CENTCOM Reports Biggest Wave of Tanker Strikes Since War Began as Iran Claims It Hit 10 Ships and a U.S. Base; Vance Says He Is "Extremely Skeptical" of Iran's Wedding-Strike Account

Five Tankers, Ten Ships, and One Number Everyone Agrees On

On September 9, 2026, the U.S. Central Command said it destroyed five Iranian tankers. Iran's Revolutionary Guard said it hit 10 ships near the Strait of Hormuz and a U.S. base in Jordan ^[3][4]. Reuters called it the biggest wave of attacks on shipping since the war began seven months ago ^[5]. Brent crude, the global oil benchmark, broke $100 a barrel for the first time since July ^[5].

That single price is the one fact both sides can agree matters. Everything else about September 9 is contested — which ships were hit, how many, and by whom first. The UK Maritime Trade Operations authority, a monitoring group that tracks Gulf shipping, said several merchant vessels in the northern Gulf and Gulf of Oman were hit by disabling fire. It said it could not confirm casualties or environmental damage ^[5].

Four days earlier, on September 5, CENTCOM said its aircraft and drones struck three Iranian tankers — the Downy off Kharg Island, the Stark 1 near Jask, and an unladen vessel in the Gulf of Oman. It said the strikes came after Iran's Revolutionary Guard fired ballistic missiles at a U.S. aircraft carrier and a destroyer. The missiles missed, and no American sailors were hurt ^[1][2].

So the pattern by September 9 was already set: Iran claims an attack, the U.S. claims a response, and the scale keeps climbing. What neither side disputes is that the fighting itself has been running, on and off, since February 28, when U.S. and Israeli forces struck Iran in what the Pentagon called Operation Epic Fury ^[16][22].

A Wedding, Four Days Earlier, That Neither Side's Evidence Agrees On

Before the tanker exchange grew to its biggest size yet, a smaller and far more personal story was still unresolved. On September 1, a U.S. munition hit a home in Kuhestak, in Iran's Sirik County, during a wedding ^[8][10]. Iran's Hormozgan provincial government said the strike killed five people. Four died at the scene. A 22-year-old woman died later in the hospital. The dead included a four-year-old boy. More than 60 people were hurt ^[8].

Two days later, on September 3, Vice President JD Vance told reporters the U.S. is investigating the strike. But he said he's "extremely skeptical" of accounts from Iranian state media, and he wouldn't call the broader conflict a war ^[6][7]. He also said, "I don't think that we have any information one way or the other" ^[6]. Critics seized on a separate line from Vance, that such things "happen" in war, as evidence of callousness toward the dead ^[19].

The evidence pointing toward a U.S. strike isn't just Iranian, though. Reuters showed video and photos from the scene to four independent weapons experts. They said the damage looked like a direct hit, not debris that ricocheted from some other target nearby ^[9]. Analysts told Reuters and the New York Times that fragments visible in Iranian media matched U.S.-made munitions, possibly a variant of the AGM-84K SLAM-ER cruise missile ^[9]. The U.S. hasn't confirmed that finding, and as of this writing it hasn't released its own investigation.

That gap is the real tension here. Vance's skepticism was aimed at Iranian state media specifically, and Iran's state broadcaster does have a track record of reporting IRGC claims as settled fact without independent verification ^[11][12]. But the strongest evidence undercutting that skepticism didn't come from Iranian state media at all. It came from outside weapons experts working from open video and photos ^[9].

Why a Tanker Is a Target and Not Just Cargo

To understand why the U.S. is sinking oil tankers instead of, say, warships, it helps to know what the tankers are actually funding. Iran's government runs largely on oil revenue, much of it moved through what's known as a shadow fleet — older tankers that disguise their cargo's origin to dodge sanctions. The U.S. argues that money funds the Revolutionary Guard and the armed groups it backs across the region, which is why CENTCOM treats the tankers as military targets rather than civilian cargo ^[1][3].

Iran sees it differently: these are its ships, in or near its own waters, and a state has a right to defend its shipping and its coastline ^[12]. The IRGC has called U.S. naval movement through the strait a violation of a "protected area" and has warned that further incursions will draw a "decisive attack" ^[12].

Geography is what makes this fight so consequential. The Strait of Hormuz is narrow and shallow, and roughly a fifth of the world's seaborne oil passes through it. Iran doesn't need to sink many ships to make insurance costs spike for everyone who uses the strait. The U.S., in turn, doesn't need to occupy anything to keep traffic moving — it just needs escorts and a credible threat of retaliation ^[3][15]. That asymmetry, more than ideology, shapes how both sides fight.

CENTCOM says it has redirected more than 100 commercial vessels since April, disabled four, and let 26 humanitarian aid ships through — describing the operation as an escort mission, not a blockade ^[15]. More than 15,000 U.S. personnel and over 200 aircraft and warships are tied up in the maritime campaign ^[15].

The Word "War" Has a Price Tag Attached

Vance's refusal to call this a war isn't just phrasing. It carries legal weight. Under the Constitution, Congress declares war, and the War Powers Resolution requires a president to end hostilities Congress hasn't authorized ^[16]. If the administration avoids the word "war," it avoids some of that legal obligation.

Congress has tried, and mostly failed, to force the issue. On June 23, the Senate passed a non-binding war powers resolution, 50 to 48. Four Republicans — Cassidy, Murkowski, Collins and Paul — joined Democrats ^[17][26]. But the very next day, Paul and Cassidy reversed their votes, and the Senate voted to block the resolution it had just passed ^[17][26]. The House later returned from a five-week August recess in early September and left without voting on the conflict at all ^[18].

Critics of the war argue that reversal shows how much political pressure the White House can apply, not that their underlying argument was wrong ^[17]. Their broader point is about accountability: if U.S. investigations move slower than outside journalists with video and missile fragments, the public learns what happened from Reuters before it learns from its own government ^[9][19].

The administration's response is that these are limited, reciprocal strikes, not a ground war or occupation, and that calling it something bigger would be inaccurate ^[6]. Neither branch of Congress has forced a real resolution of the disagreement. The war continues in that unresolved space.

Caught Between Two Governments That Both Claim the Law Is on Their Side

Merchant crews are paying for a fight that isn't theirs. Two Filipino sailors died aboard the tanker Sidr ^[14]. The New Andros, carrying 2 million barrels of fuel oil, caught fire in Iraqi waters after a drone strike — a serious spill risk in a shallow, crowded sea ^[5]. Gulf shipowners aren't taking a side in the underlying dispute. Their argument is that neither government's legal theory protects a deckhand caught in the middle ^[3][5].

Inside Iran, the toll is far larger than the tanker war alone. Iranian authorities report at least 2,076 people killed and more than 26,500 wounded since February 28 ^[18]. On the U.S. side, 13 service members have been killed and more than 200 wounded ^[15][18]. Those numbers are cumulative across the full campaign, which was interrupted by a ceasefire that held from April 8 to July 8 before collapsing over disputes about Hormuz shipping rules ^[16][22][27]. The fighting hasn't run continuously — but the casualty counts don't reset when a ceasefire ends.

How the Story Changes Depending on Who's Telling It

Coverage of the same week split sharply by outlet. Fox News led with Trump "sinking 3 oil tankers" in response to Iranian missile fire, pairing the strikes with rising U.S. gas and diesel prices — the domestic cost of the war, not its civilian toll ^[13][14]. CBS News put Vance's "extremely skeptical" quote next to his refusal to call the conflict a war in the same headline, a pairing that reads as a pattern even though each line was accurately quoted ^[6].

Iran's state broadcaster, Press TV, reported IRGC claims — 2 U.S. vessels, 8 tankers, 10 ships — as accomplished fact, with no independent confirmation and no mention that the missiles aimed at U.S. warships had missed ^[11]. Al Jazeera covered both sides' claims but ran a separate piece framing Vance's "things happen" comment as part of a recurring U.S. pattern on civilian casualties, without an equivalent pattern story on Iranian strikes hitting merchant crews ^[3][10]. Reuters, drawing on CENTCOM releases and independent weapons analysis, stuck closest to attributing each claim to whoever made it and flagging what it couldn't verify ^[5][9].

The U.S. investigation into the Sirik wedding strike hasn't been released. Until it is, the strongest evidence on what happened there will keep coming from outside forensic analysis, not from either government's own account.