The world’s oil highway is slowing down. Tankers are stopping. What happens if Hormuz closes?

Hundreds of oil and gas vessels have halted movement in and around the Persian Gulf as tensions escalate following US and Israeli strikes on Iran, raising fears of a broader regional conflict and potential energy supply disruption.

Shipping data from MarineTraffic reviewed Sunday showed at least 150 tankers — including crude oil carriers and liquefied natural gas (LNG) vessels — anchored in open waters beyond the Strait of Hormuz. Dozens more were reported stationary on the opposite side of the strategic chokepoint.

The vessels are clustered off the coasts of major Gulf producers, including Saudi Arabia and Iraq, as well as near Qatar, one of the world’s largest LNG exporters.

The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow maritime corridor linking the Gulf to global markets, handles roughly one-fifth of global oil consumption. Any prolonged disruption there would ripple quickly through energy markets.

The sudden pause in shipping traffic follows Iran’s retaliatory missile attacks after coordinated US–Israel strikes targeted Iranian leadership and military infrastructure. Tehran has previously warned that it could restrict or close the strait in the event of military escalation.

Maritime operators appear to be taking precautionary measures rather than risk transit through a potential conflict zone. Tankers idling in open waters can wait for security clarity before proceeding.

Energy traders are closely monitoring the situation. Even temporary bottlenecks could push oil and gas prices sharply higher, especially given already strained global supply routes following conflicts in Eastern Europe and the Red Sea.

Insurance costs for vessels operating in high-risk areas are also expected to surge, adding further pressure on global shipping.

For now, the ships remain at anchor — a visible sign that a regional military confrontation is rapidly spilling into the arteries of the global economy.

Moscow vs. Washington — the rhetoric just escalated. Is this the start of a broader geopolitical rupture?

Russia sharply condemned the United States and Israel on Saturday, accusing them of recklessly escalating the conflict with Iran and pushing the Middle East toward what it called a potential “catastrophe.”

President Vladimir Putin convened a video conference with members of Russia’s Security Council to assess the situation following the strikes, according to Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov.

In a strongly worded statement, Russia’s Foreign Ministry accused Washington and Tel Aviv of launching a “dangerously irresponsible attack” that risks triggering humanitarian, economic and even radiological consequences across the region.

“By plunging the Middle East into an abyss of uncontrolled escalation, they are actually encouraging countries around the world… to acquire more serious means against emerging threats,” the ministry said.

The remarks reflect Moscow’s concern that the strikes — which US President Donald Trump described as necessary to eliminate security threats and weaken Iran’s leadership — could spiral into a wider regional war.

Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council and a former president, added a pointed historical comparison. Writing in English, Medvedev accused Washington of using diplomacy as “a cover” and questioned America’s long-term endurance.

“The US is just 249 years old. The Persian Empire was founded over 2500 years ago,” he wrote. “Let’s see what happens in 100 years or so…”

Russia has positioned itself as a vocal critic of Western military interventions in the region, while maintaining close ties with Tehran. The Kremlin has repeatedly warned that military escalation could destabilize global energy markets and deepen security fractures across the Middle East.

With missile exchanges already under way and diplomatic channels strained, Moscow’s language signals that the crisis is no longer confined to Washington and Tehran — it is rapidly taking on broader geopolitical dimensions.

If confirmed, this reshapes the Middle East overnight. Leadership vacuum. Retaliation underway. What happens next?

Iranian state television has confirmed that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed during coordinated US and Israeli airstrikes, declaring a 40-day national mourning period and signaling a turning point in the intensifying conflict.

The announcement follows earlier claims by US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Khamenei had been targeted in the sweeping attacks that began early Saturday. Trump wrote on social media that US intelligence systems had tracked the 86-year-old leader and that he “was unable to avoid” the strike.

Tehran’s initial reports had insisted Khamenei remained in command. Sunday’s confirmation marks a dramatic shift and introduces profound uncertainty into Iran’s political and military structure. Khamenei had led the Islamic Republic since 1989 and held ultimate authority over the armed forces, judiciary and key state institutions.

Analysts say succession mechanisms exist. Barbara Slavin of the Stimson Center noted that a governing council may already be prepared to assume temporary authority. Iran’s constitution provides for a transitional process led by senior clerical and political bodies in the event of a supreme leader’s death.

The strikes reportedly hit targets across 24 provinces, with Iranian media citing more than 200 fatalities. Israel said senior Revolutionary Guard commanders and nuclear officials were among those killed. Iranian officials described the operation as “premeditated aggression” and vowed continued retaliation.

Missile exchanges widened the battlefield. Iranian counterstrikes triggered air-defense responses in Israel and Gulf states hosting US bases, including Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. Regional airspace disruptions followed as governments braced for further escalation.

At the United Nations, Secretary-General António Guterres warned that military action risks unleashing consequences “no one can control.” Russia and China condemned the strikes, while Washington defended them as necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Trump indicated that bombing would continue “as long as necessary,” raising fears of a prolonged campaign. Markets are closely watching potential disruptions to the Strait of Hormuz, a key artery for global oil supplies.

If fully confirmed and internationally verified, Khamenei’s death would represent the most consequential shift in Iranian leadership in more than three decades — and could redefine the region’s security landscape for years to come.

Evacuation notices. Aircraft carriers moving in. Talks hanging by a thread. Is the Middle East edging toward another war?

The United States has authorized the departure of non-emergency embassy staff and their families from Israel, signaling mounting concern as tensions with Iran intensify and Washington accelerates one of its largest regional military deployments in decades.

The U.S. Embassy in Israel announced Friday that personnel may leave “due to safety risks,” advising Americans to consider departing while commercial flights remain available. According to reports, Ambassador Mike Huckabee urged staff who wished to leave to do so immediately.

The move comes as the USS Gerald R. Ford — the world’s largest aircraft carrier — heads toward the eastern Mediterranean, joining a substantial U.S. naval presence already in the region. Washington currently has more than a dozen warships deployed across Middle Eastern waters.

The evacuation notice follows Oman-mediated nuclear talks between Iran and the United States in Geneva, described by diplomats as a final effort to avoid open conflict. While both sides reported “progress,” deep differences remain.

President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly threatened military action, said this week he was “not happy” with negotiations and reiterated his demand for “no enrichment.” Reports suggest U.S. negotiators are pressing Iran to dismantle key nuclear facilities and surrender its enriched uranium stockpile.

Iran has rejected what it calls “excessive demands.” Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said talks had entered a serious phase but warned that miscalculations could derail diplomacy. Technical discussions are expected to continue next week in Vienna under the auspices of the UN nuclear agency.

The backdrop is volatile. Trump recently claimed Iran is developing missiles that could soon reach the United States — a statement disputed by intelligence assessments. Meanwhile, Iran maintains its nuclear program is civilian and accuses Washington of spreading “big lies.”

The region has seen this brinkmanship before. A previous round of diplomacy collapsed last year before a brief U.S.-Israel military operation targeted Iranian nuclear sites.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk said he was “extremely alarmed” by the risk of escalation and urged restraint.

For now, embassies are preparing, fleets are repositioning, and diplomats are racing against time. Whether the coming days bring compromise or confrontation may determine whether this crisis ends at the negotiating table — or in the skies above the Middle East.

Zero stockpiles. Irreversible fuel. But Trump says he’s “not happy.” Is a last-minute nuclear deal within reach?

Iran has agreed it would “never, ever” possess nuclear material capable of producing a bomb, according to Oman’s foreign minister, in what appears to be a high-stakes diplomatic effort to prevent possible U.S. military action.

Speaking to CBS News after meeting U.S. Vice President JD Vance in Washington, Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi described what he called a significant shift in Iran’s position. Unlike the 2015 nuclear agreement negotiated during the Obama administration, he said, the current proposal would involve “zero stockpiling” of enriched uranium.

“Now we are talking about zero stockpiling,” Albusaidi said, adding that any existing enriched uranium would be diluted “to the lowest level possible” and converted into nuclear fuel in a manner that would be “irreversible.”

If implemented, such a measure would go beyond earlier frameworks by permanently neutralizing Iran’s accumulated material rather than simply limiting enrichment levels.

Albusaidi expressed confidence that a “peace deal is within our reach,” while urging President Donald Trump to allow diplomacy additional time.

But Trump signaled frustration with the pace and substance of talks. “I am not happy with the negotiation,” he said bluntly. “I say no enrichment.”

The dispute over enrichment lies at the heart of the standoff. Iran maintains it has the sovereign right to enrich uranium for civilian energy purposes. Washington insists that even low-level enrichment leaves open a pathway to weapons capability.

The diplomatic push comes amid a significant U.S. military buildup in the Middle East and repeated warnings from Trump that force remains an option if negotiations collapse.

Whether Iran’s reported commitment to eliminate stockpiles satisfies Washington’s demand for “no enrichment” remains unclear. The gap between zero stockpiling and zero enrichment could determine whether the crisis moves toward de-escalation — or confrontation.

Evacuation alerts from Beijing. U.S. carriers moving in. Are major powers bracing for a wider conflict?

China has urged its citizens to evacuate Iran “as soon as possible,” warning of sharply rising security risks across the Middle East as tensions between Washington and Tehran escalate.

In a statement released Friday, China’s Foreign Ministry advised nationals currently in Iran to “strengthen safety precautions and evacuate as soon as possible.” It also recommended that Chinese citizens avoid traveling to Iran for the time being.

The advisory comes as the United States authorized the departure of non-emergency embassy staff from Israel and moved additional military assets into the region. The USS Gerald R. Ford, the world’s largest aircraft carrier, is en route to waters near Israel, joining a significant American naval presence.

Beijing said its embassies and consulates in Iran and neighboring countries would provide “necessary assistance” to citizens seeking to leave via commercial flights or overland routes.

In Israel, China’s embassy urged nationals to remain highly vigilant, minimize travel, and familiarize themselves with nearby bomb shelters and evacuation routes. State broadcaster CCTV reported that Chinese citizens were advised to avoid going out unless necessary.

The warnings follow Oman-mediated nuclear talks between Iran and the United States, widely viewed as a last attempt to avert military confrontation. While diplomats signaled some progress, Iranian officials cautioned Washington against what they described as “excessive demands.”

The growing military build-up, evacuation notices and diplomatic uncertainty have fueled concerns of a broader regional escalation.

For China — which maintains economic and energy ties with Iran while also engaging closely with Gulf states and Israel — the move reflects a careful balancing act: safeguard its citizens while navigating a volatile geopolitical moment.

As embassies activate contingency plans and warships reposition across the Mediterranean, governments appear to be preparing for scenarios they still publicly hope to avoid.

Trump says Iran’s missiles could soon hit America. U.S. intelligence reportedly says — not so fast.

U.S. intelligence assessments do not support President Donald Trump’s recent claim that Iran is on the verge of deploying a missile capable of striking the United States, according to three sources familiar with classified briefings.

During his State of the Union address, Trump warned that Tehran was “working on missiles that will soon reach the United States of America,” framing the threat as part of his broader justification for potential military action.

But intelligence officials say there has been no new evidence to back that assertion.

Two sources told reporters that the most recent unclassified 2025 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment remains unchanged. That report concluded Iran could potentially develop a “militarily viable intercontinental ballistic missile” by 2035 — and only if it chose to pursue that capability using its satellite launch vehicle technology.

The continental United States lies more than 6,000 miles from Iran, well beyond the range of Tehran’s current short- and medium-range missile arsenal.

While Iran has advanced its missile program and demonstrated the ability to strike regional targets and U.S. bases in the Middle East, U.S. intelligence agencies have not publicly indicated that Tehran is close to fielding an operational ICBM capable of reaching North America.

The White House declined to comment on the discrepancy.

The debate comes at a sensitive moment. The United States has increased military deployments in the Middle East, and diplomatic negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program are described by officials as reaching a critical phase.

Trump has repeatedly said he will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon and has signaled he is prepared to use force if talks collapse. Intelligence agencies, however, have assessed that while Iran has positioned itself to potentially produce a nuclear device, it has not restarted a formal weapons program.

The gap between political rhetoric and intelligence assessments now raises a familiar question in Washington: how much of the case for escalation rests on facts — and how much on strategic messaging.

Officials quietly floating a strategy: let Israel fire first — then the U.S. follow. What’s behind the calculus?

Senior advisers to President Donald Trump would reportedly prefer Israel to launch a strike on Iran before the United States does, believing that an initial Israeli attack could bolster domestic support for subsequent American military action, according to a Politico report.

Sources familiar with private discussions say some in Trump’s inner circle think a unilateral Israeli strike — followed by Iranian retaliation — would make it politically easier for the U.S. to justify its own response. The officials were granted anonymity to discuss sensitive deliberations.

The reported strategy comes as the U.S. and Iran prepare for another round of nuclear talks in Geneva, seen as a last chance for diplomacy. Washington has amassed warships and aircraft in the Middle East to press Tehran to agree to tighter limits on its nuclear and missile programs.

While the administration is publicly emphasizing negotiation, insiders say options on the table range from limited strikes designed to pressure Iran into concessions to broader operations targeting nuclear and missile infrastructure. A joint U.S.–Israel operation remains a possibility according to the same sources.

White House spokesperson Anna Kelly declined to comment on internal deliberations, saying only that “only President Trump knows what he may or may not do.”

The discussions reflect high-stakes geopolitics and political considerations ahead of possible escalation — raising questions about how U.S. policy might unfold if diplomacy collapses.