared to respond "against any aggression or evil intent." Those charges came as both sides blamed the other for a string of incidents that have tested the month-old ceasefire.
The US president, posting on social media, said the ceasefire remained in place and that US forces had destroyed small boats, missiles and drones, claiming "great damage" to Iranian attackers. US officials, while confirming the interdictions, sought to play down the strikes as not amounting to a broader resumption of war.
Diplomatic contacts have continued, with negotiators attempting to convert ceasefire talks into a lasting settlement.
Accounts differ over the precise targets and locations of the US actions. One report, citing a senior US official speaking to a US television outlet, said strikes had hit Qeshm Port and Bandar Abbas. That claim appears in a single account and isn't corroborated elsewhere. The varying narratives underline how murky the situation is at sea and how quickly tactical actions can be reframed by each side for political effect.
Background and wider stakes
The clashes follow a large-scale campaign launched by the US and Israel on February 28 that Tehran says hit thousands of sites. The Pakistan-mediated ceasefire which began on April 8 produced an initial round of talks that concluded on April 11 without a final agreement, and a second round remained pending. US officials had been expecting an Iranian reply to Washington's ceasefire proposal on Friday, a deadline cited by US officials.
The Strait of Hormuz is central to the dispute because roughly 20% of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas transits the narrow waterway. Recent tightening of Iran's control, together with a US maritime blockade, has disrupted shipping and pushed up energy prices. That economic pressure is one reason both sides are anxious to secure any diplomatic opening that could reduce the risk of further escalation.
US officials told reporters in Rome that Washington expected an Iranian reply to its proposal and expressed hope for a serious negotiating opening, a remark reported across multiple outlets. Diplomats on both sides have given conflicting signals about the depth of their willingness to compromise, and the competing military and political narratives will shape how negotiators approach the next round of talks.
For now, the immediate picture is one of contested facts. The United States describes precise interdictions and targeted strikes to enforce a blockade and protect its ships. Iran describes those moves as a breach of the ceasefire and an attack on civilian infrastructure and shipping. Independent confirmation of many of the specific claims is thin, and some allegations appear only in single reports.
Even as officials attempt to keep a negotiated settlement alive, the maritime choke point remains a highly volatile theatre. Small incidents can cascade into larger confrontations, and both sides know that public rhetoric can matter as much as the actions taken at sea.
Related Articles
- UAE alerts as Iran claims strike on US warship
- Shell expects higher Q1 trading earnings after oil jump
- 13th-century Buddha returns to Nepal after decades abroad
A formal reply from Tehran to the US ceasefire proposal was expected on May 8, the next concrete milestone cited by negotiators and officials.
This article was created with AI assistance.
