For years, the United States criticised the opaque shipping networks that enabled China to continue importing sanctioned Iranian crude through ship-to-ship transfers at sea, arguing that such practices undermined international sanctions. However, as the ongoing conflict transformed the Strait of Hormuz into one of the most dangerous maritime chokepoints in the world, Washington appears to have adopted a remarkably similar approach to keep Gulf oil flowing and prevent a major disruption to global energy supplies.
US President Donald Trump recently described the operation as a "secret mission", claiming that the United States had quietly facilitated the movement of more than 100 million barrels of oil and helped over 200 commercial vessels navigate through the increasingly volatile waters around Hormuz. Trump asserted that it was American military power, rather than Iran, that effectively controlled the strategic waterway during the height of the crisis.
These claims help explain why the severe oil supply disruption feared by global markets never fully materialised. Energy traders, insurers, and shipping companies had anticipated major interruptions as tensions escalated and military activity increased throughout the region. Insurance premiums rose sharply, commercial traffic slowed, and concerns about a potential energy shock intensified. Yet despite these challenges, crude oil from Gulf producers continued reaching international buyers.
The key question was not whether oil exports were continuing but how they were being transported through one of the world's most heavily contested maritime regions.
An analysis of historical satellite imagery and maritime tracking data suggests that a sophisticated workaround emerged along the coast of Oman. According to observations made using imagery from the European Space Agency's Sentinel-2 satellites, multiple large oil tankers were seen positioned unusually close to one another in waters off Oman's coast. Such positioning is often associated with ship-to-ship oil transfers, a practice commonly used in international shipping when cargo is transferred directly between vessels at sea.
Satellite imagery from June 6 reportedly showed several ship-to-ship transfer operations taking place approximately six kilometres off the coast near Sohar Port in Oman. Analysts noted that these activities were not isolated incidents. Similar transfer patterns were visible in imagery dating back to early May, indicating that the operations had been occurring consistently for several weeks rather than representing a temporary response to a single event.
What makes these transfers particularly noteworthy is their location. Unlike some previous ship-to-ship operations associated with sanctioned Iranian oil exports, the vessels involved in these activities were operating in waters under close surveillance by American military forces. This suggests that the transfers were taking place within a security framework established or monitored by the United States and its regional partners.
The emerging evidence points toward a wartime logistics solution designed to minimise risks associated with direct transit through the Strait of Hormuz. Rather than allowing large numbers of commercial tankers to pass openly through the most dangerous parts of the waterway, oil may have been transported in stages. State-backed or regionally affiliated tankers, likely linked to major Gulf producers such as the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait, appear to have carried crude through Hormuz under military protection before transferring cargo to commercial vessels waiting farther from the conflict zone.
This arrangement would significantly reduce exposure to military threats, allowing fewer ships to undertake the riskiest sections of the journey while larger commercial tankers remained outside the most dangerous waters.
According to reports, the United States established a special security corridor approximately three weeks earlier to support vessels moving through the Strait via routes close to the Omani coastline. Ships participating in this arrangement were reportedly instructed to switch off radio transmissions and transit without broadcasting their normal identification signals. Under this system, a network of American warships and Apache attack helicopters provided protective coverage for participating vessels.
The route itself presents significant navigational challenges. While some sections of the passage are relatively wide, certain stretches narrow dramatically to only about 800 metres. This creates difficulties for Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs), which are among the largest ships operating in global energy markets.
Maritime tracking services independently identified the same region as an emerging offshore transfer hub. Analysts tracking tanker movements observed patterns suggesting that crude oil was being moved through multiple stages rather than transported directly to final destinations. Although these reports identified the cargo as originating from Gulf producers rather than Iran, the precise locations of the transfers were not initially disclosed.
When satellite imagery, shipping data, and industry analyses are considered together, a consistent picture begins to emerge. Oil-carrying tankers appear to transport crude from Gulf producers through the Strait of Hormuz, proceed to designated transfer areas near Oman's coast, and then offload the cargo onto commercial vessels operating in comparatively safer waters. After unloading, the smaller or state-backed tankers can return through Hormuz to collect additional shipments, allowing the process to be repeated multiple times.
Maritime historian Sal Mercogliano described the arrangement as a relatively straightforward but effective solution to the challenges posed by wartime conditions. According to his analysis, Very Large Crude Carriers exiting the Persian Gulf have been conducting ship-to-ship transfers with other tankers operating in the Gulf of Oman. Once emptied, the original vessels return through Hormuz to load new cargo from countries such as the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, or Iraq.
Mercogliano argued that this process helps explain why there has not been a significant buildup of stranded vessels inside the Persian Gulf despite heightened security risks. By repeatedly using the same tankers for short shuttle runs through the Strait, operators can maintain oil exports while reducing overall exposure to military threats and insurance costs.
He also speculated that a recently reported Apache helicopter crash may have been connected to the broader protection operation, although no official evidence has been presented to support that theory. Additionally, he suggested that Kuwait's recent confidence in signing new oil contracts may reflect expectations that export routes through Hormuz will remain operational despite the ongoing conflict.
Nevertheless, experts caution that the workaround has important limitations. While ship-to-ship transfers can be highly effective for moving crude oil, they are far less practical for other forms of cargo. Liquefied natural gas (LNG), liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), containerised goods, and bulk commodities generally require different logistics arrangements and cannot easily be transferred offshore on a large scale. As a result, these sectors may still depend heavily on direct transit through Hormuz and continued military protection.
The broader economic implications of the conflict remain significant. Although higher energy prices have increased costs for consumers worldwide, they have also benefited certain segments of the American economy. Rising oil prices have boosted revenues for US energy producers and strengthened the competitiveness of American energy exports. Government data indicates that US exports of goods and services increased by 2.6 percent in April, reaching approximately $327.1 billion.
The situation highlights the increasingly complex relationship between geopolitics, energy security, and global trade. While military tensions around the Strait of Hormuz continue to pose risks to international shipping, the combination of military protection, offshore transfers, and alternative logistics arrangements appears to have prevented the severe oil supply shock that many analysts had initially feared. At the same time, the reliance on methods once criticised by Washington underscores how rapidly strategic priorities can evolve when global energy flows and economic stability are at stake.
