Iran strikes tankers in Iraqi waters and Maersk-operated boxship off key UAE port, dragging more Middle East Gulf states into the conflict
IRAN has claimed responsibility for an attack on two oil tankers anchored in Iraqi territorial waters, as conflicts in the region continue to escalate and strikes on commercial shipping spread beyond the Strait of Hormuz.
Iraq’s State Organization for Marketing of Oil identified the two vessels as the 73,976 dwt crude oil tanker Safesea Vishnu (IMO: 9327009) and the 50,155 dwt combined chemical and oil tanker Zefyros (IMO: 9515917).
According to Lloyd’s List Intelligence data, Safesea Vishnu is beneficially owned by US-based Safesea Group, while Zefyros is beneficially owned by Greece’s George & Vassilis Michael family group of companies.
Both were struck by what Iran’s state broadcaster IRIB described as an “underwater drone attack” on the evening of March 11, while anchored about five nautical miles south of Basrah.
At least one crew member is confirmed dead. Iraqi authorities reported that 38 crew members of foreign nationalities were rescued from the two vessels, though details on injuries and the identity of the deceased have not been released.
Verified footage shows both tankers ablaze, with flames spreading on to the surrounding water — likely the result of an oil spill, though no environmental impact had been officially confirmed at the time of writing.
BREAKING: Iran just struck a large oil tanker in Iraqi territorial waters.
The vessel has been engulfed in flames pic.twitter.com/Tvg3lnkmNV
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) March 11, 2026
The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations received third-party reports of the incident and advised vessels transiting the area to exercise caution and report any suspicious activity.
An Iraqi security source in Basra initially reported that an Iranian boat rigged with explosives was believed to have struck the vessels, with an investigation ongoing. Iraqi officials described the incident as a violation of national sovereignty, noting it occurred within Iraqi territorial waters.
Operations at nearby oil ports have been temporarily suspended following the attack.
Lloyd’s List Intelligence vessel-tracking data showed both vessels anchored alongside each other near the Basrah Oil Terminal at the time of the incident.
The attack follows strikes on three vessels in the Middle East Gulf on March 10, when two bulkers and a containership were hit, leaving three seafarers missing.
Shortly after the attacks off Iraq, a containership was hit by an unidentified projectile on the same day off the coast of Jebel Ali, according to the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations.
Liberia-flagged, Maersk operated containership Source Blessing (IMO: 9243198) was the target of the unknown projectile while it was sailing approximately 35 nm north of Jebel Ali, UAE, at 0219 hrs.
The ship’s master reported a small fire on board in the engine room caused by the strike, but due to darkness, it was not immediately possible to assess the extent of the damage.
All crew members were reported safe, and no environmental impact has been reported, according to the UKMTO.
Source Blessing passed the Strait of Hormuz one day before the war started and loaded cargo at Hamad port in Qatar. Since then it was sailing between anchorages off Qatar and the UAE, presumably waiting for a safe passage from the chokepoint back to the Gulf of Oman.
Since the conflict began on February 28, at least 13 cargo carrying vessels have now been attacked in the region, with casualties continuing to mount and the shipping industry increasingly exposed to the widening war.
Read the original article
Comments
An Iraqi security source said they think it was an Iranian boat rigged with explosives.
If Iran does have underwater explosive drones, why would they boast about it and invite attacks upon that weapon and its deployment systems?
By CapricornNoble 2026-03-1216:17 >why would they boast about it and invite attacks upon that weapon and its deployment systems?
To complicate adversary targeting priorities. If you have to shift your pre-planned bombing sorties away from, say, local Basij HQ buildings, it takes pressure off of the Iranian government. Assigning aircraft to find/fix/target/track/engage "underwater drone launch points" is probably like searching for a needle in a haystack given the size of Iran's coastline.
It might have been a low-observable watercraft like the Sea Baby: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Baby
A true UUV attack is probably outside Iran's wheelhouse, but cutting-down an attack speedboat to the waterline seems very realistic.
Why would it be outside of Iran capabilities? They are the ones who provided Russia with Shahed drones.
> They are the ones who provided Russia with Shahed drones.
Shaheeds are aerodynamic clones of the Israeli Harpy SEAD drone, which in turn were based on the German Dornier DAR of the 1980s.
Compared to the loitering anti-radar DAR, the Shaheed is electronically extremely simple and not much more advanced than the WW2 V-1.
The fact that Russia started producing Shaheeds reflects more on the poor state of Russian industry than any sophistication of Iranian technology.
By fc417fc802 2026-03-1222:301 reply It's so odd that in modern America weapons being cheap and practical is often seen as a negative. Have to make sure to fork over a couple million per shot to a defence contractor.
Guy is full of it though. Iranian drones are very effective while American Switchblade drones shit the bed completely in Ukraine.
We have US cloning Iranian drones now https://www.euronews.com/2026/03/10/flm-136-americas-cheap-i...
You're comparing apples, bananas, and pineapples while pretending they're all one thing. Switchblades are extremely effective (albeit expensive) anti-personnel (300 model) and anti-armor (600 model) drones. Shaheds are much larger, cheap, low on capabilities, but attritable used to attack fixed positions (e.g., buildings). These are all very different.
That's the point -- maybe the US should have bought apples instead of buying bananas.
I don't understand your point. Switchblades are (roughly) more akin to FPV (300 model) and Vampire drones (600 model) with reapect to size and payloads. Shahed style drones are roughly like like low end cruise missles. Different form factors and different capabilities. All of them are needed, but they're all very different.
By DrProtic 2026-03-1417:59 Let’s compare it to Lancet then.
Lancets were miles better than Switchblades.
AFAIK Switchblades were used only in first months of the war then completely abandoned.
By cherry_tree 2026-03-1315:112 reply A cruise missile is 3,000,000$ and a shahed drone is 50,000$ so if it’s even remotely the same capability it is an immense technological improvement over an expensive and slow to manufacture cruise missile.
By infamia 2026-03-1315:58 You need a high/low capability that mixes all levels. For example, the Ukrainians and the Russians are both manufacturing very expensove cruise missles (Neptune/Iskander) and long range attack drones (shahed/fp-2/lute/etc). At any rate the original post I was responding to was comparing Switchblades to Shaheds, which is non-sensical.
What is the use case of a dumb, slow, suicide drone for the US army?
By cherry_tree 2026-03-153:19 What’s the use case of a flying bomb that can be mass produced at little cost in days to weeks instead of months to years? Yeah tough to say really.
By black_knight 2026-03-142:09 If only they had bought banana bombs!
By tim333 2026-03-1310:34 Ukraine have underwater drones https://militarnyi.com/en/news/ukrainian-underwater-drone-to...
Could be a copy of those? They don't look that complicated - tube with explosives, battery, electric motors, some sort of computer/radio control. Not so different to a Shahed in complexity.
It's not impossible. Iran has connections with China, who is great at designing and manufacturing UUVs.
That said, a UUV fleet would have downsides for Iran. It's expensive, dependent on imports and an overmatch for swarm-style attacks. Attack boats are a closer fit for the "cheap/attritable" tactics we see used with Shaheds.
I think you're overestimating the complexity of small unmanned subs. Drug traffickers are building _manned_ subs now in South American jungles.
You just need a body (plastic tube), batteries, motors, and a computer. Maybe with a "range extender" gas engine. Everything can be COTS, and Iran certainly can manufacture occasional custom components.
After all, it can manufacture centrifuges for uranium enrichment.
Maybe! Most of those unmanned narcosubs are cut-down speedboats hulls, to my knowledge. The truly watertight/submerged ones are few and far between; it's a lot of investment for marginal decrease in observability.
My money is still on low-observable attack craft, or a high-low mix that deprioritizes submersibles. Iran has an impressive panopoly but also has casus belli to lie out their nose. If Iran does have fully submersable UUVs, I'd expect them to be saved for a direct confrontation with the US Navy, not tankers.
I could definitely be wrong though, I don't have any insider info to work with here.
By cyberax 2026-03-1218:56 > Most of those unmanned narcosubs are cut-down speedboats hulls, to my knowledge.
Some are now fully submersible: https://insightcrime.org/news/under-radar-what-hundreds-ofna...
I think it is indeed more likely that they used a low-profile boat, but I won't discount a full submersible. Or maybe a combination: a low-profile boat that uses a regular outboard gas engine to get close to the target, and then dives and attacks like a torpedo.
> If Iran does have fully submersable UUVs, I'd expect them to be saved for a direct confrontation with the US Navy, not tankers.
I don't think they can do serious damage to large US Navy vessels.
By data-ottawa 2026-03-1217:242 reply Iran has two clear win conditions in this war: cause enough pain that the US withdraws (unlikely given the current admin), or wait until US midterms and hope the Dems secure a victory and use the war powers resolution to end the war.
The more FUD they can generate around transport in the strait of Hermuz the better for them.
Maybe they have this capability and maybe they don’t, but they are clearly able to hit these tankers with something. Ukraine has been using these drones so it’s entirely possible Iran has this tech too.
By Eddy_Viscosity2 2026-03-1218:261 reply This admin does TACO all the time. A likely scenario is Iran causes economic problems, Trump chickens out and withdraws while simultaneously declaring absolute victory. Any lingering problems he blames on Rubio and hegseth.
TACO isn't enough, Iran must also withdraw, this isn't a given if they feel they have nothing to lose
By pseudohadamard 2026-03-135:57 TACO is fine. Iran have shown the world what will happen if Israel/US try that stunt again. So the sensible approach for them would be to declare themselves the peacemakers and pull back, then invest heavily in better drones, seaborne drones, and semi-autonomous minelaying systems. They know what'll happen next time, and how to respond appropriately.
Unfortunately, the new leader's father, wife and children are all dead.
Not all his children, only his daughters. Also his nomination seriously pushes Iran from a theocracy to an elective monarchy imho. Wich, to be clear, is a common slide for theocracies. The Papal ban on children for priests is perhaps the only instance where a theocracy managed to prevent this slide.
By dragonwriter 2026-03-132:081 reply > The Papal ban on children for priests is perhaps the only instance where a theocracy managed to prevent this slide.
Pretty impressive effect, given that there is no such ban. There are a number of other rules which can combine to make it look approximately like there is, but there isn't.
Sorry, ban on priest marriage. Or rather, a celibacy obligation for bishop and priests. Which makes it a ban on children for Christians. I think it's in the 12th century that the rule was instaured, and was, let say, made effective by the council on Trent during the reformation.
By dragonwriter 2026-03-1318:51 > Sorry, ban on priest marriage. [...] Which makes it a ban on children for Christians.
Well, no, it doesn't, and its important to note what the actual bans are to understand why it doesn't. There is:
* a fairly hard ban (essentially absolute, except for an exception noted at the end of this list) on men who are already priests marrying in the Catholic Church,
* a softer ban on married men becoming priests in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church (this is the 12th Century rule you reference),
* no ban on married men becoming priests in the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church,
* a fairly hard ban (essentially absolute, except for an exception noted at the end of this list) on currently-married men becoming bishops in the Catholic Church,
* no ban on men who are widowers (including men admitted to the priesthood while married) becoming bishops in the Catholic Church,
* no ban on a married Catholic man (possibly a layman, a Latin Rite deacon, one of the already exceptional Latin Rite priests, or an Eastern Rite priest) being ordained Bishop of Rome after being elected by the College of Cardinals (the rule for this specific allows any Catholic man to be elected) to the Papacy, though its never happened.
It is not impossible for a man to be both married and have children licitly while being a Catholic priest, and it is not impossible for a man to licitly have children through marriage as a widower while being a Catholic bishop (including the Pope), and its even technically possible for a married man with children to be Pope, though it is improbable that someone not already a bishop---and therefore not currently married, but possibly widowed and with children—and cardinal would be elected.)
As I said originally, there is no rule against a Catholic priest having children, though “there are a number of other rules which can combine to make it look approximately like there is.”
By merpkz 2026-03-1220:46 > Ukraine has been using these drones so it’s entirely possible Iran has this tech too.
Ukraine has been defending against these drones for past 4 years!
EDIT: nevermind, we are talking about sea babies, not shaheds - different kind of drones.
By an_guy 2026-03-1216:12 "If Iran has missiles why would they boast about it and invite attacks upon that weapon and its deployment systems?"
See how that doesn't make any sense?
By JumpCrisscross 2026-03-1215:50 A week ago we saw Iranian and Greek vessels plying the Strait [1]. I guess Tehran is now establishing its monopoly.
[1] https://gcaptain.com/iranian-shadow-fleet-and-greek-affiliat...
By steveBK123 2026-03-1216:021 reply This boondoggle is going to make Iraq 2003 look well planned.
Iraq was well planned. Since 53 the US plan the first days of the war extremely well. This is the first time a US war has gone this bad, this fast. It usually took months.
By steveBK123 2026-03-1311:32 We didn’t prepare for the most obvious responses - closure of hormuz (we are now saying we will have ships in place by end of month to escort tankers, nor filled the SPR at low prices and now have less ready to release) and drones (scrambling to purchase anti-drone tech from Ukraine).
