The continued arrival of oil and LPG tankers in Mumbai despite the US effort to restrict movement through the Strait of Hormuz highlights a key limitation of modern naval blockades: they are rarely absolute. While the United States has deployed naval assets to monitor and control traffic in international waters, it does not possess unrestricted authority inside the territorial waters of sovereign states such as Iran or Pakistan. This jurisdictional boundary creates operational gaps that commercial shipping can exploit, allowing tankers to continue moving crude and gas cargo despite heightened tensions.
One of the most discussed possibilities involves vessels loading cargo at Kharg Island, which handles the majority of Iran’s crude exports, and then navigating along Iran’s coastline. By staying within Iranian territorial waters for as long as possible, ships can avoid direct interception because foreign navies typically cannot act freely inside another country’s maritime boundary without escalation. From there, vessels have two broad options: either transition into international waters near southeastern Iran or continue along coastal routes that minimise exposure to monitored zones.
A widely circulated theory suggests that ships could move from Iranian waters into Pakistani territorial waters along the Makran coast before entering the open Arabian Sea. Under international maritime law, specifically the principle of “innocent passage,” commercial vessels are generally allowed to transit through another country’s territorial waters as long as they do not engage in prohibited activities. In theory, this makes such a route legally possible. However, in practice, geopolitical realities complicate its use. Strained relations between India and Pakistan, along with reciprocal restrictions on maritime access and port usage, make this pathway politically sensitive and operationally risky for Indian-linked shipping.
A more practical and widely accepted route involves vessels continuing along Iran’s coast up to the vicinity of Chabahar Port and then turning south into international waters. Once in the Arabian Sea, ships can proceed directly toward India’s western coastline without needing to enter Pakistani waters at all. This route reduces geopolitical friction while still taking advantage of the legal limitations placed on naval enforcement within territorial seas. It also aligns with expert assessments that suggest most commercial operators would avoid unnecessary exposure to politically sensitive zones unless absolutely required.
Another critical factor enabling continued tanker movement is selective enforcement. The US blockade is primarily focused on restricting Iran-linked oil flows and monitoring vessels suspected of sanction violations. Neutral or third-country ships, especially those carrying cargo to destinations like India, are not always the primary targets. While some vessels have been turned back or inspected, many others have been able to pass through, particularly when their movements are coordinated diplomatically or when they avoid high-risk zones. This selective pressure, rather than a total shutdown, explains why dozens of tankers have reportedly continued transiting the region.
Naval coordination also plays an important role. Once ships clear the most sensitive stretch near the Strait, they may receive indirect support or monitoring from their home country’s navy in safer waters such as the Gulf of Oman. This reduces the need for risky navigation strategies like hugging contested coastlines. It also reflects a broader shift from confrontation to controlled transit, where safe passage is managed through a mix of diplomacy, timing, and maritime awareness rather than direct confrontation with blockading forces.
Ultimately, the situation demonstrates that even in one of the world’s most strategically sensitive chokepoints, enforcing a completely sealed blockade is extremely difficult. Legal constraints, overlapping jurisdictions, commercial pressures, and geopolitical considerations all combine to create loopholes. As a result, while the blockade has increased risks and costs—particularly through higher insurance premiums and operational uncertainty—it has not succeeded in halting maritime traffic entirely. This ongoing flow of tankers underscores both the resilience of global energy supply chains and the practical limits of naval power in complex, multi-actor maritime environments.
