IRGC says ---- air defense deliveries uninterrupted
as downed US-Israeli drones, fighter jet unveiled
Friday, August 14, 5:27pm
(Prensa Latina)
A senior officer of Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC)
Aerospace Force says production and delivery of the country’s
air defense systems have continued without interruption
following the 40-day US-Israeli war of aggression.
The senior Aerospace Force officer made the remarks in an
interview ..with the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting
(IRIB), recorded at one of the IRGC’s underground bases
and aired Friday. For the first time, parts of the
equipment recovered from US and Israeli
drones and a fighter jet intercepted by
Iran's indigenous defense systems
during the war were displayed
during the interview.
Large sections of several US and Israeli drones, including the MQ-9
Reaper, Hermes 900 and Hermes 450, and technical equipment
from an MQ-9 and the US F-15 fighter jet, were shown in
the report.
The officer also confirmed the delivery of new air defense
equipment following the US-Israeli war, particularly
developments after the ceasefire between
Tehran and Washington in June.
“Thanks to the measures taken before the war --- over 85% of the
production infrastructure for air defense systems manufactured
by the Aerospace Force’s Self-Sufficiency Jihad Organization
was preserved,” he said.
“Fortunately, there was no disruption in the production
or delivery of air defense systems,” he added.
“The production rate of some of the equipment and missiles that
were effective during the war has increased compared with
before...... the start of the third imposed war,” he said,
referring to the US-Israeli war of aggression on
Iran since February 28.
He added that deliveries to operational units had also
increased compared with the period before the war.
'Outside classic routine': Iranian missile strikes US F-15
The officer pointed to a US' F-15 fighter jet which was hit
by an Iranian missile on April 3 during an operation
carried out by the IRGC Aerospace Force’s air
defense units.
“Yes, this fighter was hit by a new air defense system and
missile using a purely Iranian tactic -- a combination of
equipment and tactics that managed to overcome
the enemy’s technological edge,” he said.
He said the pilot realized moments before the missile
reached the aircraft that he had only enough time
to eject and had no opportunity to use any of
the aircraft’s countermeasures against
air defenses.
“This means ------- a new air defense system that
is outside the classic routine,” the officer said.
He also referred to the interception of a US MQ-9
Reaper drone bearing serial number 261, saying
this type of drone weighed 5 tons and was 20
metres long.
Iranian skies turn into graveyard for the US's
most-famed combat drone – MQ-9 Reaper
Since the Ramadan War began, Iran and its allies in
the region, have destroyed more than 40 US MQ-9
Reaper drones – over 90 total across all theatres
– reducing the fleet to 35-50 percent below the
Pentagon's original stock.
The drone was a large, multipurpose aircraft capable
of carrying out both reconnaissance and combat
missions, he said.
“One of the main issues through which we were able
to inflict defeat on the enemy --- was bringing down
these types of drones,” the officer said.
Starlink modems
The officer also provided details about the
use of Starlink modems during the war.
“These modems... increased the speed of data transmission
for the enemy,” he said, adding that they came in several
models and were used to provide connectivity and
communications capabilities to drones.
However, he stressed that none of the drones targeted by
Iran during the 12-day US-Israeli war were equipped with
Starlink systems. He was referring to the war that the
US and Israeli launched against Iran in June 2025.
He said that once the drones were hit, their missions —
including operations targeting Iran’s tactical and
military facilities — were effectively disrupted.
According to the officer, 171 airborne targets were hit
during the 40-day war, including 10 manned aircraft.
A large number of drones and cruise missiles
were also hit, he said.
How Iran's air defenses destroyed over 170 US-Israeli
drones ---------- and rewrote drone warfare doctrine
Iran’s advanced indigenous air defense network
destroyed 170+ US and Israeli drones during
the 40-day war of aggression, forcing a
fundamental reassessment..... of
unmanned warfare doctrine.
The unjustified US-Israeli aggression on Iran began on February 28.
In response, the Iranian Armed Forces targeted sensitive and
strategic US and Israeli targets throughout the region and
restricted transit through the Strait of Hormuz.
However, forty days later, on April 8, the enemies were forced
to accept a ceasefire amid Iran’s brave resistance and
successful retaliatory operations.
On June 17, Tehran and Washington signed the Pakistan-
brokered Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to end
all hostilities and prepare for further negotiations.
However, Washington violated all provisions of
the understanding, prompting Iran to deliver
a firm response.
_____________________________________
Tehran: EU has no ‘moral standing’
to lecture Iran on human rights
August 14, 1:10 pm
(PressTV)
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, told his Greek and
Austrian counterparts that the EU has no “moral standing”
to lecture Iran on human rights, pointing to the European
governments’ double standards over the Israeli regime’s
crimes in the region.
Araghchi made the remarks... in separate phone calls with
Greek Foreign Minister Giorgos Gerapetritis and Austrian
Foreign Minister Beate Meinl-Reisinger on Thursday,
according to Iran’s Foreign Ministry.
In his call with Gerapetritis, Araghchi criticized the EU’s
“hypocritical” approach to human rights. He pointed to
the support of some European countries for Israel ---
and their indifference to the killing of Palestinians
and war crimes in Lebanon and Iran.
Araghchi --- rejected recent EU statements alleging human
rights violations in Iran. “The EU, due to its performance
in the field of human rights, has no moral standing to
lecture others,” he said.
He made a similar argument in his conversation with
Meinl-Reisinger, denouncing the EU’s passive
position toward Israel ----- and the broad
support provided by some European
countries for the occupiers of
Palestinian lands.
Araghchi said European policies - were contributing to
the continuation of Israel’s occupation and genocide
in the Palestinian territories. He called on the EU
to reconsider its approach to developments
in West Asia.
He also condemned the EU’s “interventionist”
stance toward Iran and its support for
anti-Iran terrorist elements.
The criticism comes as the EU, along with a few
other countries, including Canada --- issued a
meddlesome joint statement and criticized
the use of capital punishment against
foreign-linked rioters in Iran.
The two calls also focused on regional
security and the Strait of Hormuz.
Araghchi said Iran and Oman were holding discussions
on mechanisms for managing future navigation
through the strategic waterway and
determining safe passage
routes for ships.
He noted that the current insecurity in the strait is
the result of “illegal aggression” by the US&Israel
against Iran.
Araghchi said Iran had entered the diplomatic process
in good faith ..and that an understanding to end the
war had been signed, on June 18, referring to the
Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding. He
added that Washington, by violated the MoU,
imposing a maritime blockade on Iran, and
carrying out attacks against military and
civilian targets, heightened tensions
and insecurity around the Strait
of Hormuz.
In the call with Gerapetritis, Araghchi stressed
Iran’s determination ---- to defend its national
interests and security.
The Greek foreign minister - expressed support for
diplomatic efforts to reduce tensions and offered
Greece’s technical and expert assistance.
Meinl-Reisinger, meanwhile, pointed to the importance
of restoring stability and security in the region ...and
returning to normal conditions through diplomacy.
The Iranian and European ministers... also agreed to
continue consultations and work to preserve their
longstanding bilateral relations.
___________________________________
The Strait of Hormuz: A new
geostrategic stalemate
August 14, 10:37am
(PressTV)
When US President Donald Trump launched his attack
on Iran alongside Israel, he was betting on a quick,
decisive victory.
At best, he expected the overthrow of the Islamic Republic.
At the very least, he expected the destruction of Iran's
nuclear and military capabilities, followed by what
Washington could present as an honourable
exit from the war.
But now Trump is entering the sixth month of the war, and those
predetermined objectives are looking increasingly like a mirage
— something Washington may never reach.
Iran's missiles are being launched with greater force and greater
precision than before. Whatever target Iran chooses, it can now
strike. And ....despite the months of war, there is still no sign
that Iran's peaceful nuclear program has been destroyed.
But perhaps more importantly, Iran has now placed another
card on the table; a card with enormous geostrategic
weight, the Strait of Hormuz.
Strait of Hormuz: Don't even think about it
For months, Washington has tried almost everything to
restore the Strait to the way it was before the war.
It has threatened. It has attacked. It has imposed a blockade.
It has attacked again. It has negotiated, and it has
threatened to destroy Iran's infrastructure.
However, every time Tehran has delivered essentially the
same message: No, forget it. Those days are over. The
Strait of Hormuz will not simply return to the way
it was before the war.
The Strait of Hormuz has now become like a bone stuck in
Donald Trump's throat, a symbol of what Iran portrays as
America's humiliating failure. Neither through war, nor
through diplomacy has Washington managed to
regain control of the Strait from Iran.
On August 8, Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr, former Secretary
of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, made Tehran's
position clear: the Strait of Hormuz will not reopen until
the United States changes its behaviour.
But what exactly does changing its behaviour mean?
Zolghadr explained that it means six things:
First, never threatening Iran in any language or any form,
and never insulting the beliefs and sacred values of
the Iranian people.
Second, permanently ending the war and aggression
against Iran and Iran's allies in Lebanon, Palestine,
Yemen, and Iraq.
Third, lifting the naval blockade and withdrawing US
military forces, both naval and air, from around Iran.
Fourth, fully compensating Iran for the damage
caused by the two wars that were acts of
aggression imposed on Iran.
Fifth, lifting the unjust and unlawful sanctions
imposed on the Iranian people.
And sixth, unconditionally releasing the frozen
and confiscated assets belonging to the
Iranian people.
Taken together -- these demands embody the main points
of what became known as the Islamabad Memorandum,
a memorandum signed by the presidents of Iran and
the United States.
Washington ...tried to bypass the route determined by
Iran right after it signed the MOU; a flagrant violation.
When the Islamabad memorandum moved into the
implementation phase, the US violated its terms
during that one-month period.
Our commitment was to restore maritime traffic through
the Strait to its previous conditions after a certain
period, under arrangements that we ourselves
would determine.
In response to the US violation and the establishment
of the Southern Corridor, we took military action and
restored traffic to the conditions that existed
before the memorandum.
Saeed Ajorlou, Iranian Negotiating
Committee, Media Team
The understanding was supposed to create a path toward
the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and beyond that,
broader peace negotiations.. between Tehran and
Washington. But... less than three weeks after it
was signed, Trump declared the understanding
over ---- and called for the war to resume.
What followed was a harsh confrontation with the
realities of war, and those realities hit back.
Within the US military establishment, concerns were
growing. US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General
Dan Caine, has privately said in recent weeks
that the United States needs an off-ramp
from the war on Iran. His assessment
was that the military options now
under consideration - could
backfire --- and airstrikes
alone were unlikely to
accomplish the US
regime's goals.
At the same time, US officials were warning of a Pentagon
funding crunch and an extreme shortage of munitions,
developments that pushed President Donald Trump
into a clash with War Secretary Pete Hegseth.
The recent shift in Iran's deterrence strategy has led the
US to conclude that Iran is no longer going to respond
on the basis of a simple tit for tat approach.
The scale and scope of its responses will be far greater.
What happened in the Suez Canal also sent a clear
message: Iran's reach extends beyond the Strait
of Hormuz and Bab-al-Mandeb.
It has demonstrated that it is capable of challenging vessels
attempting to supply US military bases for those seeking to
violate international law in order to carry out or facilitate
terrorist operations. Iran has the capability to reach
this area as well and prevent such activities.
The Trump economic fiasco of the past year and a half
The financial cost ...has also been mounting. As the US
approaches six months of war with Iran, the cost to
US taxpayers and consumers continues to grow
far beyond what has yet been fully quantified.
By September, the military is expected to have incurred
some 37.5 billion dollars in taxpayer-funded costs
connected to the war, an estimate which does
not include the cost of damage to US bases
in the region struck by Iran.
Lawmakers are now fighting over how to pay the bill, and
US consumers are facing bills of their own, including
higher gas prices driven by supply disruptions
caused by the war.
The Iran Oman negotiations concern the transit
of oil, gas, and energy across the region.
As you know, around 20 percent of the world's energy
supplies pass through the Strait of Hormuz, and
there is no viable alternative to the Strait
in the short or medium term.
It may be possible to transport some oil through the Red
Sea or the Gulf of Oman, but the strategic importance
of the Strait of Hormuz ....goes far beyond oil.
It is also a major route for gas, commercial goods,
and other forms of trade, which makes the strait
effectively irreplaceable.
The situation has left Washington facing a difficult problem.
The US has neither demonstrated the military capability
to force Iran into submission, nor has it found Iran
willing to negotiate directly with Washington, so
the White House is now pinning its hopes on
something else: the talks between Iran
and Oman.
As of mid-August, those talks have focused on the possibility
of an agreement between Iran and Oman to establish a new
route for ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz.
The proposed route would be managed jointly by the two
coastal states and could potentially pave the way for
the gradual resumption of maritime traffic.
What are the main topics of discussion in the Iran-Oman
talks, and what are the points of contention?
At a certain point, Iran and Oman began negotiations over
which route should be used for maritime traffic through
the Strait, and what arrangements should govern
that traffic.
During those talks, we witnessed a violation of the
memorandum, and we subsequently closed the
strait. However, the negotiations between
Iran and Oman continued.
They have now produced a draft text that is currently
being reviewed and discussed in Tehran.
For Washington, this could sound like good news, but
Tehran has made one thing very clear. Iran's foreign
minister, Seyyed Abbas Araghchi, has said, "An
agreement with Oman on a new route - does
not mean the Strait of Hormuz will open".
Iranian officials say that before the Strait can reopen,
the US must take steps to correct the violations of
previous commitments.
''There is still a gap between an agreement with Oman
and the reopening of the Strait. That gap involves
fulfilling the conditions set out in Article 13 of
the Islamabad Memorandum, including an
end to the war on all fronts, the issue of
Lebanon, Iran's frozen assets, the
maritime blockade, and the oil
sanctions ....imposed by the
United States, all of which
Washington violated.''
''All of these conditions must first be fulfilled before
we can move to the next stage: the resumption
of maritime traffic through the Strait, under
arrangements... determined by Iran.''
says Saeed Ajorlou, of the Iranian
Negotiating Committee,
Media Team
Iran's deep distrust of the US is now casting
a shadow over the Hormuz talks with Oman.
Tehran has repeatedly made it clear that it is not
negotiating directly with Washington. It says
that the indirect transmission of messages
through intermediaries doesn't constitute
negotiations, which is precisely where
the Iranian narrative - differs from the
one coming out of the White House.
When asked at the White House whether a deal to
reopen the Strait of Hormuz had been reached,
Trump gave this answer:
''I don't want to..... say it has been. It's sort of open right
now. You know, we have a thing called the blockade,
headed up by the US Navy, and we control it. And
now we control it... but they can always shoot
something. They always have something or
drop a mine. And if you have one mine
sitting out there, you sort of mess
things up, because people don't
want to take their billion-dollar
boats and accidentally get hit
by a mine. But I think we're
doing very well. I just, you
know, I'm involved in the
negotiation. I think
we're doing fine.''
US MoU commitments - broken
the moment they were spoken
The MoU involved the US lifting its naval blockade
and easing restrictions on Iranian oil exports, in
exchange for Iran... maintaining commercial
navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.
However, within weeks, the US
reinstated sanctions --- and
launched military strikes,
leading to renewed
tensions.
We spoke to Mohammad Ghaderi,
an International Affairs Expert.
What is Iran hoping to achieve in the talks with Oman?
Before the negotiations between Iran and Oman began,
Trump encouraged the Omanis .......and sought to
persuade them to use the southern corridor.
The Islamic Republic of Iran had repeatedly warned: that
this route was unsafe for several reasons, first, because
of its shallow waters, and second, because mines had
been laid along the route.
Naturally, if the route is outside Iran's control, vessels
using it could be exposed to security incidents.
In fact, this has already happened
on several occasions.
Could you clarify the current status of the
Strait of Hormuz? Is it open or closed?
Contrary to claims made by Western and Israeli media,
the Islamic Republic of Iran --- has not closed this
strait of Hormuz in the sense of preventing
all maritime traffic.
Under the arrangements reaffirmed in the Islamabad
Memorandum of Understanding --- especially in
Articles One and Five, the Strait of Hormuz
is to remain under Iran's control and
management, according to the
operational arrangements ---
determined by the Islamic
Republic of Iran.
That is precisely the framework
Iran is currently implementing.
Iran, meanwhile, has continued its aggressively defiant posture.
On August 6, Iran's parliamentary speaker Mohammad  Bagher 
Ghalibaf mocked Trump's messaging in a post on X: "Massive
attack coming. Wait, never mind. They want to negotiate".
He described it thus: "That's theatre diplomacy on loop.
Using bullying + broken promises + fake news as
leverage is a failed strategy. Acknowledge the
facts and fulfill your commitments.
We don't need more theatre".
Trump’s repeated claims of defeating
Iran ‘hilarious’: Parliament Speaker
Despite the political confrontation, there is another possibility
emerging: a framework agreement between Iran and Oman
for the temporary reopening of the Strait of Hormuz could
present .......a major political breakthrough, whose
significance would go far beyond shipping.
All said and done, whether such an agreement could actually
be implemented and whether it could survive would depend
largely on the future course of US-Iran relations.
We cannot allow the United States, Britain, or France to use
the Strait of Hormuz to move their military forces through
the waterway, rebuild their military bases, or pose a
threat to Iran's national security.
For that reason, the Strait will remain closed to such threats.
Even if Oman were to authorize US warships to pass
through the area, we would strike them.
We have already warned them of this. The military
and security dimensions of this issue
are extremely important to us.
Hossein Kana’ani Moghaddam, Political Analyst
Under the proposed framework, commercial vessels would
apparently enter the Persian Gulf --- through a northern
shipping route managed by Iran and exit through a
southern route overseen by Oman. In this way,
months of uncertainty.... could potentially
be replaced --- by a coordinated, though
temporary, traffic management system.
The Omanis insisted that the southern route should remain
open, but ....under the text we're currently working with,
once the temporary middle route becomes operational,
the other routes would have to be suspended.
In my view, that would be a significant achievement for us.
A route that has been used for maritime traffic for years
would effectively be replaced by a temporary route,
under which vessels would enter through Iranian
waters, with a part of their outbound journey
also taking place through Iranian waters.
This is in line with the Islamic Republic's policy
of reshaping the flow of maritime traffic
through the Strait.
Saeed Ajorlou, Iranian Negotiating
Committee, Media Team
The negotiations have also covered technical
arrangements, security, and the respective
sovereignty of Iran and Oman.
There is even a proposal for a joint coordination centre
to manage maritime traffic and collect information
from vessels.
Such an arrangement could potentially resolve
disputes over shipping routes that have
disrupted global trade.
Another point of contention, and in my view, one of
the key challenges in the Iran-Oman negotiations,
concerns maritime arrangements and services.
The Omanis may be reluctant to engage too deeply in this area
because of US pressure. After all, a number of countries are
not particularly supportive of such arrangements, Iran,
however, insists --- that issues such as monitoring,
environmental protection, & maritime services
must be addressed.
If the negotiations reach the final stage, this
could potentially become another point of
disagreement between the two sides.
Saeed Ajorlou, Iranian Negotiating
Committee, Media Team.
But Iran continues to insist on one point: a technical agreement
with Oman does not automatically mean free passage through
the Strait. The US must first meet additional conditions, and
that ---- is what makes Hormuz much more than a
shipping problem.
Any vessel seeking to pass through the Strait of Hormuz that
belongs to one of the countries hostile to Iran will certainly
be denied passage.
The reason is straightforward: Iran, as a country whose national
security and interests depend on peace and stability in the
region will naturally not allow hostile states to use the
Strait of Hormuz to supply and reinforce their
military bases along the southern shores
of the Persian Gulf --- says Mohammad
Ghaderi, International Affairs Expert.
And there is another cost of war, one which cannot easily
be measured in dollars, missiles, or military equipment.
For the US, perhaps the greatest cost may ultimately be
something far less tangible: the growing distrust of its
traditional partners in the Persian Gulf.
On August 7, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Türkiye signed
a trilateral mutual defense pact known as the Mecca
Joint Defense Agreement or the Mecca Agreement.
The agreement establishes a collective defense
arrangement under which an armed attack
against any of the three states is to be
regarded as an attack against all 3.
Many experts have described the signing of the military pact
between Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, and Pakistan as one of the
most significant developments to emerge amid the
US-Israeli war in the region.
Former US diplomat Christopher R. Hill said, "They have all
come to believe that the US will not be there for them
when circumstances become difficult, and now is
the time to strengthen regional efforts. You see
no trace of Washington in this agreement".
The significance of the Mecca Pact goes far beyond another
military agreement in West Asia. The agreement is based
on a principle similar to NATO's famous doctrine: an
attack on one is an attack on all.
Alongside the Iran-Oman agreement, we are also witnessing the
formation of the Mecca Defense Pact between Saudi Arabia,
Türkiye, and Pakistan. Should these events be considered
as unrelated and separate, or part of a greater tendency
of regional countries to decrease their reliance on the
United States?
Saudi Arabia is seeking to buy security through the agreements
it has reached with Pakistan and Türkiye, but it's clear that
security cannot simply be bought.
Look at the numerous US military bases across the Persian Gulf;
they have brought nothing but insecurity to the Arab countries
that host them.
Those bases have not even been able to
protect themselves from Iranian attacks.
They have been repeatedly targeted, and
many of them have been destroyed.
Hossein Kana’ani Moghaddam, Political Analyst
What makes the agreement particularly significant is the
environment in which it has emerged. It comes at a
moment when regional countries are increasingly
questioning the reliability of Washington's
security guarantees.
For decades countries across the region have relied on
the US security umbrella. But the war against Iran and
the way Washington has handled the crisis..... has
raised --- a much more fundamental question: Is
the United States still willing to pay the price
for the security of its allies as it once did?
For now, the Mecca Pact may be largely symbolic, but -- if
distrust in Washington -- continues to grow, agreements
like this could eventually evolve into something much
bigger; a broader network of regional security
arrangements, increasingly independent of
the United States.
The international order is shifting toward new centres of
power. China, Russia, India, Iran, and several other
countries ...are moving toward establishing new
relationships within the international system,
moving away from unipolarity and toward
a more multipolar order.
We are already seeing the emergence of blocs and alliances
such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BRICS,
and the Eurasian Framework.
Hossein Kana’ani Moghaddam, Political Analyst
And that may be the deeper story unfolding behind the battle
over the Strait of Hormuz, because Hormuz is no longer
simply a waterway.
It has become a test of military power, a test of diplomatic
credibility, a test of US' alliances, and above all, a test of
who gets to define the rules of a changing region in this
part of the world.
If the agreement is finalized, do you think that
the US will also gain something from it?
Look at the situation today. A strait that
was once open - has been closed.
A new route has been established that is favourable
to Iran, and Iran's own arrangements --- are now
in place there.
Frankly, when I look at the situation, I see almost
no gain for the US, compared with 6 months ago.
Perhaps all Washington can do now is save face ahead
of the congressional elections by claiming that it has
normalized maritime traffic through the strait, even
though the strait had been operating normally
in the first place.
Saeed Ajorlou, Iranian Negotiating Committee, Media Team
For Washington, the question may no longer be how to
force the strait back to the way it was before the war.
The real question is whether West Asia itself has
already changed too much..... for that to
be possible.
Tehran's message appears unmistakable:
the old rules are over.
The strait will not reopen simply because Washington
wants it to, the United States will have to change its
behaviour first, and until then, the Strait of Hormuz
remains closed.
___________________________________________
Iran says control over Hormuz 'decisive'
as Kpler data ------- debunks US claims
August 14, 8:23am
(PressTV)
The Strait of Hormuz remains closed, the commander of
Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Navy
says, dismissing US claims about the level of
maritime and oil traffic through the
strategic waterway.
Rear Admiral Ali Ozamaei said on Thursday that the
situation should be assessed based on what is
happening at sea, rather than statements
issued by US officials.
“The Strait of Hormuz is closed, and the reality must
be seen in the field, not in the statements and
remarks of US officials,” Ozamaei said.
He stressed that Iranian forces maintain firm
control over activity in the waterway.
“The Strait of Hormuz is closed. Our control over
movements is complete and decisive. No
movement in this strait - escapes the
eyes of the members of the IRGC
Navy,” he said.
His remarks come amid US claims about an increased
volume of shipping and oil exports through the strait,
a critical chokepoint through which roughly a fifth
of global oil demand normally passes.
However, data from commodity analytics firm Kpler,
showed that shipping traffic remained significantly
below normal levels toward the end of the week.
Nine vessels transited the strait on Thursday, up from
five the previous day, but still below the August daily
average of 12. All used the Iranian shipping route.
The figures contrast with claims by US officials
that oil flows have substantially recovered.
US Energy Secretary Chris Wright claimed on Wednesday
that “the seven-day average for oil leaving the Strait of
Hormuz is currently ---- up to almost 9 million bpd.”
He also claimed that an additional 5-7 million
barrels per day were leaving the region
through upgraded pipelines and
export facilities.
However, vessel-tracking data cited by Reuters, provided
a sharply different picture. Kpler recorded crude exports
through Hormuz at 2.77 million barrels per day for the
week beginning July 27 and only 1.74 million barrels
per day for the week beginning August 3. Even the
strongest week since the war began saw 6.98
million barrels per day leave the strait.
The discrepancy extends to overall exports from West Asia.
Kpler put crude shipments at 9.53 million barrels per day
during the week beginning August 3, compared with
18.7 million barrels per day in the three months
before the war. LSEG data similarly showed
exports of 9.33 million barrels per day
during the first 12 days of August,
down from 12.35 million in July.
The conflicting figures have raised questions about the US
administration's account of the situation. Many analysts
believe the Trump administration is disseminating
misinformation to control oil prices and to
depict a fake victory in the war against
Iran, as none of Washington’s stated
goals for the aggression have
been fulfilled.
Iran: No vessel can safely transit
Hormuz without authorization
The spokesperson for Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Central
Headquarters says no vessel can safely transit the
strategic waterway without authorization and
supervision by Iran.
Defeated militarily, Washington has returned to imposing
economic pressure on Tehran. US war secretary Pete
Hegseth said the US Navy could maintain an illegal
blockade of Iran indefinitely, stating, “Indefinitely,
the United States Navy can maintain a blockade
like that because we'll rotate ships in and out,
as we have, and we'll continue to.”
Iran restricted transit through Hormuz following the US-Israeli
aggression that began on February 28 and ended under a
ceasefire on April 8. Tehran later signed a Pakistan-
brokered Memorandum of Understanding with
Washington on June 17. Article 5 places
responsibility for reopening and
managing the strait with Iran.
Subsequent US actions, including the establishment of an unsafe
corridor near the Omani shores - and renewed aerial attacks on
Iranian southern provinces in July, violated the arrangements
intended to end the war .....which prompted Tehran to
reimpose restrictions.
Iran and Oman are meanwhile holding talks on a new mechanism
for maritime traffic through the strait. Tehran has stressed that
any reopening of the waterway depends on the US meeting
Iran’s demands.