Iranian-Backed Militias Launch Attacks on US Naval Vessels in Hormuz Strait
Jerusalem Africa Desk ·
A series of attacks on US naval vessels has been reported in the Hormuz Strait, with Iranian-backed militias launching missiles and drones at American ships. The incident marks a significant escalation in tensions between the US and Iran, with potential implications for regional stability.
IRGC Missile Attacks on U.S. Warships Raise Stakes in Strait of Hormuz
Iranian ballistic-missile attacks against U.S. Navy warships and subsequent American strikes on Iranian oil tankers have moved the confrontation in the Gulf into a more direct maritime phase, increasing risks to military forces, commercial shipping and global energy flows.
The Strait of Hormuz has become one of the most dangerous pressure points in the confrontation between Iran and the United States.
On September 5, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, launched ballistic missiles toward two U.S. Navy warships operating in regional waters, according to U.S. Central Command.
CENTCOM said the targets were a U.S. aircraft carrier and a guided-missile destroyer. Both vessels successfully evaded the attacks, and no American personnel were injured.
The U.S. military did not publicly identify either warship. Reports naming USS Truxtun, USS Rafael Peralta or USS Mason as the vessels involved should therefore not be treated as confirmed.
The incident is strategically important because it represents direct action by Iranian state forces against U.S. naval assets — not an attack conducted solely through an Iran-aligned regional armed group.
That distinction changes the escalation equation.
The IRGC, Not a Proxy Force, Carried Out the Attack
Initial accounts circulating through social media and Telegram channels described the attacks as operations by “Iranian-backed militias.”
Available official and independent reporting does not support that description.
CENTCOM attributed the September 5 ballistic-missile launches directly to the IRGC. The U.S. military said multiple Iranian attacks were directed at the two American warships.
Iranian authorities, meanwhile, publicly described military action against U.S.-linked vessels and warned that additional operations could follow if American pressure on Iranian shipping continued.
This matters analytically.
Iran has historically used allied armed organizations across the Middle East to generate pressure while limiting the risk of direct state-to-state confrontation.
An IRGC missile launch against U.S. naval forces reduces that degree of separation. It places Iranian and American military personnel directly inside the escalation cycle.
Washington Responded by Targeting Iranian Oil Shipping
The American response was immediate and economically focused.
CENTCOM said U.S. forces struck three Iranian crude-oil carriers after the September 5 missile attacks.
Two vessels — M/T Downy near Kharg Island and M/T Stark 1 near Jask — were permanently disabled, according to CENTCOM. A third tanker, M/T Kylo, also known as Noxen, was destroyed in the Gulf of Oman after its crew was instructed to abandon the vessel.
CENTCOM described the ships as part of an Iranian oil network used to generate revenue for the IRGC and its regional partners.
The choice of target illustrates the broader U.S. strategy.
Rather than responding only against missile launch sites or military installations, Washington targeted assets it says contribute to the financial infrastructure sustaining Iranian military activity.
That expands the maritime confrontation from naval defence into economic warfare.
Further Missile Attacks Followed
The September 5 incident was not isolated.
On September 8, CENTCOM said the IRGC had targeted another U.S. Navy warship with ballistic missiles twice over the preceding two days.
The vessel successfully evaded the attacks and no U.S. personnel were injured, according to the American military.
CENTCOM did not publicly identify the warship.
In response, U.S. forces destroyed five additional Iranian crude-oil carriers in the Gulf of Oman and near Kharg Island.
Within several days, the confrontation had therefore developed a recognizable pattern:
Iran attempted to strike American naval forces.
The United States responded against Iranian oil assets.
Iran continued military pressure.
Washington expanded the economic and maritime cost imposed on Tehran.
This pattern creates a significant risk of escalation because each side can respond to the previous action without necessarily intending to trigger a broader naval conflict.
The Strait of Hormuz Is More Than a Military Battlefield
The strategic importance of the confrontation comes from its location.
The Strait of Hormuz connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea and remains one of the world’s most important energy chokepoints.
Before the current conflict, approximately 20.9 million barrels per day of crude oil and petroleum liquids passed through the strait during the first half of 2025 — equivalent to roughly 20% of global petroleum-liquids consumption.
More than 20% of global liquefied natural gas trade also passed through the waterway, primarily from Qatar.
There are alternatives to Hormuz, including pipelines across Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
Their capacity, however, is insufficient to replace the full volume normally transported through the strait.
That makes even partial disruption economically significant.
Commercial Shipping Has Already Been Severely Disrupted
The impact is no longer theoretical.
By September 22, preliminary shipping data showed that only two commodity vessels had crossed the Strait of Hormuz on one day, compared with approximately 125 large commercial vessels per day before the conflict.
Some ships may have transited with their tracking systems switched off, meaning the available data does not capture every movement.
Nevertheless, the decline demonstrates the scale of the disruption.
Commercial vessels have also come under attack.
On September 22, separate incidents affected a crude-oil tanker and an LPG carrier transiting the strait. Responsibility for those attacks had not been publicly established at the time of reporting.
This distinction is important: not every attack in or around Hormuz can automatically be attributed to Iran without supporting evidence.
The maritime environment now includes state military operations, commercial shipping incidents, sanctions enforcement and competing claims over navigation.
Misidentifying the Ships Creates an Intelligence Problem
The original reports identifying USS Truxtun, USS Rafael Peralta and USS Mason illustrate a wider challenge in covering fast-moving military events.
USS Rafael Peralta and USS Mason have operated in the U.S. Fifth Fleet area during 2026.
But presence in the theatre is not evidence that either vessel was targeted in the September attacks.
More decisively, the U.S. Navy reported that USS Truxtun returned to Naval Station Norfolk on July 31 after completing its deployment.
It therefore could not have been one of the vessels attacked in the Gulf on September 5.
For security reporting, ship identification should therefore remain unconfirmed unless released by CENTCOM, the U.S. Navy or independently established through reliable evidence.
Telegram reporting can provide an early warning or investigative lead.
It should not substitute for verification.
Iran’s Maritime Strategy Is Increasingly Linked to Economic Pressure
Iran’s use of Hormuz serves both military and economic purposes.
The strait gives Tehran leverage because disruption imposes costs far beyond the immediate U.S.-Iran confrontation.
Gulf energy exporters depend heavily on maritime access through the waterway, while Asian economies account for a large majority of crude shipments passing through it.
Shipping companies also face increased insurance premiums, longer delays and higher freight costs when military risk rises.
The economic effect therefore does not require a complete closure of the strait.
Persistent uncertainty can itself raise transportation costs and alter shipping behaviour.
By September, producers were increasingly relying on costly ship-to-ship transfers and alternative logistical arrangements to keep oil moving despite the deteriorating security environment.
The Risk of Miscalculation Is Rising
Naval confrontations create different escalation risks from attacks conducted through proxy organizations.
Warships operate with defensive systems designed to react within seconds.
A missile launch, radar lock or perceived threat can therefore force commanders to make decisions before political leaders have time to intervene.
The September incidents demonstrate this problem.
Iranian missiles were directed toward American military vessels. U.S. forces responded by destroying Iranian economic assets. Further missile attacks were followed by additional American strikes.
So far, CENTCOM has reported no American casualties from these specific naval attacks.
That does not mean the next exchange would produce the same outcome.
A successful strike causing significant casualties or the sinking of a warship could create far stronger pressure for retaliation.
Strategic Assessment: Hormuz Is Becoming a Direct U.S.-Iran Escalation Arena
The most important development is not simply that Iran fired missiles at American ships.
It is that the Strait of Hormuz is evolving into an arena where military, economic and energy-security pressure increasingly overlap.
Three indicators deserve particular attention.
First, the targeting of U.S. naval vessels.
Further IRGC attacks would indicate that Tehran is prepared to continue direct military pressure on American forces rather than relying primarily on regional partners.
Second, U.S. targeting policy.
Washington’s decision to strike Iranian oil tankers suggests that future retaliation may increasingly focus on assets that finance or support the Iranian state and the IRGC.
Third, commercial navigation.
The ability of tankers and cargo vessels to move safely through Hormuz will provide one of the clearest measurements of whether the confrontation is stabilizing or worsening.
There is also a diplomatic dimension.
Iran has indicated that it could reopen the Strait of Hormuz if the United States reduces military pressure and lifts aspects of its blockade, while international discussions continue over mechanisms to protect navigation.
The central strategic issue is therefore no longer freedom of navigation in isolation.
Hormuz has become part of the bargaining structure of the U.S.-Iran conflict — a military chokepoint, an economic weapon and a potential trigger for a much wider confrontation.
RELATED JERUSALEM AFRICA COVERAGE:
Israel Security
Geopolitics
Military
Counter-Terror