The conflict involving Iran, the United States and Israel is entering another uncertain phase as attacks on commercial shipping intensify around the Strait of Hormuz, raising fresh concerns about global energy supplies, maritime security and the cost of living. At the same time, US President Donald Trump has ruled out using nuclear weapons against Iran while warning that American forces could still consider striking a heavily fortified site associated with the country’s nuclear programme.
The latest developments reveal a conflict with consequences extending well beyond military targets. Tankers and other commercial vessels face growing risks in one of the world’s most important energy corridors, while efforts to keep oil moving through the region are becoming increasingly complicated. Meanwhile, the humanitarian situation in Yemen is deteriorating, with fighting around Taiz restricting access to emergency food supplies and essential medical assistance.
The central question is whether military pressure can achieve Washington’s objectives without triggering a wider regional confrontation or creating a prolonged disruption to global trade. For energy-importing countries, businesses and households, the answer could influence fuel prices, transportation costs and food inflation for months to come.
Trump Rules Out Nuclear Weapons but Warns Iran Over Pickaxe Mountain
President Donald Trump has said he would not use nuclear weapons in the conflict with Iran, while leaving open the possibility of further conventional military action against Iranian nuclear-related infrastructure.
In an interview published on October 16, Trump said he did not believe nuclear weapons were necessary to achieve US military objectives. He also reiterated that he was not planning to deploy American ground troops inside Iran.
However, he identified Pickaxe Mountain, a heavily fortified underground site associated with Iran’s nuclear programme, as a possible target if Washington decides to carry out additional strikes. His remarks came amid continued uncertainty over the future of military operations and the possibility of renewed attacks.
Why Pickaxe Mountain Matters
Pickaxe Mountain has attracted attention because of concerns about underground facilities potentially connected to Iran’s nuclear activities. Its fortified location presents a different challenge from sites that can be targeted through conventional airstrikes against structures above ground.
There have been claims that Iran may have stored highly enriched uranium or conducted sensitive nuclear-related work at the location. However, such claims should not be treated as confirmed facts without independently verifiable evidence.
The uncertainty surrounding the site complicates any military assessment. Even if a strike damaged a facility, determining the extent of the destruction and whether nuclear materials or equipment remained intact could be difficult.
The potential consequences would also extend beyond the physical target. A new US attack could prompt Iranian retaliation, place additional pressure on regional allies and further endanger commercial shipping in the Persian Gulf and surrounding waters.
Could the MOAB Bomb Be Used Against Iran?
Trump has also discussed the possibility of using the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb, widely known as the MOAB or the “Mother of All Bombs.”
The weapon is a powerful conventional bomb, not a nuclear device. Although its explosive force is substantial, it is not designed to perform the same role as specialised earth-penetrating munitions used against deeply buried facilities.
That distinction matters because a heavily protected underground nuclear site may not be neutralised simply by using a larger conventional explosion above ground. Military planners would need to assess the site’s construction, depth, access routes and other protective features before determining what weapon, if any, could achieve the intended objective.
Trump’s comments do not confirm that the MOAB has been selected for an operation or that a strike against Pickaxe Mountain has been authorised.
A further round of military action would also raise a broader strategic question: whether additional bombing could secure a lasting political outcome or instead prolong the confrontation and increase the risks facing the region.
Strait of Hormuz Ship Attacks Reach a New High
Commercial shipping has become one of the most exposed parts of the conflict. The Strait of Hormuz connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and serves as a critical passage for oil, gas and other goods moving from Gulf producers to international markets.
A tally of maritime incident reports published in mid-October showed that at least 12 vessels had been attacked in and around the strait over a single week. Six incidents were reported on one Sunday, highlighting the scale of the recent escalation. <Cite refs={[“turn746439search10″,”turn746439news39”]}/>
The reported attacks have not been confined to one small area. Vessels have faced threats in the Strait of Hormuz, the Gulf of Oman and waters farther from the narrow shipping corridor. The widening geographical range makes it harder for ship operators to assess whether a particular route is relatively safe.
The risks also extend beyond oil tankers. Bulk carriers transporting commodities such as iron ore and steel, as well as container ships carrying manufactured products, can be affected by the same security environment.
For shipowners, the immediate concern is the safety of crews and vessels. For governments and energy markets, the larger question is how long commercial traffic can continue under these conditions without a more serious interruption to exports.
Why the Strait Is So Important to Global Energy Supplies
The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most strategically important maritime chokepoints. Major Gulf energy producers depend on access to international markets, and a significant share of their exports normally travels through this narrow passage.
When attacks threaten vessels, shipping companies may delay departures, change routes where alternatives exist or demand higher payments to compensate for increased risks. Insurers may also raise premiums or impose additional conditions on ships operating in the region.
These costs can accumulate even if a vessel is not directly damaged. A ship held in port, diverted from its route or delayed while security arrangements are assessed may affect delivery schedules and the availability of transport capacity.
The consequences become more serious if incidents continue over several weeks. Fewer vessels may be willing to enter the region, while some cargo owners may struggle to secure suitable ships at acceptable rates.
The result can be a reduction in the volume of oil and other commodities reaching international markets, adding pressure to prices and complicating efforts to stabilise supply.
US Naval Escorts Help Keep Oil Moving but Cannot Remove Every Risk
The United States has been using naval protection and other security measures to support the movement of commercial tankers through the region. A shuttle arrangement has also helped some oil cargoes reach transfer points outside the Strait of Hormuz, where shipments can be moved to other vessels for onward transport.
The system offers a way to maintain some exports when ordinary commercial shipping becomes reluctant to enter high-risk waters. However, it depends on the availability of suitable tankers, effective security arrangements and other vessels willing to collect cargoes farther along the route.
The arrangement is not a complete substitute for normal maritime traffic.
Why the Tanker Shuttle System Is Vulnerable
The process requires vessels to move repeatedly through or near dangerous waters. Even with naval protection, ships remain exposed to the possibility of missiles, drones, mines or other attacks.
Ship-to-ship transfers also introduce additional logistical demands. Vessels must coordinate their movements, operate safely in designated areas and ensure that cargo can be transferred without creating further delays or environmental hazards.
If attacks expand beyond the strait to transfer locations in the Gulf of Oman, the entire arrangement could become more difficult to maintain. A disruption at one critical point may affect several vessels and delay multiple cargoes.
The system also depends on commercial cooperation. Gulf state-owned tankers may be more willing to undertake certain high-risk journeys than operators in the wider charter market, but the number of vessels available for such work is limited.
Gas shipments pose particular challenges because specialised carriers and transfer infrastructure are required. Replacing lost capacity is not as straightforward as redirecting a standard oil tanker.
For these reasons, the shuttle system may provide temporary relief without guaranteeing a reliable long-term solution.
Maritime Attacks Threaten Crews as Well as Cargoes
Behind the figures on shipping incidents are seafarers working in increasingly dangerous conditions. Crews can face fires, explosions, vessel damage and uncertainty over whether rescue assistance will arrive in time.
The International Maritime Organization’s incident reporting had recorded 100 confirmed incidents in the Strait of Hormuz and the wider Middle East region as of October 9, with 24 seafarer fatalities. Those figures reflect the organisation’s reporting cut-off and may not capture every subsequent incident. <Cite refs={[“turn746439search6”]}/>
When a vessel is hit, the immediate priorities include evacuating injured crew members, extinguishing fires and preventing further damage. Even when a ship remains afloat, damaged propulsion systems or compromised safety equipment may leave it unable to continue its voyage.
Commercial vessels are not military installations, and their crews are not combatants simply because they are transporting energy or other goods. Attacks on civilian shipping therefore raise serious questions about maritime safety, international law and the protection of seafarers.
The threat can also have a psychological effect on crews and their families. Prolonged uncertainty over routes, port access and the possibility of another attack may make it harder for shipping companies to recruit and retain experienced personnel willing to operate in dangerous areas.
Ensuring safe passage will require more than protecting individual ships. It will also depend on reducing the likelihood of attacks and establishing conditions in which commercial navigation can resume with a predictable level of risk.
Oil Exports Face Renewed Pressure as Attacks Intensify
The latest rise in shipping incidents threatens to reverse some of the recovery in oil exports that had begun after the initial disruption caused by the war.
Even when oil continues to leave producing countries, the process can become slower and more expensive. Cargoes may need to be rerouted, transferred between vessels or held while operators wait for suitable security arrangements.
These complications can affect the timing of deliveries and reduce the efficiency of the entire supply chain.
What Higher Oil Prices Could Mean for Consumers
Energy prices influence a wide range of economic activities. Higher crude oil costs can affect petrol, diesel, aviation fuel and the expenses associated with producing and transporting goods.
The effect on retail prices is not always immediate. Refiners, distributors and retailers may have existing contracts or inventories that delay the impact. But if elevated costs persist, businesses may eventually pass some of the additional expense to consumers.
Diesel is particularly important because it powers much of the freight sector and a large amount of agricultural machinery. Higher diesel prices can raise the cost of moving food, operating farm equipment and delivering products to shops.
Airlines and other transport operators can also face increased fuel expenses, potentially affecting ticket prices and freight charges.
The scale of the impact will depend on how much supply is disrupted, whether alternative sources can fill the gap and how long the conflict continues. A short-lived increase may be manageable, but a sustained reduction in exports would present a more serious challenge for energy-importing economies.
Alternative Pipelines Offer Relief but Cannot Solve Every Supply Problem
Some Gulf producers can transport oil through pipelines that bypass the Strait of Hormuz. Routes carrying crude towards Red Sea ports or terminals on the Gulf of Oman can help maintain exports when shipping through the strait becomes difficult.
However, pipeline capacity is limited, and not every producer or shipment can be redirected. The oil must also reach suitable export terminals, where port capacity, storage facilities and available tankers determine how quickly it can enter the international market.
Pipelines are also not entirely insulated from regional insecurity. Terminals and associated infrastructure can be vulnerable to attacks, while longer transport routes may create additional operating costs.
The availability of alternative routes can reduce the severity of a disruption, but it cannot guarantee that global energy supplies will remain unaffected.
For governments, the challenge is to balance immediate security measures with longer-term resilience. That includes diversifying supply sources, maintaining emergency reserves and improving the ability of energy systems to withstand sudden interruptions.
Yemen’s Taiz City Faces a Deepening Food Emergency
While the maritime crisis dominates energy markets, the conflict in Yemen is producing an immediate humanitarian emergency.
Taiz, one of Yemen’s largest cities, has faced renewed fighting and tightening restrictions on key supply routes. The resulting insecurity has made it increasingly difficult for humanitarian organisations to move food and other essential assistance to vulnerable communities.
On October 14, the United Nations World Food Programme warned that escalating conflict had cut off life-saving assistance to approximately 800,000 people in Taiz and other affected areas. The agency said shifting front lines, blocked roads and growing insecurity were severely restricting humanitarian access. <Cite refs={[“turn746439search2″,”turn746439search4”]}/>
The situation is especially serious in a country where many households already struggle to afford basic food supplies. When roads close, traders cannot reliably replenish stocks, aid agencies cannot reach some communities and prices can rise rapidly.
Families may be forced to reduce the number of meals they eat or rely on cheaper, less nutritious food. Children, older people, displaced families and people with medical conditions can be particularly vulnerable when supplies become scarce.
Why Aid Delivery Has Become So Difficult
Humanitarian relief depends on safe access to affected communities. Aid organisations need permission and practical guarantees that their staff, vehicles and supplies can move through areas where armed groups are fighting.
When front lines shift or roads are blocked, relief deliveries may be delayed or stopped altogether. Warehouses may hold supplies that cannot reach the people who need them, while hospitals can run short of medicines, fuel and equipment.
The World Food Programme has warned that the latest escalation is putting additional pressure on already limited resources. If access restrictions continue and funding remains insufficient, agencies may have to use stocks intended for later stages of the response.
The consequences of a prolonged disruption could be severe. Food insecurity can increase malnutrition, worsen health problems and force more families to leave their homes in search of assistance.
The humanitarian situation in Taiz underlines the importance of protecting civilians and allowing impartial relief organisations to operate safely, regardless of the wider political and military disputes.
Russia-Iran Relations Face Pressure From Competing Energy Interests
Russia’s relationship with Iran adds another layer to the diplomatic and economic calculations surrounding the war.
The two countries have expanded aspects of their defence and political cooperation in recent years. However, cooperation does not necessarily mean that Moscow and Tehran share identical priorities in every situation.
Russia has its own economic interests in energy markets. Any arrangement that helps increase the availability of diesel or other fuel supplies can affect prices and competition among exporters, including countries under sanctions or facing restrictions on trade.
Iran, by contrast, has an incentive to resist measures that could reduce the economic pressure generated by disruption to Gulf energy exports. The extent to which this shapes its military decisions remains a matter for careful assessment rather than assumption.
A planned diplomatic visit by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to Tehran was expected to provide an opportunity for discussions about the conflict and bilateral relations. The significance of any such meeting will depend on the proposals made and whether they produce concrete changes.
Russia could potentially use its contacts with both sides to support diplomatic efforts. Yet its ability to influence the outcome should not be overstated, particularly where the interests of the parties differ.
The broader lesson is that partnerships formed around shared concerns do not always translate into agreement over energy policy, military strategy or the terms of a possible settlement.
What the Escalation Means for the Global Economy
The conflict is affecting several interconnected systems at once: energy production, maritime transport, food supply chains and humanitarian relief.
For oil-importing countries, a sustained disruption could increase import bills and place pressure on currencies and government budgets. Businesses that rely heavily on fuel may face higher operating expenses, while households could have less money available for other spending.
Developing economies can be especially exposed when they depend on imported fuel and food but have limited financial resources to cushion price increases. Higher shipping costs may also affect goods that do not originate in the Middle East because international freight networks are closely connected.
Central banks could face a difficult policy environment if energy costs push inflation higher while economic activity weakens. Raising interest rates may help contain broader inflationary pressures, but it can also make borrowing more expensive for businesses and consumers.
Governments may consider targeted support for vulnerable households, emergency fuel measures or strategic stock releases. Such steps can provide temporary relief, but they cannot replace reliable trade routes and functioning supply chains indefinitely.
The duration and geographical spread of the conflict will be critical. A contained disruption may be absorbed through inventories and alternative suppliers. A prolonged crisis involving repeated attacks on vessels and infrastructure would be harder to manage.
Can Diplomacy Prevent a Wider Regional Conflict?
The latest developments demonstrate the limits of relying exclusively on military protection to keep the region’s energy routes open.
Naval escorts may reduce some risks, but they cannot eliminate the possibility of attacks or guarantee that commercial shipping will operate normally. Further strikes against Iranian facilities could also trigger retaliation, potentially increasing the danger to vessels and infrastructure across the Gulf.
Diplomatic efforts would need to address several interconnected concerns, including nuclear activities, maritime security, regional military operations and the economic consequences of restrictions on trade.
Any durable agreement would also need mechanisms for implementation and verification. Statements of intent alone may not be sufficient to reassure shipowners, insurers, energy producers or governments that the risks have genuinely declined.
At the same time, humanitarian access in Yemen requires urgent attention independent of the wider diplomatic dispute. Civilians should not have to wait for a comprehensive regional settlement before food, medicine and other essential supplies can reach them.
The choices made by Washington, Tehran and regional governments over the coming weeks could therefore influence not only the military direction of the conflict but also the stability of global energy markets and the prospects for millions of people affected by the fighting.
Conclusion: Shipping Security and Energy Stability Hang in the Balance
The rise in attacks around the Strait of Hormuz, Trump’s rejection of nuclear weapons and his warning that the United States could consider further conventional strikes against Iran illustrate how uncertain the conflict remains.
Efforts to keep oil moving through protected shipping arrangements and alternative routes may provide some relief, but they cannot fully remove the risks posed by repeated attacks. A wider disruption could raise fuel and transportation costs, add to inflation and place further pressure on food prices.
In Yemen, the immediate consequences are even more direct. Restricted access to Taiz is cutting vulnerable communities off from essential assistance at a time when food supplies and medical services are already under strain.
The path ahead will depend on whether military escalation gives way to meaningful diplomatic engagement and whether safe commercial and humanitarian access can be restored. Until then, the consequences of the conflict will continue to reach beyond the battlefield, affecting global trade, energy security and the daily lives of people across the region and beyond.
1. Has Donald Trump ruled out using nuclear weapons against Iran?
Yes. In his October 16, 2026 interview, Trump said he would not use nuclear weapons against Iran. He nevertheless left open the possibility of further conventional military action, including a potential strike against Pickaxe Mountain.
2. Why is the Strait of Hormuz important to global oil supplies?
The Strait of Hormuz is a major route linking Gulf oil and gas producers with international markets. Disruptions can delay shipments, raise shipping and insurance costs, and place upward pressure on energy prices.
3. How is the conflict affecting civilians in Yemen?
Fighting and blocked roads are restricting access to food and humanitarian assistance, particularly in Taiz. The United Nations World Food Programme warned in October 2026 that around 800,000 people in affected areas had been cut off from life-saving assistance.
Sources for this report: Reuters reporting on Trump’s comments about Pickaxe Mountain; the International Maritime Organization’s maritime incident updates; United Nations and World Food Programme statements on Yemen; and reporting on attacks against commercial vessels in and around the Strait of Hormuz.