"Tankers could move. That framing collided almost immediately with events on the water. Within days, at least two commercial vessels were struck in Gulf waters. Two oil tankers burned after attacks near Iraq's port of Basra, with at least one crew member killed. Other ships reported projectiles or drone strikes in nearby waters."
"Shipping companies and insurers tend to approach such situations with less rhetorical flourish than politicians. Tanker operators do not rely on presidential assurances when deciding whether to send multi-million-dollar vessels through a potential combat zone. They watch insurance premiums, maritime threat advisories, naval escort capacity, and satellite intelligence."
"The Strait of Hormuz does not need to be fully closed to create disruption. The mere possibility that ships could be struck forces insurers to price the risk accordingly, and the cost of moving oil rises with it."
President Trump claimed Iran's military had been effectively neutralized and posed no threat to maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, encouraging commercial ships to proceed. However, within days, multiple commercial vessels were attacked in Gulf waters, with tankers burning near Iraq's port of Basra and other ships reporting drone strikes. Oil prices surged above $100 per barrel as traders reassessed risks. Shipping companies and insurers prioritize threat assessments over political statements, monitoring insurance premiums, maritime advisories, naval capacity, and satellite intelligence. Even limited successful attacks can disrupt global economies. The Strait of Hormuz doesn't require complete closure to create economic disruption; the possibility of strikes forces insurers to price risks higher, increasing oil transportation costs.
Read at www.mediaite.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]