By Anietie anii-bassey
Semiofficial outlets in Iran published detailed maritime charts on Thursday indicating that the country’s powerful paramilitary arm, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, may have deployed sea mines in the strategically critical Strait of Hormuz during the recent conflict.
The release appears calibrated to send a warning to Washington and its allies as uncertainty deepens over a fragile, days-old ceasefire and ahead of anticipated diplomatic talks in Pakistan.
The charts, disseminated by the Iranian Students’ News Agency and Tasnim News Agency, outlined what was labeled in Farsi as a “danger zone” overlaying the Traffic Separation Scheme—the narrow shipping corridor that guides vessels through one of the world’s most vital energy transit routes.
Historically, roughly one-fifth of globally traded oil and natural gas has passed through this narrow waterway, making any disruption there a matter of immediate international concern.
According to the graphics, vessels were encouraged to divert northward, closer to Iranian territorial waters near Larak Island. That adjustment aligns with maritime tracking observations during the height of hostilities, when several ships appeared to alter course to avoid perceived threats in the central channel.
The timeline included in the charts spanned from late February through April 9, though it remains unclear whether any mines have since been removed or if the hazard persists. The ambiguity alone has been enough to unsettle global markets.
Oil prices climbed sharply on renewed concerns about supply disruptions, with Brent crude rising nearly 3% to trade above $97 per barrel, while U.S. benchmark crude posted even stronger gains. Equity markets across Asia fell amid investor skepticism that the ceasefire would hold.
Shipping activity through the strait has also been subdued. Data from maritime analytics firm Kpler showed only a handful of vessels transiting the passage on the first full day of the truce. Analysts caution that the figure likely underrepresents actual traffic, as so-called “dark fleet” tankers—often used to transport sanctioned Iranian oil—frequently disable tracking systems to avoid detection.
In Washington, Donald Trump signaled a hardline stance, announcing that U.S. naval and military deployments in the region would remain in place until a more comprehensive agreement is secured and fully implemented.
Writing on his social media platform, he warned that any breach of the ceasefire could trigger a far more severe military response, while reiterating that Iran would not be permitted to develop nuclear weapons and that maritime navigation through the strait would remain protected.
Despite both Washington and Tehran publicly framing the ceasefire as a success, the situation on the ground tells a more volatile story. Fresh waves of drone and missile strikes have been reported across Iran and parts of the Gulf, even after the agreement was declared. Meanwhile, Benjamin Netanyahu ordered intensified military operations against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, including strikes in densely populated areas of Beirut that resulted in heavy casualties.
The escalation has cast doubt on the durability of the truce. U.S. Vice President JD Vance described the agreement as inherently fragile, a view echoed by analysts and officials on multiple sides. Iranian parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf openly criticized the continuation of hostilities, arguing that recent developments—including Israeli strikes and alleged airspace violations—contradict key conditions Tehran had set for halting the conflict.
Iran’s top diplomat, Abbas Araghchi, insisted that the ceasefire framework was meant to extend beyond Iran itself and include an end to fighting involving its regional allies. However, both Israeli and U.S. officials have rejected that interpretation, maintaining that operations in Lebanon fall outside the scope of the agreement.
Even the role of Pakistan, which has been acting as a mediator, has become a point of contention. While Pakistani leadership initially suggested the ceasefire would apply broadly across regional theaters, conflicting interpretations have since emerged, further complicating diplomatic efforts.
Analysts warn that the deal is teetering on the edge. The Soufan Center noted that the scale and intensity of recent Israeli strikes risk undermining already tenuous trust between the parties. The group suggested the attacks could be aimed at weakening ties between Iran and its allied militias while also signaling dissatisfaction with being excluded from key elements of the ceasefire negotiations.
Against this backdrop, Iran is moving forward with planned talks. Its delegation is expected to arrive in Islamabad for negotiations with U.S. counterparts, according to Iran’s ambassador to Pakistan, Reza Amiri Moghadam. He indicated that discussions would be guided by a set of ten proposals put forward by Tehran, including demands related to uranium enrichment rights and continued control over strategic waterways.
Those conditions have already been dismissed by the White House as unacceptable, underscoring the steep challenges facing negotiators. Still, the decision to proceed with talks suggests that both sides, despite deep mistrust and escalating tensions, remain open—at least for now—to pursuing a diplomatic path forward.
Original article
Comments