🚨👇 Everyone’s blaming Iran. But who kept sending ships into the war zone?
On Friday, senior US officials demanded that Iran's leadership publicly state that ship traffic in the Strait of Hormuz has been fully restored and that Iranian forces will stop attacking ships. Moments before those officials spoke, Iran's diplomat at the United Nations told reporters that any activity in the strait "rests exclusively with Iran."
Two governments. Two contradictory statements. Same hour.
Here is the explanation US officials are now offering for why the ceasefire keeps collapsing. The new attacks on ships in the Strait did not come from the Iranian leadership Washington is negotiating with. They came from hardline officials inside Iran's political system who are actively trying to undermine the ceasefire. US officials said Trump is aware of the power struggle and is giving negotiators space, but he will not wait forever.
There is one detail in the AP's own reporting that deserves to sit with you. Part of the reason Iran now faces this power struggle is strikes by the US and Israel that killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei early in the war. Washington helped create the vacuum it is now trying to navigate. It struck the top of Iran's command structure, destabilized the political hierarchy, and is now discovering that the leaders it can negotiate with cannot control the elements it cannot negotiate with.
The nuclear issue, the original stated justification for this entire war, remains completely unresolved. US officials confirmed any final deal requires Iran to surrender its highly enriched uranium stockpile. But they are not confident Iran will honor that commitment until Tehran first stops the Strait attacks. The sequencing is revealing. The nuclear question, the thing that started all of this on February 28, is now the last item on a list that cannot get past point one.
Meanwhile, Rubio called Saudi Arabia's foreign minister to discuss "regional security and stability." The Gulf states that absorbed four months of Iranian strikes, were never consulted on the deal, and now watch their energy exports flow under Iranian oversight are being managed by phone call.
And in Bangkok, three former crew members of the Thai cargo ship Mayuree Naree, struck by a projectile north of Oman on March 11, killing three of their colleagues, filed a lawsuit Friday against their shipping company for sailing them into an active war zone. All three have since been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. One said: "When there are loud noises, I'll get startled. I can't work now, and I have to take medication."
The IMO Secretary General said it plainly: "Behind the figures are seafarers, and in some cases their families, who continue to bear the human cost of this conflict."
The Strait of Hormuz is classified as an international strait under UNCLOS, giving ships the legal right of transit passage even through Iranian and Omani territorial waters. But legal right and sound judgment are not the same thing. Multiple maritime risk advisories had flagged the strait as an active war zone. The IMO had issued warnings. Maritime unions had warned their members. The companies knew. They chose to transit anyway, not because they had no alternative, but because rerouting around the Cape of Good Hope adds approximately 12 days and significant fuel costs to each voyage. That is a commercial calculation. And the crew members who are now filing PTSD lawsuits in Bangkok paid for it with their mental health, their livelihoods, and in three cases, their lives.
The lawsuit is not about Iran's conduct alone. It is against a company that made a financial decision and then dismissed the people who bore the human cost of it with two months' salary and a condolence statement.
Before assigning responsibility to only one actor, ask who kept sending civilian crews through an active war zone after repeated security warnings. Then ask who profited from that decision while the crews paid the price.
Selat Hormuz merupakan jalur pelayaran strategis yang sangat vital untuk perdagangan minyak dunia. Namun, dengan adanya konflik politik dan militer antara Iran dan negara-negara Barat, khususnya Amerika Serikat, kondisi keamanan di area ini menjadi jauh dari kata stabil. Sebagai pelaut dan pengamat jalur maritim, saya pernah mengikuti beberapa diskusi dan laporan terkait bagaimana perusahaan pelayaran akhirnya harus membuat keputusan sulit menghadapi risiko transit di zona berbahaya seperti Selat Hormuz. Meskipun hukum internasional memberikan hak lintas bagi kapal-kapal asing melalui selat tersebut, keputusan untuk melewati zona perang tetap mengandung risiko besar, termasuk potensi serangan atau kecelakaan yang dapat mengancam keselamatan awak kapal. Tetapi tekanan komersial dan keuntungan finansial membuat banyak perusahaan tetap memilih jalur ini agar waktu tempuh dan biaya bahan bakar tidak membengkak secara drastis. Kisah para awak kapal asal Thailand yang mengalami trauma pascatrauma (PTSD) setelah serangan di pelayaran mereka menjadi pengingat keras akan harga manusia yang harus dibayar di balik keputusan bisnis tersebut. Mereka bukan hanya menghadapi bahaya fisik, tetapi juga konsekuensi psikologis yang mendalam yang tidak boleh dianggap sepele. Pengalaman ini menimbulkan perdebatan etis mengenai tanggung jawab perusahaan terhadap keselamatan dan kesejahteraan awaknya. Lebih lanjut, dinamika kekuasaan di Iran yang terpecah antara faksi moderat dan garis keras memperumit upaya mencapai perdamaian dan keamanan di wilayah ini. Serangan-serangan yang terus terjadi menunjukkan bahwa meskipun ada negosiasi, kontrol terhadap seluruh elemen politik dan militer Iran belum sepenuhnya solid, yang berujung pada kerapuhan gencatan senjata yang diharapkan. Sebagai tambahan, isu nuklir yang menjadi latar belakang konflik masih belum terselesaikan, menambah kompleksitas situasi. Ketidakpastian ini membuat berbagai pihak berhati-hati, namun juga terjebak dalam siklus ketegangan yang sulit dipatahkan. Bagi pembaca yang tertarik mengikuti perkembangan geopolitik dan dampaknya pada industri pelayaran internasional, artikel ini memberikan sudut pandang yang penting: bukan hanya siapa yang menyalahkan Iran, tapi juga siapa yang bertanggung jawab mengirimkan kapal ke wilayah berbahaya dan bagaimana keputusan tersebut memengaruhi nyawa manusia. Memahami hal ini dapat membantu kita melihat bahwa konflik tidak hanya soal negara dan politik, tapi juga soal manusia dan risiko nyata di lapangan.
