Why Rubio Says Iran Will “Lose Tankers” for Attacking U.S. Warships

The latest escalation centers on a direct U.S. attempt to make attacks on its naval forces economically costly for Iran. U.S. Central Command said Iran’s Revolutionary Guard had targeted a U.S. Navy warship with ballistic missiles twice over two days; it said the ship evaded the attacks and that no U.S. personnel were harmed. The United States then said it destroyed five Iranian crude carriers—four in the Gulf of Oman and one near Kharg Island. 1520

Secretary of State Marco Rubio presented that sequence as a standing deterrence formula: attempts to hit U.S. naval vessels would mean Iran “lose[s] tankers.” In subsequent remarks, he said the United States would continue to impose economic pressure on Tehran, using the phrase “strangle them economically.”

From missile attempts to an oil-revenue target

The logic behind the tanker strikes is straightforward: oil shipping is both a military vulnerability and a source of Iranian revenue. By targeting tankers linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Washington is seeking to retaliate without limiting its response to attacks on warships or bases.

This was not an isolated exchange. Reuters reported that U.S. forces had struck three Iranian tankers days earlier, including one near Kharg Island, Iran’s principal oil-export hub. The later five-tanker operation therefore followed an already intensifying maritime campaign. 4

The often-repeated figure of 10 Iranian tankers needs qualification. One report, citing U.S. military claims, said 10 had been disabled over the preceding week, including the five struck in the latest operation. But other reporting centered on the confirmed U.S. announcement of five vessels in that operation and earlier strikes on three. 420 The precise total and the condition of every vessel cannot be independently established from the available reporting.

Iran’s reported retaliation widened the conflict

Iran answered the tanker attacks with claims and threats aimed at U.S. forces, allied territory and commercial shipping:

• Iran said it fired missiles at U.S. forces at Al Azraq base in Jordan after the U.S. tanker strikes. 620
• The IRGC claimed it attacked 10 ships near the Strait of Hormuz, including two U.S. vessels and eight oil tankers. Reuters reported the claim; it should not be read as independent confirmation that the attacks succeeded.
• The IRGC Navy warned crews aboard tankers near ports in Kuwait and Bahrain to leave their vessels, saying ships could be targeted in retaliation for U.S. actions. 12
• Iran warned that Gulf energy infrastructure, including U.S. oil and gas interests, was vulnerable to further attacks. 3

These actions matter because they shift the contest from a U.S.-Iran military exchange into a broader risk to the states, ports and sea lanes that support Gulf energy exports. Bahrain, Kuwait and Jordan host or support U.S. military activity, making them especially exposed to retaliatory missile, drone and maritime threats.

Washington added aviation sanctions to the military pressure

The tanker campaign has been accompanied by a broader effort to constrain Iran’s commercial and logistical networks.

On September 8, the U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned 36 targets that it said supported Iran’s aviation sector, including alleged front companies, foreign intermediaries and transshipment routes used to acquire U.S.-origin aircraft and sensitive technology. Treasury said Iran uses the sector to move weapons, personnel and illicit cargo.

Treasury also suspended Iran General License J-1, which had authorized the temporary reexport of certain civil aircraft to Iran, and issued a wind-down authorization for certain previously permitted civil-aviation transactions. Earlier measures had expanded the categories of Iran-related conduct that could face secondary-sanctions exposure, including aviation and shipping.

Together, these steps show the economic component of Rubio’s message: tanker strikes threaten oil-related assets directly, while sanctions seek to make it harder for Iran to finance, move and sustain key networks.

Hormuz disruption has become a global oil-market issue

The Strait of Hormuz is the immediate economic pressure point. Reporting described fuel shipments through the waterway as sharply impeded, while the new attacks and threats added to fears of a prolonged disruption. 11

Oil prices responded accordingly. Brent crude was about $94.52 a barrel on September 1, according to CNBC, and later reporting put the benchmark near or above $100 as the shipping confrontation escalated. 51113 Prices reflect not only actual supply interruptions but also the risk that vessels, ports, export infrastructure or transit routes could be attacked.

The Houthi movement has added to the regional pressure. Reuters reported Houthi claims of drone and missile attacks on a Saudi air base and multiple Saudi oil targets, widening the potential impact beyond the immediate U.S.-Iran exchange. 1

What this means for diplomacy

The current pattern is coercive escalation, not a visible path to negotiations. Washington is trying to restore deterrence by tying attempted attacks on its forces to losses of Iranian oil assets and to deeper economic isolation. Tehran, meanwhile, has sought to demonstrate that it can impose costs on U.S. partners, military facilities and commercial traffic across the Gulf.

That creates a dangerous feedback loop: a missile attempt can lead to tanker strikes; tanker strikes can produce retaliation against bases or ships; and each episode raises the risk to Hormuz transit and regional energy infrastructure. The available reporting does not identify an active diplomatic channel capable of reliably containing that cycle. 3