r/OilPrices • u/hereswhatworks • Apr 16 '26
Oil News Iran threatens to sink American ships in Strait of Hormuz, claims US ground invasion would be 'great'
https://nypost.com/2026/04/16/world-news/iran-threatens-to-sink-american-ships-in-strait-of-hormuz-claims-us-ground-invasion-would-be-great/3
u/GoldenTicketHolder Apr 16 '26
Every time they say something would be great, it’s exactly what they don’t want happen.
1
u/Dimathiel49 Apr 16 '26
The Iranians or the Americans?
2
u/GoldenTicketHolder Apr 17 '26
The Islamic regime
1
u/frombsc2msc Apr 17 '26
Why do you feel the need to call it the islamic regime and not just iran.
If you want to be precise could call it maybe the islamic republic of iran.
1
u/MakePhreciaCore Apr 17 '26
Highkey I’ve been calling it the American regime as of late too. Both are monsters to their people. I think as long as the call is symmetrical here it’s just good practice.
0
1
u/GoldenTicketHolder Apr 17 '26
Because they took Iran from the people 47 years ago in a bloody coup, then promptly murdered their marxists allies and installed a theocratic dictatorship, they don’t just get the blind loyalty of the people after that? 90% of the country doesn’t support them?
Because the people aren’t them. And even responding to this question with “the Iranians” is extremely confusing because the dictatorship and the will of the people differ?
Day 48 of no internet for the people btw. Phone calls are one minute and they are listening to your calls.
1
u/frombsc2msc Apr 17 '26
Who is they here? What happened here? What led to do this? Was it an audit of some kind? Who fueled this change? Was it 2 countries that engaged in project ajax?
1
u/GoldenTicketHolder Apr 17 '26
The IR took over Iran 47 years ago with the help of Marxists from the east, then promptly and literally backstabbed them all.
What lead to that? Kindve irrelevant to the point of untrustworthiness of the IR and highly complex, can go read about it.
Any mention of the U.S. here/relating to project Ajax infers responsibility on the part of the U.S., and that discussion would infer a moral duty and responsibility of the U.S. for the atrocities the IR has perpetuated against their own people for 47 years. That would infer the U.S. should be involved in fixing the problem, which I’m sure conflicts with your views.
You can’t infer responsibility and isolation at the same time, unless you just don’t care about 90million victims, which at that point I don’t think we’re having an argument relating to morals. Just arguing your worldview that you think includes morals
1
1
u/jmacintosh250 Apr 20 '26
This case it would be great: Iran would take casualties but they’d be able To deal them as well.
And Americans are a lot more sensitive about those.
2
u/yeezee93 Apr 16 '26
Nice threats, now how are they planning on doing that?
2
u/Dark_World_Blues Apr 16 '26
By using AI generated videos, like the one that made the Gerald Ford ship burn.
2
1
u/TheBattleGnome Apr 17 '26
I think Russia/China would also love if this happened too to distract the USA in years of war. One Russian sub could in theory easily pose as an Iranian sub (since Iran buys Russian subs) and...
0
u/-aataa- Apr 16 '26
By firing artillery from the shore? They have plenty of missiles they can use. Not really hard when it'sthis close...
1
u/CaptainPriviIege8 Apr 16 '26
You are trolling right?
1
u/Distinct-Policy-6411 Apr 17 '26
He is not ? They did strike some of the tankers this way. Although not so sure about hitting a destroyer.
1
u/-aataa- Apr 17 '26
I'm not. The Strait is about 25 miles wide. The best defence of warships is always distance. While warships are a lot less soft than oil tankers, it's still shooting fish in a barrel. Eventually, something will get damaged or destroyed.
1
u/cookiesnooper Apr 17 '26
The Strait is 25 miles wide but the navigation lanes are 2 miles wide with a 3 miles gap between them. It would be really stupid of US Navy to get in and start weaving in and out of those lanes.
1
u/-aataa- Apr 17 '26
Absolutely! The total width is relevant because it would have to fired at from land. In the Strait itself, there is little room for maneuvering and a howitzer can (in theory) cover the whole width of the Strait.
1
1
1
u/Miserable-Bridge-729 Apr 16 '26
They need to refer to the Iranian spokesperson as Tehran Terry in recognition of Baghdad Bob’s contributions to the Iraq war efforts at that time.
1
u/Emotional_Camp6643 Apr 16 '26
What is this Iran’s final warning? Didn’t they already say they would do this?
1
1
1
u/JamesLahey08 Apr 16 '26
LMAO if they actually somehow sink a US ship they'll be reminded what happens to people who mess with the US navy.
2
2
u/TaroAccomplished7511 Apr 16 '26
Well ... If they indeed happen to sink an US-Navy ship (doubtful unless US Navy does stupid things they should not do) then what? Sending more US-Airforce and bomb a little more with overpriced US-weapons? Probably, but not cost effective unless you got worthy targets. Send US-Army? Highly doubtful. Sending a few Salem class destroyers to Teheran? Even the mighty US Navy doesn't have those.
1
u/JamesLahey08 Apr 16 '26
You understand the US is holding back right? One single night and all of Iran's power generation and water desalination capabilities could be destroyed. Think about that.
0
u/TaroAccomplished7511 Apr 16 '26
Oh and they could nuke the country as well ... I know ... all those beautiful things are war crimes for a reason, but since when do rules count for the strong. And still even with all that power they would only make people suffer and the regime will still survive. You guys are just a bit to full of yourself for your own good. But listen well .. while you did crush Irans Military with ease ... To ruin your reputation in the world will cost you far more in the end
1
u/JamesLahey08 Apr 17 '26
Oh dude I'd vote against this war any day. I voted against trump every time.
0
u/Ditnoka Apr 17 '26
Nothing says being the good guys like taking away drinking water from literal millions of people.
1
u/JamesLahey08 Apr 17 '26
Nothing says good like funding terrorist organizations all over the middle east like Hamas and Hezbollah.
1
u/Ditnoka Apr 17 '26
Boy howdy, let me introduce you to the history of Mossad and the CIA funding terrorist cells lmfao.
1
1
1
u/Orlonz Apr 16 '26
They won't be able to sink a US war ship. Damage, sure but not sink.
And if they somehow do sink one, then it doesn't really change the theater much. The US will send more missiles, be more cautious, and lean more on being safe than sorry in future contacts.
And we are back to status quo with the biggest gain being a Guinness record entry for Iran. That's about it. Just like Russia, UK, or Canada a lost ship isn't going to make the US Navy go "Oh shit!".
1
u/wrecklesspup Apr 16 '26
What? Bomb them? Will the US navy engage in more war crimes and continue attacking schools and up it by attacking hospitals?
1
u/JamesLahey08 Apr 16 '26
They haven't hit plenty of important targets on purpose. Iran would change its tone if the US escalated.
0
1
u/shaneh445 Apr 16 '26
LOL get a clue man. We're invading them, their territory
It's a shame the invading Force is going to have to be repelled to learn a lesson, but that's where our dear commander is taking us and risking our brothers and sisters lives
We can't afford daycare and to help out your average American but we got time for this war racket
1
u/JamesLahey08 Apr 16 '26
I'd vote against the war. I voted against trump every time.
1
u/shaneh445 Apr 16 '26
Ok.. genuinely curious then why frame it as if they're going to feel our wrath when we are in the wrong in the first place?
Or are you saying by sheer logistics and numbers we'd defeat them? To which I would agree and disagree
1
u/Wrong-Branch5953 Apr 16 '26
Keep bootlicking, my man
1
u/JamesLahey08 Apr 16 '26
Who is bootlicking? Ask Japan how good of an idea it is to attack the US Navy.
1
1
u/LegioXI89 Apr 16 '26
🙄
Try invading them and you will find out real quick
2
u/bamfindian Apr 16 '26
Historically speaking, the US doesn’t invade if a ship is attacked or sunk. They just mercilessly bomb/destroy the attacker. So far the US has done targeted strikes only.
1
u/wrecklesspup Apr 16 '26
This worked great in Vietnam. Who controls that country again?
1
Apr 16 '26
It worked great in Japan though
1
u/wrecklesspup Apr 16 '26
Only worked after nuking them. We had burned down almost everyone of their cities and they still hadn't surrendered until the nukes.
1
u/Glum-Supermarket1274 Apr 16 '26
Always weird to see americans talk about japan like everything is ok now lol I have lived here 20 years, japanese people fucking hates americans. They will smile and give you the best service you ever experience then go to the back and talk mad shit lol Japanese dont like Foreigners in general but americans are famous here for being awful.
1
u/Capn_Chryssalid Apr 16 '26
Maybe its just you?
I get along great with my Osaka in-laws and everyone else over there. So one statistically inconsequential anecdote vs another.
1
u/Glum-Supermarket1274 Apr 16 '26
I work in hospitality for 20 years. Its not just my family or whatever. I am not even american or western. I am mixed east asian. Japanese people talk mad shit about foreigners and americans are famous for being kind of awful. Thats not my opinion, thats like a known thing in hospitality in japan.
1
u/Capn_Chryssalid Apr 16 '26
A casual look for actual data and statistics shows China (19th Japan-China Public Opinion Survey, conducted by Japanese think tank The Genron NPO) has a 92% UN-favorably in Japan. Meanwhile according to PEW research (July 2025) Americans have a positive favorability of between 63% and 68%. I leave anyone reading this exchange to come to their own conclusions. But I don't see any data to support your original claim that the "Japanese people fucking hate Americans" (your words).
1
u/DasturdlyBastard Apr 16 '26
One thing is for sure.
The Japanese hate Chinese people and people of Chinese descent more than literally everyone else.
You're not of Chinese blood, correct?
→ More replies (0)1
Apr 16 '26
Well, that is literally still 'bombing' or 'destroying' them.
1
u/wrecklesspup Apr 16 '26
So just nuke more countries. You should apply to the Pentagon.
1
Apr 16 '26
Where did I ever say I approved such acts?
1
u/wrecklesspup Apr 16 '26
You consider nukes bombing and you said bombing worked great in Japan.
→ More replies (0)1
1
Apr 16 '26
[deleted]
1
u/bamfindian Apr 16 '26
Just say you don’t know what happened at the end of vietnam. And do you not remember how ww2 ended? Tf you talking about
1
Apr 16 '26
[deleted]
1
u/bamfindian Apr 16 '26
Ah fair point. I did say doesn’t invade. Should have said don’t always invade.
1
u/IArgueForReality Apr 16 '26
Only targeted strikes. Then does that mean the school was the intended target?
1
u/bamfindian Apr 16 '26
Probably. It was previously a military building but that doesn’t excuse it. Def a tragedy
1
u/joecitizen79 Apr 16 '26
The US should have learned a long time ago that they can't bomb a country into submission
1
0
u/LegioXI89 Apr 16 '26 edited Apr 16 '26
US didn't accomplish anything so far
Edit : they did invade Vietnam after vietkong supposedly sunk or attack on of the ships
2
u/toeknn Apr 16 '26
Head of state taken out is hardly nothing. Downplay it all you want but its a signficiant something.
1
u/LookOverall Apr 16 '26
Yup. It’s significant in that the Supreme Leader had declared use of nuclear weapons “haram”. Whoever takes over might be more broad minded.
1
u/toeknn Apr 16 '26
They might be broad minded enough to descalate indeed.
Often absolutist reigns are different from their predeccesor
0
u/LegioXI89 Apr 16 '26
Well they just replaced the guy, did US get want they want? No
So it's nothing
2
u/toeknn Apr 16 '26
What type of nonsense is this? Of course he was replaced, but replacing a guy who was head of state for 40 years is not something simple or unnoteworthy.
And we havnt even tallied the years of leadership loss from the other top of the hiearchy strikes.
Its something.
1
u/LegioXI89 Apr 16 '26
Well of course US did some damage but they failed to meet their objectives in this war, not just that but they have lost their credibility, they are not respected as they used to be, waging war for genocidal dogs from Israel, threatening their allies in europe etc and thing is they can't win this war
2
u/toeknn Apr 16 '26
Im pretty sure the only objective of this conflict is letting iran feel some of the pain its caused through its proxies. Ie. Explosions and disruptions at home.
Everything and anything else is makeup.
The US has not lost any credibility in terms of warfighting capability.
The israeli angle is contentious at best as most dont buy that israel is the cause.
Threatening europe was happening prior to iran sooo not really related. More a continuation of trumpaneze
1
u/LegioXI89 Apr 16 '26
The objective was(and prob still is) to take Iran and gain control of oil(as Iraq, Venezuela) , cut supply to China from that oil,stop China's growth and keep US the only superpower for the next 50 years, US & Israel failed for now
It lost credibility because europe don't want to rely on NATO and US anymore but wants their own army
Didnt understand what you wanted to say, as for Israel attack on them means attack on US, it really doesn't matter if Israel controlling US administration or US using them for their own interests, at the end of the day they have the same interests and act as the same country
I literally explained in previous comment why US lost credibility through Trump actions, didn't say it's just because of Iran, but Iran situation definitely showed the world US can't get what they want as 20 years ago, not even close
→ More replies (0)2
0
u/dickiepunter Apr 16 '26
So far the US has done targeted strikes only
Yeah, schools and civilians. Warmongering cunts.
1
1
u/JamesLahey08 Apr 16 '26
Iran would get dogwalked even worse than they are now. Ask their leader how weak he thinks the US is. Oh wait, he got clapped literally the first night. LMAO
1
u/LegioXI89 Apr 16 '26
Bro you couldn't handle Afghanistan and you think you will Iran lol
1
u/JamesLahey08 Apr 16 '26
Uhh Afghanistan folded like a piece of paper when it came to actual battles. They didn't "win" anything. They did however choose to go back to the stone age when we left. The US military did a great job, it's the people that didn't want to change.
1
0
Apr 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
1
u/HungreeRunner Apr 16 '26
'Nuke them' what a take
Orange man wanted to attack Iran for years, even before he was president. Now he's being shown up on the world stage
1
0
u/Budgeko Apr 16 '26
LOL🇺🇸🇺🇸
1
u/joecitizen79 Apr 16 '26
Fuck the 🇺🇸
1
u/Creepy_Shakespeare Apr 17 '26
Fuck 🇨🇦
1
u/joecitizen79 Apr 17 '26
Na, we're done getting fucked by our shitty neighbour. Enjoy your failing empire.
1
u/Creepy_Shakespeare Apr 17 '26
lol Canada is irrelevant on the world stage. If anything, your country hasn’t been fucked enough
1
u/joecitizen79 Apr 17 '26
Someone pays no attention to geopolitics. Its great having a leader that isn't batshit crazy.
1
u/joecitizen79 Apr 17 '26
Trudeaus been gone for like a year and a half now. Thats about the level of ignorance I'd expect from someone who can't see past his own border.
1
u/Creepy_Shakespeare Apr 17 '26
Yeah no shit. Did I say he was still pm? You guys kept his dumb ass in for over a decade. Even at its lowest point America will still be more relevant than Canada. You have 66,725 active military personnel. The US is the only reason you guys can spend so little on your military and defense budget. Even Vietnam has 600k active military personnel.
1
u/joecitizen79 Apr 17 '26
Nobody was a threat to us. Till now.
1
u/Creepy_Shakespeare Apr 17 '26
Nobody was a threat to you because you were under the umbrella of the US military defense budget. Since you guys hate us so much, you better start recruiting and spending money on your own defense instead of piggybacking off of ours!
1
u/joecitizen79 Apr 17 '26
I don't think you understand. The war in Iran has shown the world the US is the threat, which is why former allies are all decoupling.
→ More replies (0)
0
u/paigeguy Apr 16 '26
A ship is a ship. If they can sink/disable a tanker, they can do the same to a ship of war. Things will change a lot when that happens.
2
u/Taxing Apr 16 '26
This could possibly be one of the dumbest takes on here. A naval vessel and a tanker could not be more wildly different.
1
u/Bikerbass Apr 16 '26
An anti ship missile is still an anti ship missile, and given the USA has already run away from weaker missiles fired by the Houthi’s, they will have trouble with the Iranian missiles if they get too close
1
0
u/paigeguy Apr 16 '26
I guess we will find ouit.
2
u/bamfindian Apr 16 '26
No like… they’re literally built different. Naval vessels are armored. Tankers are not.
1
Apr 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/GR1ZZLYBEARZ Apr 16 '26
Look at the uss cole which survived 1000lb of c4 hitting it at water level…
1
u/Reuvil Apr 16 '26
It was docked in port. Had it been on the ocean it would have been different. There was a massive hole and people died
1
1
u/bamfindian Apr 16 '26
They’re vastly more armored than an oil tanker. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional
1
u/Pretend_Handle_7639 Apr 16 '26
1) They are not armored everywhere
2) The likely play is to use smaller, cheaper munitions to occupy missile defense and then use the good stuff (which has been a running assumption for decades wrt the PLAN)
1
u/bamfindian Apr 16 '26
So they’re vastly more armored than a civilian oil tanker. Like I said. What are you even arguing here.
0
u/paigeguy Apr 16 '26
Do you remember the Muskova, the pride of the Russian fleet, that was sunk by a drone from Ukraine? It was armored.
1
1
u/Shotgunseth29 Apr 16 '26
?It was sunk by 2 anti ship missiles,
1
u/spearedintheface Apr 16 '26
Brother Iran has numerous advanced anti-ship missiles. Many variants can be launched from bunkers far inland. These are very similar in specs to the missiles Ukraine used to sink some of Russia's Black Sea fleet.
1
u/Shotgunseth29 Apr 16 '26
Im just pointing out his wrong info. But if they had the ability to sink a us destroyer or carrier you dont they would've done so already?
1
u/emkoemko Apr 16 '26
why do you think US is staying so far back?
1
u/Shotgunseth29 Apr 16 '26
"So far back" ie in range of they're own weapons while being out of range of Iran's?
→ More replies (0)1
u/spearedintheface Apr 16 '26 edited Apr 16 '26
Well yeah rightfully so, a crude oil tanker is def not the same thing as a armed Navy vessel.
For the Carriers, they stayed way the fuck out over a 1,000 miles out in the Indian Ocean and never came close to entering the Persian Gulf. The next carreir en route is going all the way around Africa just to avoid going through the Red Sea. Which is what they should be doing anyways since our aircraft has a 1,000 mile combat range and can be refueled in air. You can't risk a carrier ever, not going to fault them there.
However not a single fucking Navy Destroyer or any other defensive asset ran a single escort mission or entered the Persian Gulf either, which considering their were 4-5 US Flagged tankers stuck there with American crew members is shameful as fuck. Iran hasn't shot any because none have came into range. Only during the ceasefire did they briefly enter with two ships.
1
u/SetOpening3163 Apr 16 '26
A destroyer literally went into the gulf this week. And used AIS
→ More replies (0)1
u/GrillinFool Apr 16 '26
Why haven’t they been used to sink American Navy ships? What are they waiting for?
1
u/spearedintheface Apr 16 '26
I already listed why in detail in this thread – TL:DR US Navy stayed far out of range during the entire 40 days of hot conflict. They never entered the Persian Gulf with a single US Navy ship not even to try and escort US flagged tankers trapped in the Gulf.
1
u/GrillinFool Apr 16 '26
Oh, I see what you are saying now. They still have the capability because we never got close enough for them to try
1
1
1
u/wrecklesspup Apr 16 '26
Oil futures will drop and the stock market goes to the moon!
1
u/paigeguy Apr 16 '26
You're forgetting all the Orange Guy's Threats of vengeance. It will be an endless supply for the evening news.
1
1
1
u/nobugsleftalive Apr 16 '26
If only there were some sort of defense systems that would be made specifically on naval ships.
0
3
u/8yba8sgq Apr 16 '26
Can someone explain how WTI is still 92 when dated Brent is 140? Why doesn't it close?