Skip to content
Briefings are running a touch slower this week while we rebuild the foundations.See roadmap
Iran Conflict 2026
25MAY

IRGC: not a litre through Hormuz

3 min read
13:55UTC

The IRGC promised total closure of the world's most important oil chokepoint — but 11.7 million barrels of Iranian crude have already passed through to China.

ConflictDeveloping
Key takeaway

Iran declared total closure while exempting its own exports — selective coercion, not genuine blockade.

The IRGC declared on Wednesday that "not a litre of oil" would pass through the strait of Hormuz. This is the most absolute blockade language of the conflict, completing an escalation from IRGC operational warnings in the first days, through the Foreign Ministry's statement that tankers "must be very careful" — the first diplomatic-level Hormuz threat of the war — to a declaration of total closure.

The IRGC has backed the rhetoric with force. It struck the Marshall Islands-flagged tanker Louise P with a kamikaze drone, publicly naming the vessel and claiming it belonged to the US . It hit the Prima after the vessel ignored warnings about the transit ban . Both attacks were publicly claimed — the IRGC identified each ship, stated its rationale, and took responsibility. Under UNCLOS, attacking civilian merchant vessels is prohibited unless they directly assist military operations. No such claim was made for either vessel.

The declaration has a conspicuous exception: Iran's own crude continues to flow. Since 28 February, 11.7 million barrels of Iranian oil have transited the same strait, all bound for China. A blockade under international law requires impartial enforcement against all vessels. What the IRGC has constructed is not a blockade but a selective interdiction regime — one that punishes states aligned with the US-Israeli campaign while rewarding those providing diplomatic cover. The last time Iran systematically attacked commercial shipping in The Gulf was the 1980–88 Tanker War, which prompted the US to launch Operation Earnest Will, escorting reflagged Kuwaiti tankers under the American flag. No equivalent convoy operation has been announced.

The practical effect is already measurable. Tanker traffic through Hormuz has fallen 90% from pre-war levels. Every major protection and indemnity club cancelled War risk coverage effective 5 March. Kuwait declared force majeure on all oil exports . The declaration formalises what shipping companies had already priced in: the strait is open only to those Tehran permits through.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow waterway — roughly 34 kilometres at its narrowest — through which approximately a third of the world's seaborne oil normally passes. Iran and Oman share its coastline. Iran has now announced that no oil will transit at all. But Iranian tankers have continued sailing through the same strait, carrying crude to China. This means the 'total blockade' is selective: Iran is weaponising control of the strait to punish adversaries while protecting its own revenue stream and rewarding its main diplomatic ally. It is economic warfare using a geographic chokepoint as the instrument — and the chokepoint stays open for the one party whose support Iran cannot afford to lose.

Deep Analysis
Synthesis

The selective blockade establishes a novel strategic template: a state actor weaponises a critical maritime chokepoint against adversaries while maintaining a protected revenue channel to a single patron, using that patron's diplomatic weight as political cover. No existing international legal or military framework contains a response mechanism designed for this specific configuration of selective transit denial.

Root Causes

Iran's sanctions-constrained economy is structurally dependent on Chinese oil purchases for nearly all export revenue. A genuine total closure would sever its primary income source. The 'not a litre' rhetoric is calibrated to maximise coercive pressure on adversaries while remaining structurally impossible to apply to China — the declaration's absolutism is affordable precisely because the exception is guaranteed.

Escalation

The absolute declaration creates a legal and political test the US has not yet acted on. Tolerating Iranian oil transits while enforcing closure against other nations concedes the two-tier order. Acting against Iranian-flagged vessels risks direct naval confrontation in waters Iran claims as territorial sea. The US has chosen inaction, which becomes harder to reverse as the pattern solidifies into a de facto norm.

What could happen next?
  • Risk

    US inaction on Iranian-flagged transits concedes the two-tier order; acting against them risks the first direct US-Iran naval exchange in the Persian Gulf since 1988.

    Immediate · Assessed
  • Meaning

    The gap between the 'not a litre' declaration and 11.7 million barrels flowing to China reveals Iranian escalatory constraints that adversaries can calibrate their responses against.

    Short term · Assessed
  • Precedent

    Iran's selective blockade doctrine may be studied as a replicable model for other actors controlling strategic chokepoints in future confrontations.

    Long term · Suggested
First Reported In

Update #32 · UN condemns Iran 13-0; ceasefire blocked

CNBC· 12 Mar 2026
Read original
Causes and effects
This Event
IRGC: not a litre through Hormuz
Iran escalated from diplomatic warnings to a declaration of total Hormuz closure — the strongest blockade language since the 1988 Tanker War. The declaration is selectively enforced: Iran's own crude transits freely to China while non-Chinese shipping faces interdiction, converting Hormuz from a waterway into a tool of economic coercion against US-aligned economies.
Different Perspectives
Lloyd's of London
Lloyd's of London
The Joint War Committee left Hormuz war-risk premiums at $10-14 million per voyage on 25 May, declining to move on Brent's 5% fall. The JWC's protocol requires a UN Security Council resolution or bilateral government certification letter before de-listing, and neither has arrived: a verbal understanding does not satisfy the formal condition the reinsurance market's treaty terms require.
Gulf Arab producers
Gulf Arab producers
Saudi Arabia and UAE depend on Hormuz for their own crude exports; Aramco CEO Nasser has warned no oil market recovery arrives until 2027 if the blockade continues past mid-June. Monday's $98.96 Brent settlement shortens nothing for Gulf producers without a signed instrument and a Pentagon mine-clearance timeline that runs up to six months post-ceasefire.
Qatar
Qatar
Qatar holds $12bn of frozen Iranian assets at the centre of the sequencing dispute but cannot release them without explicit US Treasury authorisation, given the original freeze was a US instrument. As the asset-holding state, Qatar's leverage is real but passive: it is the escrow holder, not the decision-maker, and any resolution requires US Treasury sign-off that Trump has withheld.
Pakistan
Pakistan
With both Prime Minister Sharif and army chief Munir simultaneously in Beijing on 25 May, Pakistan has for the first time consolidated its civilian and military mediation tracks under China's roof. Munir's direct Tehran-to-Beijing flight signals that the security and financial threads of the sequencing problem are now being worked in parallel rather than sequentially.
China
China
Beijing hosted Pakistan's principal mediators and Iran's China envoy Ghalibaf simultaneously on 25 May while its banking regulator capped new state-bank lending to five sanctioned refiners. China is simultaneously the most credible third-party underwriter of the $12bn sequencing and the state whose institutions face live OFAC secondary-sanctions exposure if the deadlock persists through GL V's expiry.
United States
United States
Trump posted on 24 May that the blockade holds until a deal is certified and signed, ruling out the informal MOU structure both sides had been building. The 'certified, and signed' condition is the first operational bar Trump has attached in 87 days, but it arrived without an executive instrument, maintaining the gap between posted ultimatum and signed US policy.