The Navy Opened Hormuz, Then A Tanker Burned

White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett (Oct 2, about 9:40am ET, via Bloomberg): the Navy has opened Hormuz and crude is coming through. UKMTO (Oct 2, about 11:45am ET): a tanker reported being struck by an unknown projectile while conducting an outbound transit of the Strait of Hormuz. The incident caused a small fire and a blackout on board. The day before (Oct 1), UKMTO confirmed a separate tanker struck by an unknown projectile in the strait, resulting in a fire. Iranian outlets described that vessel as a 2.5-million-barrel supertanker transiting "illegally" about 8km off Oman, and Iran's PGSA said the last three tankers struck were UAE-owned or UAE-chartered. Neither claim has been independently confirmed. Brent closed Oct 2 essentially unchanged at $102.25.

The parent card showed Saudi crude moving through the strait at about four times August's rate. That flow is real, but so is the enforcement. Iran's "illegally transiting" language refers to ships using the lane near the Omani coast instead of its approved corridor, so the strikes look like a routing regime being enforced, not random attacks. If the UAE-linked pattern holds while Saudi cargoes keep moving, Iran is enforcing selectively by country, and passage depends on who you are, not on whether the Navy is present. An administration statement that the strait is open, followed two hours later by a confirmed strike on an outbound tanker, is the clearest measure yet of the gap between the policy claim and conditions on the water. Brent not reacting says the market has stopped pricing individual strikes. That works until one hits a ship it can't ignore.