The United States launched another series of strikes in Iran as Washington and Tehran issued conflicting claims over control and navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, a route that carried roughly one-fifth of global oil supplies before the war.
US Central Command said the Sunday operation began at 5 p.m. Eastern Time and ended later that night. It described the strikes as an effort to reduce Iran's ability to attack merchant shipping. Dozens of targets were hit, according to the command, following a larger Saturday operation that it said struck 140 military sites, including missile, drone, naval and coastal-surveillance facilities.
Saturday's action followed an Iranian attack on the Cyprus-flagged container ship *GFS Galaxy*. Central Command said one crew member was missing and the vessel could no longer sail after fire and engine-room damage. Iran's Revolutionary Guard said it had fired warning shots at a ship that disabled tracking equipment and used an unauthorised route. The two descriptions did not fully agree on the incident.
The Guard declared that no vessel could pass and linked reopening to an end to US involvement in the region. Central Command rejected that assertion, describing Hormuz as an international waterway and reporting that traffic was moving. A maritime information centre separately advised that Iran's designated route in the western part of the strait remained open, adding another distinction between legal status, declared closure and actual ship movements.
Iran said it retaliated against US-linked facilities across the region. The Guard claimed attacks in Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman and Jordan, including radar, fuel, ammunition and air-base targets. Those claims were not independently confirmed in the supplied report.
The escalation came after a fragile interim arrangement had already been strained by attacks on three ships and repeated US responses. Oman, which shares the strait with Iran, continued technical and political contacts with Tehran. Iran sought control over routes and fees, while the United States insisted that passage could not be subject to unilateral Iranian authority.
The dispute carried immediate risks for crews and energy markets. A formal declaration can deter operators even when some vessels continue moving, while attacks, mines or warning fire can reduce traffic without physically sealing the channel. That made the competing statements only part of the practical picture.
Neither side's operational claims established complete control. The United States demonstrated an ability to strike Iranian coastal capabilities, and Iran demonstrated a capacity to threaten ships and bases. Commercial operators still had to judge whether legal assurances and military protection outweighed the danger of becoming the next target.
