A boundary line, three coordinate systems: the landmine on the peninsula doesn’t need anyone’s order.

【Answer 1】 Four questions, zero answers. As of October 4, U.S. Central Command has not issued a single statement—not a claim of responsibility, not a denial, not even the four words 'under investigation.' Do you know what the most expensive thing in international relations is? It’s not the F-35, nor the Patriot interceptor missile—it’s 'confirmation.' To confirm something requires satellite imagery, signals intelligence, cross-verification from allies, legal opinions, and a spokesperson standing at a podium reading an official statement. But to *not* confirm? That just takes one person staying silent. Silence is free. So most events around the world remain stuck at the word 'allegedly.' During the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy received clear U-2 photographs showing Soviet missiles deployed in Cuba. He confirmed it—and thus felt empowered to impose a naval blockade, negotiate, and even offer Khrushchev a face-saving exit. Flip that scenario: if he’d only had a blurry photo, would he have dared to gamble? Today, we live in that 'blurry photo' era—awash in phrases like 'allegedly,' 'reportedly,' and 'sources say.' Policymakers wage war on such information; citizens panic over it; self-media accounts monetize it. All three sides get fed—only the truth starves. So here’s my assessment—memorize it: Iran unilaterally claims to have shot down an unidentified aerial vehicle, but its origin remains undetermined; this incident must *not* be recorded as a U.S.-Israeli operation. This isn’t fence-sitting—it’s professional integrity. If you believe an unattributed 'allegation' today, tomorrow you’ll rage over something that never happened. And anger? It’s the easiest emotion to harvest. There’s another line unfolding in the same waters. Over the past five days, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy has taken action against at least seven 'violating' tankers in the Strait of Hormuz—a pace averaging more than one per day, according to multiple reports. On October 1, UKMTO reported that a tanker caught fire after being struck by an unidentified flying object while transiting the strait. Meanwhile, on October 2, France’s Élysée Palace issued a statement announcing that the G7, coordinated through the International Energy Agency (IEA), had agreed to release 100 million barrels of strategic petroleum reserves—immediately activated and sustained over four months, with diesel supplies concentrated heavily during the first twenty days. The IEA itself stated that roughly 325 million barrels had already been released from its previously announced 400-million-barrel plan launched in March. My judgment: The Strait will neither be fully closed nor fully open. Instead, it will remain in a state of 'semi-restriction'—the highest-cost-efficiency card in Iran’s hand. A full closure equals war; full openness equals surrender; semi-restriction is a bargaining chip at the negotiation table—one whose value can be renegotiated daily. Some call the Strait of Hormuz the 'global economic throat.' I disagree—that’s too fragile. It’s now the global economy’s toll booth: cash-only, no receipts, with three people rotating behind the counter to haggle with you. Let’s do some quick math. Wang Yongzhong of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences calculates that the first twenty days’ release—roughly 800,000 barrels per day—amounts to just 0.8% of the world’s daily oil consumption (10 million barrels), so its impact on overall oil prices is insignificant. Yet for alleviating the diesel shortage—estimated at about 1.5 million barrels per day—the effect is far more pronounced. Long-term oil price stability, however, depends on restoring navigation and refining capacity. Got it? Reserve releases are painkillers—not scalpels. And they mainly relieve *diesel* pain—not gasoline pain. If you don’t see cheaper fuel at the pump, don’t be surprised—the relief was never meant for your tank.

U.S.-Iran tensions escalate in the Strait of Hormuz: U.S. missiles strike tanker near Kharg Island.

【Answer 2】 On the evening of Tuesday, September 8, local time, CCTV News cited Iranian sources reporting that an Iranian oil tanker was struck by a U.S. missile approximately four nautical miles off Iran’s Kharg Island. Local sources said no casualties occurred, crew members were evacuating, and relevant authorities were investigating the incident. Neither the Iranian government nor the United States has officially responded to the report. According to Iranian media Tasnim, a small Iranian oil tanker was hit by a projectile launched by U.S. forces within the anchorage area near Kharg Island—about four nautical miles offshore—with no reported casualties and crew currently evacuating. After this news broke during U.S. stock market midday trading, international crude oil futures surged. U.S. WTI crude rose over 2% intraday, briefly approaching $94 per barrel; Brent crude gained over 1% intraday, nearing $99. Against the backdrop of escalating Middle East conflict and disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, oil prices were already near multi-week highs. During European trading hours on Tuesday, WTI briefly surpassed $94.70—its highest intraday level in three months—while Brent topped $99.40, its highest since early June. Another tanker attack near Kharg Island intensifies U.S.-Iran maritime tensions Kharg Island is one of Iran’s most critical crude export hubs. Therefore, an attack on a tanker near the island raises market concerns not merely about damage to a single vessel—but whether U.S.-Iran military hostilities could further threaten Iran’s crude export capacity. Iranian media reported the attacked tanker was located within Kharg Island’s anchorage zone. CCTV’s report, citing Iranian sources, placed the strike about four nautical miles from the island, with crew evacuating and no casualties reported. Fox News claimed U.S. forces targeted multiple sites near Kharg Island—including several Iranian tankers. This latest report connects directly to military incidents near Kharg Island over the preceding days. A report on Saturday, September 5, noted explosions heard near Kharg Island earlier that week. Subsequently, U.S. Central Command stated that U.S. forces had struck three Iranian tankers—including one near Kharg Island—accusing Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) of launching missile attacks against two U.S. Navy vessels. The U.S. military also alleged those three tankers financed the IRGC and its regional proxies. Thus, if Iran’s latest claim is independently verified, it would signal that military confrontation between the two sides over Iranian oil transport and Strait of Hormuz navigation continues unabated. Iranian military announces capture of advanced U.S. unmanned submarine Just before the tanker attack news surfaced, Iran released a development with even greater military significance. According to CCTV News, on September 8, the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy issued a statement declaring that, at dawn that day, it had successfully captured an advanced U.S. intelligent unmanned submarine in the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz through a 'complex intelligence and combat operation.' It added that related photos would be released within hours.

Iran Says 7 Oil Tankers Attacked in Strait of Hormuz Amid War Fears

just now

Seven oil tankers were damaged or caught fire in the Strait of Hormuz amid escalating regional tensions. While oil shipments continue via protected lanes and increased pipeline capacity, experts warn of soaring costs and potential price spikes.

apnews

Iran Says 7 Oil Tankers Attacked in Strait of Hormuz Amid War Fears

FAQ