Skip to content
You can now search across every topic, entity and event.What's new
European Oil Markets
23JUL

UAE names IRGC over two ADNOC ships

3 min read
19:27UTC

Abu Dhabi called an attack on two state-owned tankers an act of piracy by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, five days after leaving an almost identical incident unattributed.

EconomicDeveloping
Key takeaway

The UAE named the IRGC directly for the first time and called the attack piracy.

Two vessels belonging to ADNOC (Abu Dhabi National Oil Company), the Emirati state producer, came under attack while crossing the strait of Hormuz on the night of Thursday 13 August. Nobody was hurt. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) foreign ministry, in a statement carried by the state news agency WAM, called it "an act of piracy by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps" and a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 2817 on freedom of navigation 1. Bahrain condemned the attack separately. Tehran has claimed nothing.

Five days earlier Abu Dhabi said an Iranian missile had targeted a single ADNOC ship and stopped there, leaving the attacker unnamed and the vessel unidentified . Thursday's statement names the force, cites a Security Council instrument and reaches for a word with specific legal weight. Piracy under the law of the sea means violence committed for private ends, and a state's armed force does not meet that test, which is why the choice reads as political rather than legal.

What the word does buy Abu Dhabi is a category every shipowner and underwriter already prices. A firm chartering a tanker this week reads a Gulf government saying the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) is firing on that government's own ships inside the waterway, and the most exposed hull is the one carrying no Iranian tie to trade on. That reading sits underneath the week's transit collapse rather than beside it.

Abu Dhabi's account remains the only one on the record. No independent confirmation of the attack exists, no vessel names have been released, and the UAE has not said what damage the two ships took.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

ADNOC is the United Arab Emirates' state oil company. Two of its ships were attacked in the Strait of Hormuz on 13 August, the second such attack in under a week. This time the UAE government directly blamed Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), an elite military and security force separate from Iran's regular army, and called the attack an act of piracy, backing that up by citing a UN Security Council resolution on freedom of navigation. In the earlier attack, five days before, the UAE had blamed only "an Iranian missile" without naming who fired it. That shift, from a vague description to a direct, formal accusation, is itself a signal: the UAE is running out of quieter options.

Deep Analysis
Root Causes

The UAE's diplomatic adviser Anwar Gargash warned days earlier that the region is trapped "between neither war nor peace" , a complaint from a government that has already spent its influence: it helped talk Trump out of an August strike, yet cannot direct what leaves an Iranian launcher or deter attacks on its own fleet.

Naming the IRGC and citing Resolution 2817 is one of the few tools left once quiet diplomacy has been exhausted and the attacks keep coming regardless.

What could happen next?
  • Consequence

    A formal piracy characterisation backed by a named UN resolution gives the UAE a stronger basis to seek international insurance, legal or Security Council action than the vaguer 8 August statement did.

  • Risk

    Two attacks on ADNOC shipping within a week, with no Iranian acceptance of responsibility, raises the chance of a third incident before any diplomatic or legal response can take effect.

First Reported In

Update #170 · The ships Iran does not control are leaving Hormuz

The National· 14 Aug 2026
Read original
Different Perspectives
Gulf oil producer
Gulf oil producer
Secured OPEC's confirmed 188,000 b/d September increment with the next meeting set for 6 September, but the Secretariat's own 2 August release says nothing about the fourth quarter. Output guidance beyond September remains undisclosed even as delegate sourcing keeps filling that gap.
Money manager positioned in WTI
Money manager positioned in WTI
Added 21,402 lots to a 108,307 net long in NYMEX WTI in the week to 28 July, against just 1,485 added to Brent's 15,740, a roughly fourteen-to-one split. Conviction sits in the American benchmark even as the European diesel story sets the record.
Indian refiner buying Urals
Indian refiner buying Urals
Bought Russian crude at a discount that narrowed to $1-2 a barrel in the week to 29 July from over $10, as Hormuz risk pushed it toward Urals. If that risk eases with the strike now called off, the discount it is currently enjoying could re-widen just as fast.
Russian diesel exporter
Russian diesel exporter
Novak tied any lifting of the diesel export ban, due to lapse 31 July, to an unspecified market recovery with no date, and pushed the gasoline ban to end-2026. An open-ended constraint suits an exporter benefiting from the record European crack it feeds.
War-risk underwriter
War-risk underwriter
Withdrew war-risk cover for Saudi-linked hulls on 24 July and has not reinstated it, holding Bab el-Mandeb tanker transits near 7.5 a day. A cancelled strike does not by itself trigger the committee review needed to re-accept the class.
Northwest European refiner
Northwest European refiner
Sources only 17% of diesel imports from Saudi Red Sea ports against the Mediterranean's 24%, so the ARA crack at $85.86 trails the Med print by $5.81. Lower Red Sea exposure is cushioning it against the rerouting cost, not eliminating it.