Connect with us

World

The $2.8 Billion Hole in U.S. Sanctions on Iran

Published

on

The .8 Billion Hole in U.S. Sanctions on Iran

Tugboats maneuvered the tanker Eternal Fortune into a berth at the Kharg Island oil terminal on Oct. 28, 2023, while it was falsely broadcasting its location as in the Gulf of Oman. The vessel was insured by an American company.

Maxar Technologies

Tug boats maneuvered the tanker Eternal Fortune into a berth at the Kharg Island oil terminal on Oct. 28, 2023 while it was falsely broadcasting its location as in the Gulf of Oman. The vessel was insured by an American company.

Maxar Technologies

Advertisement

For months, as Iran-backed groups attacked U.S. forces and allies in the Middle East, the Biden administration hailed its efforts to restrict Iran’s oil revenue — and the country’s ability to fund proxy militias. The Treasury secretary told Congress that her teams were “doing everything that they possibly can to crack down” on illegal shipments, and a senior White House adviser said that “extreme sanctions” had effectively stalled Iran’s energy sector.

But the sanctions failed to stop oil worth billions of dollars from leaving Iran over the past year, a New York Times investigation has found, revealing a significant gap in U.S. oversight.

The oil was transported aboard 27 tankers, using liability insurance obtained from an American company. That meant that the U.S. authorities could have disrupted the oil’s transport by advising the insurer, the New York-based American Club, to revoke the coverage, which is often a requirement for tankers to do business.

Instead, the 27 tankers were able to transport shipments across at least 59 trips since 2023, The Times found, with half the vessels carrying oil on multiple journeys.

Advertisement

The Treasury Department did not respond to a question about whether it was aware the ships had transported Iranian oil while insured by the American Club.

The tankers exhibited warning signs that industry experts, and the Treasury, have said collectively warrant greater scrutiny. Among other red flags, the ships are: owned by shell companies, older than average vessels and use a tactic called “spoofing” to hide their true locations.

The Times found 27 ships picking up Iranian oil on at least 59 trips since 2023

Satellite imagery, much of it freely accessible to the public, captured the tankers during their oil transports.

fortune galaxy

Advertisement

Feb. 25, 2023

galaxy star

Mar. 10, 2023

Advertisement

cathay kirin

Mar. 12, 2023

duplic dynamic

Jun. 11, 2023

Advertisement

fortune galaxy

Jun. 24, 2023

fortune galaxy

Advertisement

Jul. 13, 2023

cathay kirin

Aug. 8, 2023

Advertisement

fortune galaxy

Aug. 18, 2023

fortune galaxy

Sept. 4, 2023

Advertisement

galaxy star

Sept. 19, 2023

fortune galaxy

Advertisement

Oct. 4, 2023

eternal fortune

Oct. 29, 2023

Advertisement

eternal success

Nov. 23, 2023

fortune galaxy

Nov. 24, 2023

Advertisement

Sources: Copernicus Sentinel-2, Planet Labs, Maxar Technologies, TankerTrackers.com, Spire Global, MarineTraffic

Satellite images on display represent one of several methods that The Times relied on to locate each tanker.

It is unclear who the U.S. government considers primarily responsible for identifying suspicious tankers. The Treasury is tasked with administering sanctions by investigating and blacklisting individuals or companies participating in illicit activities. But it places some of the burden on insurers to monitor for suspicious behavior through the regular release of advisories and alerts.

Advertisement

To identify the shipments of Iranian oil, The Times built a database of thousands of tankers and their whereabouts using maritime data and satellite imagery. Vessels whose voyage paths showed irregularities were cross-referenced with information provided by Samir Madani, co-founder of TankerTrackers.com, a company that monitors oil shipping.

SynMax and Pole Star, two other companies that monitor shipping, provided additional data.

In late-January, several weeks after the American Club was mentioned at a Congressional hearing titled “Restricting Rogue-State Revenue”, coverage for many of the tankers identified by The Times abruptly ended. The company said that the stoppages were the result of its own internal investigations. Five of the vessels are still insured by the company, according to data listed on its website; the American Club said it is still investigating those ships.

The Times’s findings come as the Biden administration is under increasing scrutiny from lawmakers and advocacy groups for its handling of sanctions on Iran.

“It is very concerning,” said Senator Maggie Hassan, a Democrat of New Hampshire, who has filed a bill to strengthen the enforcement of sanctions on deceptive ships.

Advertisement

“The United States must use every tool at its disposal to identify, stop and sanction these bad actors,” she said. “These new revelations highlight the stakes.”

In response to Times findings, a Treasury spokesperson said in a statement: “Treasury remains focused on targeting Iran’s sources of illicit funding, including exposing evasion networks and disrupting billions of dollars in revenue.”

The spokesperson added that this month the department had taken action against what it called a Hong Kong-based front company, which U.S. officials said had funded Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps.

Kharg Island, pictured in 2017, is one of Iran’s main oil terminals where many of the American Club-insured tankers loaded oil.

Fatemeh Bahrami/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

Advertisement

The insurance provided by companies like the American Club is a key factor in the tankers’ ability to move oil; industry insiders call it a vessel’s “ticket to trade.” Most major ports insist that ships have proof of liability coverage, among other requirements, before they can enter and do business.

The American Club is one of only 12 major insurers of its kind, and the only one based in the United States. Specifically, the company says, its policies cover third parties affected during an accident caused by a ship’s negligence.

Because of these insurers’ importance to shipping, they have been consulted by the U.S. government when developing sanctions on Russian oil sales.

Daniel Tadros, the American Club’s chief operating officer, said his company has one of the most stringent compliance programs in the industry. But he said that the company’s six-person compliance team was overwhelmed each month with hundreds of inquiries about potentially suspicious vessels, and that investigating even a single case takes time.

Advertisement

“It’s impossible for us to know on a daily basis exactly what every ship is doing, where it’s going, what it’s carrying, who its owners are,” Mr. Tadros said. “I would like to think that governments have a lot more capability, manpower, resources to follow that.”

He added that the U.S. government had only recently suggested the use of satellite imagery for maritime-related businesses looking for sanctions evasion. Satellite imagery has been used as a ship-tracking tool in the industry for at least a decade.

Shipowners willing to skirt trade restrictions can make more than their normal commissions. But to maintain business connections with the West, including with insurers, they may resort to using deceptive tactics.

Since the start of 2023, the 27 vessels moved roughly 59 million barrels of oil, according to a Times analysis. The calculation is based on a tanker’s depth in the water before and after the oil was loaded, a measurement used by industry analysts.

There is no official source detailing the amount of oil that leaves Iran. According to estimates from Kpler, a company that monitors global trade, the oil carried by the tankers would amount to roughly 9 percent of Iran’s oil exports over that period.

Advertisement

Iranian oil pickups by American Club-insured tankers since January 2023

Sources: Copernicus Sentinel-2, Planet Labs, Maxar Technologies, Spire Global, MarineTraffic, TankerTrackers.com

Note: Pickups include those made at Iranian ports as well as via transfer at sea from other ships to American Club-insured ships. The map does not represent all oil pickups The Times found.

Many of the tankers ultimately ended up in China, which has tripled its imports of Iranian oil over the past two years.

Advertisement

Some of the shipments continued into the fall, as one Iran-backed group, Hamas, led the Oct. 7 assault on Israel, and other Iran-aligned militants, like the Houthis in Yemen, launched attacks on shipping routes and U.S. forces in the region.

By then, the tankers had transported at least $2.8 billion in crude oil, based on the lowest reported prices of Iranian oil in 2023.

That dollar amount could be higher. The Times found eleven more tankers, anchored off Iranian oil ports last year, that used deceptive practices and carried American Club insurance. Although there is little other reason for the ships to hide their presence, The Times could not verify whether they loaded oil.

Where contact information was available, The Times sought comment from more than 40 entities linked to the tankers involved in moving Iranian oil. None replied.

Some experts expressed doubt that the American Club was doing everything it could to identify deceptive ships.

Advertisement

“Responsible, reputable insurers waste no time in confronting their clients or club members,” Mr. Madani of TankerTrackers.com said.

David Tannenbaum, a former sanctions compliance officer for the Treasury Department who now works as a consultant for a compliance advisory company, said his research showed that the American Club covers a large proportion of deceptive vessels when compared with similar insurers.

“While we’ve seen spoofers infiltrate almost all of the major protection and indemnity clubs, they are definitely a leader,” he said.

Last week, Bloomberg reported that the American Club had insured more ships suspected of violating sanctions than other comparable insurers, according to data from United Against Nuclear Iran, a privately funded group advocating stronger sanctions on Iran.

(Many of the vessels noted by the group were also identified by The Times. Mr. Tadros, the American Club executive, said his company had removed insurance for the claims it could corroborate. He said in some cases United Against Nuclear Iran presented flawed evidence, which The Times also concluded for one of the accused tankers.)

Advertisement

The Times was able to use satellite imagery and information available to the shipping industry, such as signals that ships transmit to report their purported locations, to identify the tankers.

The tankers’ deception mainly involved a practice known as “spoofing” in which vessels broadcast fake route information to hide their true locations. Last August, for example, the tanker Glory broadcast that it was off the coast of the United Arab Emirates when it was really loading oil in Asaluyeh, Iran.

A spoofed location near Dubai obscures an oil pickup over 200 miles away in Iran

Sources: Copernicus Sentinel-2, Spire Global, MarineTraffic, TankerTrackers.com, SynMax

Note: Locations relative to each other are approximate in time.

Advertisement

In some cases, tankers also conducted ship-to-ship transfers, exchanging goods with another vessel at sea. The practice is common, but can be used to conceal a cargo’s origin, especially when used with spoofing. Ship-to-ship transfers near Iran frequently occurred just off the coast, such as when the tanker Shalimar took on oil in October. For each transfer, The Times traced the cargo back to Iranian oil terminals.

A faked location hides a pickup from another vessel at sea

Sources: Copernicus Sentinel-2, Spire Global, MarineTraffic, TankerTrackers.com

Note: Locations relative to each other are approximate in time.

Advertisement

The Times also found some tanker crews altering the physical appearance of their ships. On one spoofing vessel, a red tarp was spread over its green deck in an apparent effort to disguise itself from satellites.

How a spoofing tanker used a tarp to change its appearance

A month after leaving China, the American Club-insured tanker Irises reaches the Gulf of Oman for at least the fourth time in 2023.

Advertisement

Red tarps appear partially covering the deck of the Irises. The ship begins spoofing its location as it approaches the Persian Gulf.

Elsewhere, a ship owned by the National Iranian Tanker Company loads oil from Kharg Island.

The two ships meet in the Persian Gulf, with more red tarp visible on the Irises’ deck. The Iranian ship transfers oil to the Irises.

Advertisement

Sources: Planet Labs, Copernicus Sentinel-2, Spire Global, MarineTraffic, TankerTrackers.com

Even though the tankers used deceptive tactics, their spoofing had identifiable patterns. Many pretended to anchor off Oman or in the Persian Gulf for days, while satellite imagery showed they were not there. Some ships even broadcasted signals showing them on land and moving at high speeds, a physical impossibility.

Several of the tankers had a history of picking up oil in other countries under U.S. sanctions. Before they moved the Iranian oil, a Times analysis found, eight of the tankers spoofed their locations while carrying Venezuelan oil that was subject to sanctions. It’s unclear if they were insured by the American Club at the time.

Advertisement

One of the tankers did carry American Club insurance when The Times found it likely evading Russian sanctions last year.

The American Club’s role in insuring the 27 tankers could put the company in potential violation of sanctions, industry experts said.

Mr. Tadros disagreed. He said the company includes a clause in its contracts, based on Treasury guidance, that nullifies coverage if a ship violates sanctions. He argued this protects the insurer from being complicit in potential violations.

“The American Club takes its obligations seriously and works diligently to comply with sanctions regulations,” Mr. Tadros said.

The Treasury office has publicly enforced sanctions on the American Club only once in the past 20 years. In 2013, the office announced that it found the insurer had processed dozens of claims for ships that violated sanctions on Cuba, Sudan and Iran. Treasury officials calculated the penalty for the apparent violations totaled more than $1.7 million.

Advertisement

Ultimately, the office said the American Club did “not appear to have been willful or reckless” and the case was settled. The company agreed to pay a reduced fine of $348,000.

Sources and Methodology

Times reporters built a database of nearly 20,000 tankers and their owners, operators, managers and insurers by combining information from Equasis; the International Maritime Organization; and Pole Star, a maritime intelligence company. Times reporters cross-referenced this information with the websites of the major insurance companies, which all maintain freely accessible databases of ships they insure.

The publicly available location data of the ships, known as their automatic identification system or AIS, was obtained through MarineTraffic and Spire Global. The platforms show live ship locations around the world and keep records of past voyages.

To detect any irregularities in the AIS paths that may be signs of deceptive practices, The Times used data on spoofing ships provided by TankersTrackers.com, as well as from SynMax, a satellite data analytics company, and Spire Global; and information collected through The Times’s own reporting. Reporters then crossed-referenced the sources with satellite imagery.

Advertisement

The satellite imagery used to search for the ships’ reported and actual locations came from Planet Labs, Maxar Technologies and the European Space Agency’s Copernicus Sentinel-2 satellite, which is publicly available. A large share of the spoofing tankers had already been spotted in Iranian waters by TankerTrackers.com.

To estimate the amount of oil carried in each shipment, The Times looked at how deep a ship’s hull dropped below the waterline after taking cargo. This number, known as draught depth, is publicly reported by each ship. The Times verified the changes in draught depth with Samir Madani at TankerTrackers.com.

The barrels’ worth was determined by taking the lowest reported price of Iranian crude oil in 2023, which stood at approximately $70 per barrel, and applying a commonly cited discount price of $10 per barrel for Chinese buyers. China was the most common destination for crude oil tracked by The Times. The Times used data obtained from Kpler, a company that monitors global trade, to estimate Iran’s total oil exports.

These are the 27 ships that The Times identified as using deceptive tactics to transport Iranian oil products. The ships are listed with their names, which can change frequently, and their International Maritime Organization numbers, which are permanent identification numbers.

I.M.O.

Advertisement
Ship Name
9208473 azza
9294240 cathay kirin
9247780 datura
9337195 duplic dynamic
9230907 eternal fortune
9307633 eternal success
9257010 fortune galaxy
9247792 gabrielle
9237632 galaxy star
9247077 glory
9237618 gulf knot
9254082 irises
9315654 kapok

I.M.O.

Ship Name
9174397 lisa
9245794 marianne
9133082 muland
9232931 narcissus
9408798 penna
9174220 selene
9296810 serendi
9295593 shalimar
9226011 sincere 02
9263693 sino star
9252436 starry
9224570 tabark
9245782 toyomi
9007386 venus 7

World

How Cheap Drones Are Changing Wars Like the Ones in Ukraine and Iran

Published

on

How Cheap Drones Are Changing Wars Like the Ones in Ukraine and Iran

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of an Iranian Shahed-136 drone, a device with two triangle-shaped wings attached to a central fuselage. It has an engine the size of a small motorcycle’s and carries 110 pounds of explosives.

Engine the size of a small motorcycle’s

Advertisement

Carries 110 pounds of explosives

One of the biggest takeaways of the war with Iran is that it has proven itself to be a surprisingly capable adversary against the United States. In addition to its willingness to go on the offensive, Iran has forced the U.S. and its regional allies to confront the rise of cheap drones on the battlefield.

Advertisement

Iranian drones, made with commercial-grade technology, cost roughly $35,000 to produce. That is a fraction of the cost of the high-tech military interceptors sometimes used to shoot them down.

Note: Estimated price of munitions per unit. In practice, multiple interceptors are fired when targeting a drone. For instance, with the $80 bullet fired by the Centurion Counter-Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar (C-RAM), 75 rounds are fired in a second. Sources: Department of Defense, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Open Source Munitions Portal, SRC Inc, U.S. Army and U.S. Navy.

Advertisement

Cheap drones changed the war in Ukraine, and they have enabled Iranians to exploit a gap in American defense investments, which have historically prioritized accurate but expensive solutions.

Countering drones has been a major priority for the Pentagon for years, according to Michael C. Horowitz, who was a Pentagon official in the Biden administration. “But there has not been the impetus to scale a solution,” he said.

Advertisement

In just the first six days, the U.S. spent $11.3 billion on the war with Iran. The White House and Pentagon have not provided updated estimates, but the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, estimated in early April that the U.S. had spent approximately between $25 and $35 billion on the war, with interceptors driving much of the cost. Many missile defense experts also fear interceptor stockpiles are now running dangerously low.

Here is a breakdown of some of the ways the U.S. and its allies have countered Iran’s drones, and why it can be so costly.

Air-based strikes

Advertisement

In an ideal scenario, an early warning aircraft spots a drone when it is still several hundred miles out from a target, and a fighter jet, like an F-16, is dispatched from a military base. The F-16 can then use Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) II rockets to shoot a drone from about six miles away.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of an F-16 fighter jet firing an APKWS II rocket from under one wing. Two to three rockets are fired per drone, as per air defense protocol. Two APKWS II rockets and an hour of F-16 flight cost approximately $65,000, a little less than twice that of the Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Two to three interceptors fired per drone

Advertisement

Source: U.S. Navy, Department of Defense

Advertisement

These types of defensive air patrols are cost-efficient, but haven’t always been available because of the vast scope of the conflict. Iran has also targeted early warning aircraft that the U.S. needs to detect a drone from that distance, according to NBC News.

The other option for detecting and shooting down drones is a variety of different ground-based detection systems, but these systems are all at a disadvantage, as their ability to spot low-flying drones is limited by the curvature of the earth.

Advertisement

Anti-drone defense systems

One ground-based defense system the U.S. and its allies have built specifically to counter drones at a shorter range is the Coyote. It can intercept drones up to around nine miles away.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of a Coyote Block 2 interceptor, which looks like a three-foot tube with small rockets at one end. Two Coyotes cost approximately $253,000 or about seven times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Advertisement

The Coyote is significantly cheaper than many of the other ground-based defense systems available to the U.S. and its allies and historically effective at defending important assets. But despite being both effective and cost-efficient, relatively few Coyotes have been procured by the U.S. military in recent years.

When Iran-backed militias launched attacks on U.S. ground troops in the region in 2023 and 2024, there were so few Coyotes available that troops had to shuffle the systems between eight different bases in the region almost daily, according to a report from the Center for a New American Security, a Washington think tank.

Advertisement

Ship-based anti-missile defenses

Many of the longer-range ground-based defense systems the U.S. and its allies can use to combat drones are more expensive, as they are designed to shoot down aircraft and ballistic missiles, not drones. A Navy destroyer’s built-in radar system, for instance, can detect drones from 30 miles away and shoot it down with Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) interceptors. As in the air-based strikes, military protocol stipulates that at least two missiles be fired.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of the deck of a Navy destroyer firing an SM-2 missile from a built-in launcher, which looks like a 15-foot missile launching from a grid of openings on the ship’s surface. Two SM-2 missiles cost approximately $4.2 million, about 120 times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Advertisement

This misalignment between America’s defense systems and current warfighting tactics started after the Cold War, when the anticipated threats were fewer, faster, higher-end projectiles, not mass drone raids.

Iran often launches multiple Shahed-136 drones at a time, given their low price tag. The drones are also programmed with a destination before launch and can travel roughly 1,500 miles, putting targets all across the Middle East within reach.

Advertisement

“This category of lower-cost precision strike just didn’t exist at the time that most American air defenses were developed,” said Mr. Horowitz.

Ground-based anti-missile defenses

The Army’s standard air-defense system is the Patriot. Typically stationed at a military base, it can shoot down a drone from up to around 27 miles away with PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement interceptors. Military protocol stipulates that at least two missiles be fired.

Advertisement

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of a Patriot launcher loaded with 17-foot PAC-3 MSE missiles, which looks like a tilted shipping container with scaffolding. Two PAC-3 MSE missiles cost approximately $8 million, about 220 times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.

Patriot missile defense system

Advertisement

Advertisement

Air defense training teaches service members to prioritize using longer-range defense systems first to “get as many bites at the apple as you can,” but those are the most expensive, said Stacie Pettyjohn, a senior fellow and director of the defense program at the Center for a New American Security.

But a costly defense can still make economic sense to protect a valuable target, especially those that are difficult to repair or replace, such as the nearly $1.1 billion radar at a military base in Qatar and the $500 million air defense sensor at a base in Jordan that were damaged early in the conflict.

Advertisement

Ground-based guns

Finally, there is what one might call a last resort: a ground-based gun. When a drone is about a mile away or less than a minute from hitting its target, something like the Centurion C-RAM can begin rapidly firing to take down the drone.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of a Centurion C-RAM, which looks like a gun mounted to a rotating, cylindrical stand. The gun fires 75 rounds of ammunition per second. Five seconds of firing the gun costs $30,000, slightly less than a single Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Centurion Counter-Rocket, Artillery and Mortar

Fires 375 rounds of ammunition in 5 seconds

Advertisement

Advertisement

Even though it is fairly cost-effective, the Centurion C-RAM is not the best option because it has such a short range.

Interceptor drones

Advertisement

There’s also what one might call the future of fighting drones: A.I.-powered interceptor drones. Interceptor drones like the Merops Surveyor can theoretically hunt and take down enemy projectiles from a short range.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of a Surveyor drone, which looks like a three-foot tube with wings and a tail. The Merops drone costs approximately $30,000, a little less than a single Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Merops system: Surveyor drone

Advertisement

Eric Schmidt, the former Google chief executive, founded a company to develop the Merops counter-drone system in conjunction with Ukrainian fighters, who have already been combatting Iranian drones in the war with Russia for years.

The U.S. sent thousands of Merops units to the Middle East after the conflict began, but it is unclear whether they have been deployed. The military set up training on the system in the middle of the war, as reported by Business Insider.

Advertisement

Other attempts to lower the cost-per-shot ratio of taking out a drone have failed.

The Pentagon invested over a billion dollars in fiscal year 2024 researching directed energy weapons, or lasers, that would cost only $3 per shot and have a range of 12 miles. Those systems have yet to be used in the field.

Advertisement

Despite the cost imbalance, the real fear for many in the defense community is the depleted stockpile of munitions.

“What scares me is that we will run out of these things,” said Tom Karako, the director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “Not that we can’t afford them, but that we’ll run out before we can replace them.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

Moscow-born gunman dead after Kyiv shooting rampage leaves at least 6 dead, 14 wounded: Zelenskyy

Published

on

Moscow-born gunman dead after Kyiv shooting rampage leaves at least 6 dead, 14 wounded: Zelenskyy

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A Russian gunman was killed by special forces Saturday in Ukraine after opening fire at a supermarket in Kyiv, killing six people and wounding 14 others — including a 12‑year‑old boy.

The 58-year-old shooter long resided in the Donetsk region and was born in Moscow, according to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko.

He took at least four hostages, killed one of them, and fatally shot four others on the street, Zelenskyy said. Another woman died at a hospital from her injuries.

Graphic video captured by witnesses showed the gunman shooting at a victim within close range on the street. Other bodies were seen lying on the pavement and in courtyards.

Advertisement

The gunman was seen walking with a weapon on the street. (Obtained by Will Stewart)

MANHUNT UNDERWAY AFTER GUNMEN STORM CHICK-FIL-A LEAVING 1 DEAD

Ukranian special forces stormed the convenience store after 40 minutes of failed negotiations, according to Klymenko.

At least fourteen people were wounded in the attack, though officials cautioned the number may rise as people continue to seek medical assistance.

Among the injured is a 12‑year‑old boy and a supermarket security guard, according to Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko.

Advertisement

The gunman was pictured dead in the convenience store. (Obtained by Will Stewart)

NINE DEAD, 13 WOUNDED IN SECOND TURKISH MASS SHOOTING IN TWO DAYS

Zelenskyy said the shooter also set fire to an apartment prior to the attack, though it is unclear if any injuries resulted from the arson.

“My condolences to the families and loved ones of the victims,” Zelenskyy wrote in an X post. “…We wish all the wounded a swift recovery.”

The gunman had previously been prosecuted for criminal offenses, but held a valid weapons permit, according to authorities. Investigators from the National Police and the Security Service of Ukraine are investigating.

Advertisement

The gunman was seen holding and shooting a weapon in the street. (Obtained by Will Stewart)

GUNMAN OPENS FIRE AT HIGH SCHOOL IN TURKEY, WOUNDING AT LEAST 16

Ukraine’s security service labeled the attack an act of terrorism.

“All available information about him and the motives behind his actions is being thoroughly investigated,” Zelenskyy said. “Every detail must be verified.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

One of the shooter’s neighbors, Hanna Kulyk, 75, described him as an “educated, refined man,” who lived alone and did not socialize often.

“You’d never guess he was some kind of criminal,” Kulyk told The Associated Press.

Continue Reading

World

Iran navy says any ship trying to pass Strait of Hormuz will be targeted

Published

on

Iran navy says any ship trying to pass Strait of Hormuz will be targeted

Top negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf says US naval blockade of Iran’s ports is ‘a clumsy and ignorant decision’.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGC) says the Strait of Hormuz is closed and that any ship that attempts to pass through the waterway will be targeted, a dramatic reversal less than 24 hours after the critical shipping lane was reopened.

In a statement carried by Iran’s Student News Agency, the IRGC navy said on Saturday the strait will be closed until the United States lifts its naval blockade on Iranian vessels and ports. It said the blockade was a violation of the ongoing ceasefire agreement in the US-Israel war on Iran.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

“We warn that no vessel of any kind should move from its anchorage in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman, and approaching the Strait of Hormuz will be considered cooperation with the enemy, and the offending vessel will be targeted,” it said.

Advertisement

Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s parliament speaker and a senior negotiator in talks between Washington and Tehran on ending the war, said in a television interview that “the Strait of Hormuz is under the control of the Islamic Republic”.

“The Americans have been declaring a blockade for several days now. This is a clumsy and ignorant decision,” he added.

The reassertion of control came just hours after Iran had briefly reopened the strait, in line with a 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon. Oil prices dropped on global markets after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Friday that the waterway was “completely open for all commercial vessels.”

More than a dozen commercial ships passed through the waterway before the IRGC reversed course.

Iranian gunboats reportedly fired on two commercial ships on Saturday, according to United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO). India’s Ministry of External Affairs also said that two Indian-flagged ships were involved in a “shooting incident” in the strait.

Advertisement

Some merchant vessels in the region received radio messages from the IRGC Navy, warning that no ships were being allowed through the strait.

US President Donald Trump said Tehran could not blackmail Washington by closing the waterway and warned that he would put an end to the ceasefire if a deal before its expiry on Wednesday is not reached. Trump added that the naval blockade would “remain in full force”.

Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, meanwhile, said the navy was ready to inflict “new bitter defeats” on its enemies.

‘Two competing blockades’

Al Jazeera correspondent Zein Basravi said that Iran and the US are back where they were the previous day.

“Less than 24 hours ago, world leaders were praising what they thought was a breakthrough in this conflict, hoping Iran was signalling a confidence-building measure by opening the Strait of Hormuz, potentially leading to a ceasefire deal and a permanent end to the war,” he said.

Advertisement

“As disappointed as people may be, this isn’t entirely surprising. What we’re seeing now is a return to square one,” he added, saying there are now “two competing blockades in place”.

Al Jazeera’s Ali Hashem, reporting from Tehran, said Iran was using the strait to send a message.

“It’s clear that Iran is dealing with a situation in which they are not sure what’s on the table. So the Strait of Hormuz is once again the only space for engagement, even if it’s a negative engagement. And it’s the space where they are sending and conveying messages to the Americans, showing their leverage,” he said.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending