A proposed plan to protect commercial shipping through the Persian Gulf could introduce new risks to global energy routes. The Strait of Hormuz tanker protection plan raises risk of Iranian anti ship missile attacks as the United States considers providing security and insurance support for oil tankers traveling through one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints.
The idea was raised by Donald Trump, who suggested that the United States might help insure and protect vessels moving through the Strait of Hormuz. The move is intended to stabilize shipping flows after escalating tensions in the region disrupted tanker traffic and rattled global energy markets.
However, analysts warn that escorting commercial vessels through the narrow waterway could expose them to attacks from Iran’s coastal missile systems. The possibility of anti ship missile strikes introduces a new maritime dimension to a conflict that has so far been dominated by air power.
The Strait of Hormuz is among the most strategically important shipping routes in the world. At its narrowest point, the waterway is less than 25 miles wide, forming a tight passage between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.
Despite its small geographic footprint, the strait plays a central role in the global oil market. Roughly a quarter of the world’s seaborne oil trade passes through the channel every day.
Major energy exporters including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates all rely on this corridor to ship crude oil to international markets.
Any disruption to tanker movements through Hormuz can have immediate effects on global energy prices and supply chains.
Energy analysts say that if shipping flows are not restored quickly, crude oil prices could surge sharply. Research firm Wood Mackenzie has warned that prolonged disruption could push prices above $100 per barrel.
Military analysts say Iran possesses a significant number of anti ship missiles designed to threaten vessels operating near its coastline.
According to assessments by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Iran is believed to operate at least six different types of anti ship missile systems. While the exact size of the arsenal remains unknown, many of these weapons are derived from older Chinese missile designs.
Most of the missiles are estimated to have ranges of roughly 75 miles. That range would not allow them to strike warships operating far out at sea, but it is more than sufficient to cover the entire width of the Strait of Hormuz.
Because the waterway is so narrow, vessels traveling through it could potentially remain within missile range for extended periods.
“Iran has a fairly robust anti ship missile arsenal,” said Sid Kaushal, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute in the United Kingdom.
“If shipping were to resume, these missiles would become more challenging,” he said, referring to the difficulty of protecting civilian vessels from multiple potential launch sites along the Iranian coastline.
Signs of maritime escalation have already begun to appear.
Iranian state media, including IRIB News, reported that an oil tanker was struck by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps around the same time another tanker experienced an explosion off the coast of Iraq.
The details surrounding the incidents remain unclear, and independent verification has been limited. Still, the reports have heightened concerns about the safety of shipping in the region.
The possibility of tanker attacks has made insurance coverage increasingly expensive or difficult to obtain. That challenge is one reason the United States is considering a plan to support or guarantee tanker operations through the strait.
Providing military escorts for oil tankers could help reassure shipping companies and stabilize energy markets. But it could also raise the stakes militarily.
If commercial vessels travel under US naval protection, any attack on those ships could potentially draw American forces deeper into the conflict.
That scenario could transform isolated maritime incidents into broader confrontations.
The United States Navy maintains a powerful presence in the region and has extensive experience protecting shipping lanes during periods of tension.
American destroyers and other warships are equipped with advanced defensive systems designed to intercept incoming missiles, track enemy vessels and deploy countermeasures.
However, experts caution that even advanced defenses have limits.
Many of Iran’s anti ship missiles are believed to be relatively slow and equipped with older radar guidance systems. Compared with modern Western missile technology, they may be easier to detect and intercept.
But the main concern for naval planners is the possibility of saturation attacks.
If multiple missiles were launched simultaneously from different coastal locations, the defensive systems on a single escorting warship could be overwhelmed.
Such attacks could also distract naval crews who must simultaneously monitor the safety of the commercial vessels they are protecting.
Even if most missiles were intercepted, a single successful strike on an oil tanker could trigger major economic and environmental consequences.
The threat of sea mines
In addition to missiles, Iran is also believed to possess a substantial inventory of naval mines.
Sea mines are a relatively inexpensive but highly disruptive weapon capable of damaging ships or forcing maritime traffic to halt while waterways are cleared.
So far, there have been no confirmed reports of mines damaging vessels during the current conflict.
Analysts say that deploying them would be risky for Iran because any ship attempting to lay mines could be quickly targeted by US or allied forces.
Still, the mere threat of mines could slow commercial shipping and force navies to conduct extensive mine sweeping operations.
Iran’s conventional navy appears to have suffered heavy losses during the conflict.
According to the United States Department of Defense, more than a dozen Iranian naval vessels were destroyed while anchored in port during earlier strikes.
Pete Hegseth, the US defense secretary, recently shared footage showing a US submarine torpedoing an Iranian frigate.
These losses have significantly reduced Iran’s ability to challenge Western naval forces in open waters.
However, Iran’s strategy has long relied on asymmetric tactics rather than conventional naval battles. That approach includes missiles, fast attack boats, drones and underwater mines.
Iran also operates several submarines, though they have not yet played a visible role in the conflict.
Submarines could potentially target shipping or naval escorts, but analysts believe the risk remains limited.
The United States maintains extensive anti submarine capabilities in the region.
American destroyers equipped with sonar systems routinely patrol the area, while maritime patrol aircraft such as the Boeing P-8 Poseidon monitor the waters for underwater threats.
These systems make it difficult for submarines to operate undetected in heavily monitored waters.
The debate over tanker protection reflects the fragile balance between maintaining global energy supply and avoiding a wider military confrontation.
Keeping the Strait of Hormuz open is essential for international oil markets. Yet the measures required to guarantee safe passage may also expose shipping to new forms of attack.
The Strait of Hormuz tanker protection plan raises risk of Iranian anti ship missile attacks precisely because it places vessels back into a contested maritime corridor.
For governments and energy companies alike, the challenge is finding a way to restore normal shipping without triggering a broader naval conflict.
As tensions continue across the Middle East, the security of this narrow waterway remains one of the most critical factors shaping the global economy.
