Ghalibaf threatens US oil interests after Hegseth’s warning on Iranian tankers

Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf has drawn a line in the sand, or more accurately, in the water. Following US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s threat to destroy Iranian oil tankers if they target US Navy vessels, Ghalibaf warned that Iran would strike back at regional energy infrastructure and choke off oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz.

The escalation puts roughly 20% of global oil and liquefied natural gas flow at risk. That’s the share of worldwide energy shipments that passes through the narrow waterway separating Iran from the Arabian Peninsula.

The “all or none” doctrine

Ghalibaf’s rhetoric on September 3 was blunt, even by the standards of Iranian political theater. He framed Gulf oil exports in binary terms: “Either all or none.” The implication was clear. If Iran’s energy exports are targeted, neighboring Gulf states’ oil shipments won’t flow either.

The warning came days before US forces struck three Iranian tankers between September 5 and 6, hitting vessels identified as the M/T Downy, M/T Stark 1, and M/T Kylo. The strikes were reportedly carried out after alleged missile attacks on US Navy ships, marking a significant escalation in direct military engagement between the two countries.

Ghalibaf singled out Kharg Island, Iran’s primary oil export terminal, as a potential flashpoint. He warned that any attack on such critical energy infrastructure could drag the US into what he called an “endless quagmire,” with broad retaliatory consequences rippling across the region.

How we got here

The current standoff didn’t materialize overnight. The conflict escalated formally on February 28, 2026, when the US imposed naval blockades and began conducting direct strikes on Iranian assets. Washington’s campaign, operating under the banner of “Operation Economic Outcast,” layered aggressive economic sanctions on top of military pressure.

Iran’s position has been consistent throughout: US forces need to withdraw from the region before normal transit through the Strait of Hormuz can resume. That demand functions as both a diplomatic negotiating position and a veiled threat.

Ghalibaf has been particularly vocal in framing Iran’s leverage over regional oil flows as its strongest card. He has repeatedly criticized US leadership for underestimating Iran’s capacity to impose costs, pointing to the country’s geographic position straddling one of the world’s most critical maritime corridors.

Iran sits on the northern shore of the Strait of Hormuz, which at its narrowest point is about 21 miles wide. The shipping lanes used by tankers are even tighter.

What this means for energy markets

Energy traders face a particularly tricky environment. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, and Iraq all rely heavily on Strait of Hormuz transit for their crude shipments. An Iranian campaign to disrupt that flow would affect not just those countries but every economy dependent on Middle Eastern oil.

Even a partial disruption, such as insurance companies refusing to cover tanker transit, can functionally reduce supply without a single missile being fired.

Ghalibaf’s framing of the conflict as a zero-sum game over Gulf energy exports suggests Tehran is prepared to absorb significant economic pain if it means imposing comparable or greater costs on its adversaries.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.