US president says Navy will begin stopping ships in one of the world’s most important oil routes, raising fears of a deeper military and economic crisis

DONALD TRUMP has announced that the United States will begin blockading the Strait of Hormuz after talks with Iran failed to secure agreement on Tehran’s nuclear programme.

In a strongly-worded statement published on Sunday (Apr 12), Trump said the US Navy would begin the process of blockading “any and all ships” trying to enter or leave the strategic waterway, one of the most important oil routes in the world.

He said talks had gone well overall and that “most points were agreed to”, but claimed the one issue that really mattered — nuclear — had not been resolved.

Trump also said US forces would seek to interdict vessels in international waters that had paid what he described as an illegal toll to Iran. He further warned that mines laid in the strait would be destroyed and said: “The blockade will begin shortly.”

The statement marks a dramatic escalation in the standoff with Tehran and raises the prospect of a wider confrontation in the Gulf, with major implications for global shipping, oil prices and economic stability.

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the most strategically important waterways in the world, with a significant share of globally traded oil passing through it each day. Any prolonged military disruption there is likely to send fresh tremors through international energy markets and could quickly push up fuel costs.

Trump’s announcement came after marathon talks between US and Iranian representatives ended without a breakthrough. While both sides indicated that some progress had been made, the negotiations ultimately stalled over the future of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Washington has insisted it wants a firm commitment that Iran will not seek a nuclear weapon or the capability to obtain one quickly. Tehran has maintained that it is not pursuing nuclear weapons, while insisting on its right to civilian nuclear energy.

The collapse of the talks now throws the future of an already fragile ceasefire into doubt and increases fears that diplomacy may be giving way to military pressure.

Trump’s latest remarks were notably more aggressive than earlier comments in which he suggested the United States would soon have the Strait of Hormuz open again. Sunday’s statement went much further, setting out not just a warning but a declared intention to begin military enforcement.

His language was uncompromising throughout, describing Iran’s actions as “world extortion” and warning that any attack on American forces or peaceful vessels would be met with overwhelming force.

He also claimed Iran’s military capacity had already been severely degraded and said other countries would be involved in the blockade effort.

The development is likely to alarm governments and markets around the world. Any attempt to physically stop or search vessels in or around the strait would carry enormous risks, not only of direct military confrontation but also of severe disruption to global trade.

For now, the key question is whether Trump’s declaration becomes an immediate operational reality or is intended as a pressure tactic designed to force Iran back to the table. Either way, the announcement represents one of the most serious moments yet in the latest confrontation between Washington and Tehran.

With tensions rising and the world watching one of its most vital shipping corridors, the danger now is that a diplomatic failure over nuclear talks could spiral into a much broader international crisis

A US AIR FORCE E-3 Sentry airborne warning and control aircraft appears to have been heavily damaged — and possibly destroyed — during an Iranian missile and drone strike on Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia on Friday (March 27).

Images circulating online, now also carried by The New York Times and other international outlets, show the rear fuselage of an E-3 burned out, with its distinctive radar dome separated and lying on the tarmac nearby. The extent of the visible damage suggests the aircraft may be beyond repair, although US officials have not formally confirmed the loss.

Reports cited by the The Jerusalem Post indicate that between ten and twelve American service personnel were wounded in the attack, with at least two said to be in a serious condition. The strike, which took place around 60 miles south of Riyadh in the early hours, is understood to have involved a coordinated barrage including at least one ballistic missile alongside multiple attack drones.

The same reports claim that other aircraft at the base may also have been damaged, including KC-135 Stratotanker refuelling aircraft, although this has not been independently verified.

Prince Sultan Air Base has been a key hub for US air operations in the region and has reportedly come under repeated attack in recent weeks. According to the Jerusalem Post, earlier incidents included a strike that wounded fourteen personnel earlier in the week, and a missile attack on March 1 which is said to have killed one servicemember.

High-value target

The E-3 Sentry is one of the most important aircraft in the US military’s inventory. Based on a modified Boeing 707 airframe, it is equipped with a large rotating radar dome providing 360-degree surveillance over hundreds of miles. The aircraft acts as a flying command centre, coordinating fighters, tracking threats, and managing complex air operations in real time.

The US Air Force originally operated around thirty E-3 aircraft, although that number has now been reduced to approximately sixteen as the ageing fleet is gradually retired. Around six had reportedly been deployed to the Middle East ahead of the current conflict.

Each aircraft cost roughly $270 million to build in the 1990s, which would equate to approximately $500 million to $700 million (£400m–£550m) today. However, analysts say the true value of the platform lies not in its price tag, but in the critical role it plays in maintaining air superiority and battlefield coordination.

Heather Penney, a former F-16 pilot and analyst at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, described the potential loss as “incredibly problematic,” noting that such aircraft act as the “chessmaster” of modern air warfare, overseeing and directing operations across the battlespace.

Strategic implications

If confirmed, the loss or severe damage of an E-3 would represent a significant blow to US and allied operations in the region. The aircraft provides early warning of incoming threats and enables the coordination of large-scale air campaigns — capabilities that are difficult to replace quickly.

The strike may also highlight increasing sophistication in Iranian targeting. The Jerusalem Post reports that the attack appeared to focus on high-value assets, suggesting access to detailed intelligence on aircraft positions and operational patterns at the base. However, claims of external intelligence support have not been independently verified.

The incident underlines the vulnerability of even heavily defended installations to coordinated missile and drone attacks, and raises further concerns about escalation in an already volatile region.

At the time of publication, US officials had not issued a detailed public assessment of the damage or confirmed whether the aircraft has been written off.

Reliance on US interceptors leaves gaps as Iran’s reach grows

BRITAIN would struggle to defend itself against a long-range ballistic missile attack and would instead rely heavily on American systems based in Eastern Europe and at sea — with no guarantee of success.

That is the stark reality emerging after Iran’s attempted strike on a UK–US base at Diego Garcia on Saturday (March 21), a move that caught many world leaders off guard and marked a significant escalation in capability.

Concerns are further heightened by Iran’s development of larger space launch vehicles, including the Simorgh, Zuljanah, Ghaem-100 and Qased systems, which on paper demonstrate ranges of between 2,200 km and up to 6,000 km, with payload capacities of up to 1,000 kg. While these rockets are officially designed to place satellites into orbit rather than deliver warheads, they use the same multi-stage technology and propulsion systems found in long-range ballistic missiles. Defence analysts have long warned that such programmes provide a clear pathway to intercontinental strike capability, raising the prospect that parts of Europe — and potentially even the UK — could fall within reach if these technologies are adapted for military use.

No UK shield over Britain

The UK has no dedicated system to shoot down long-range ballistic missiles over its own territory.

While RAF Fylingdales provides early warning and tracking, it cannot intercept incoming threats. Britain’s air defence network — including RAF jets and ground systems — is designed for aircraft, drones and cruise missiles, not high-speed ballistic weapons.

In simple terms, if a missile were heading toward a target such as Milford Haven’s energy facilities, there is no British-operated system that could reliably stop it at the last moment.

America would have to act

Instead, any interception attempt would fall to the United States.

Key assets include:

• Aegis Ashore missile defence bases in Romania and Poland
• US Navy warships equipped with SM-3 interceptors
• Wider NATO tracking and coordination systems

These systems are capable of striking a missile in space during its midcourse phase, long before it reaches the UK.

But there is a crucial limitation: they can only engage if the missile passes within range of those systems.

If the trajectory falls outside that envelope — or if no US ship is positioned correctly — there may be no interception at all.

A probability, not protection

Even when an intercept is attempted, success is far from certain.

Testing data for the SM-3 system suggests success rates of roughly 50 to 80 per cent per engagement, depending on conditions. In practice, multiple interceptors are often fired at a single target to improve the odds.

That still leaves a significant margin for failure.

In a real-world scenario involving countermeasures, technical faults or multiple missiles, the chances of at least one getting through rise sharply.

Gaps in coverage

The NATO missile defence network is not a continuous shield.

It is a patchwork of coverage zones tied to specific systems:

• Romania and Poland provide fixed land-based interception capability
• US warships offer flexible but limited coverage depending on deployment

There is no permanent protective umbrella over the UK itself.

If a missile does not pass through one of those defended zones, Britain would effectively be relying on luck and geometry.

Deterrence, not defence

Ultimately, the UK’s primary protection is not interception — it is deterrence.

Any successful strike on British soil would almost certainly trigger a major NATO response, making such an attack extraordinarily risky for any adversary.

But deterrence does not equal defence.

A growing concern

Iran’s attempted long-range strike on Diego Garcia has shifted the debate sharply.

The use of a missile capable of travelling thousands of kilometres surprised many Western leaders, who had not expected Tehran to demonstrate that level of reach in the current crisis. Although one missile failed and another was intercepted, the incident has raised fresh questions about how far Iran’s capabilities have advanced.

For years, the idea of a missile threat to Europe — let alone Britain — was largely theoretical. Now, defence analysts are treating it as a credible future risk, even if capability remains limited today.

The bottom line

The UK can detect a missile, track it, and coordinate a response — but when it comes to actually stopping it, the country would be dependent on American systems operating at distance, with no certainty of success.

If a missile ever did get through, there would be little standing between it and its target.

And that is the uncomfortable truth behind the headlines.