- Iran has attacked over 25 commercial vessels, seized two, and effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz — mirroring its 1980s Tanker War tactics but now augmented by a large arsenal of attack drones that serve as a significant force multiplier.
- In the original Tanker War, the U.S. deployed roughly 30 of its ~600 warships in a formal convoy escort operation; today the Navy is half the size and has no frigates, and CENTCOM is running a blockade from outside the strait rather than escorting ships through it.
- Iran’s strategic goal has shifted: in the 1980s it sought to drive up oil prices without triggering U.S. intervention; today its hard-line leadership is trying to choke regional oil exports to damage the global economy while fighting for regime survival.
- The 1987-88 precedent ended when U.S. forces destroyed Iranian offshore oil platforms used as command centers — after which Iran backed off; analysts debate whether a similar strike package could produce the same result today given Iran’s modern drone capabilities.
What Happened?
Four decades after the Tanker War, Iran is asserting dominance over the Strait of Hormuz using a recognizable playbook: mines, missiles, and speedboats. But the 2026 version comes with a significant upgrade — a large drone arsenal that allows Tehran to target commercial vessels and warships at range in ways that are difficult and costly to counter. The U.S., which in 1987 deployed around 30 warships in a formal convoy escort operation (Operation Earnest Will), now has a Navy roughly half that size with no frigates and is running a blockade from the Gulf of Oman rather than physically escorting ships through the strait. Trump’s Project Freedom — a coordination cell sharing mine locations and route guidance — was intended as a middle path, but Iran attacked U.S. Navy vessels within hours of its launch Monday.
Why It Matters?
The Tanker War precedent is instructive but imperfect. Then, Iran was a young revolutionary regime trying to pressure Iraq without triggering full U.S. involvement; now, Iran’s leadership is fighting for survival and is backed by Russia and China with modern weapons. The 1988 turning point came when the USS Samuel B. Roberts hit an Iranian mine, prompting Operation Praying Mantis — a rapid series of U.S. strikes that destroyed Iranian ships and oil platforms used as command centers, after which Iran stood down. Whether a similar forceful response would produce the same deterrent effect today — against a regime armed with far more sophisticated drones and missiles — is the central military question facing the Trump administration.
What’s Next?
The historical parallel that matters most right now is Operation Praying Mantis: targeted, proportionate, and focused on Iran’s command-and-control infrastructure rather than its nuclear sites. If Trump authorizes a military response to Monday’s attacks, expect analysts to frame it through that lens. The alternative — absorbing the attacks diplomatically — risks signaling that Iran can continue harassing the strait without consequence, potentially hardening Tehran’s negotiating position. Watch Tuesday’s Pentagon briefing for whether the administration frames Monday as a one-off provocation or a strategic inflection point requiring a new military posture.
Source: The Wall Street Journal
