U.S. forces operating in the Gulf of Oman enforced blockade measures by disabling an **Iranian-flagged unladen oil tanker** attempting to sail toward an Iranian port at 9 a.m. ET, May 6.
[https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/4479004/us-forces-disable-vessel-in-gulf-of-oman-attempting-to-violate-blockade/](https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/4479004/us-forces-disable-vessel-in-gulf-of-oman-attempting-to-violate-blockade/)
Who ordered a tanker? They won't be happy.
47
idocardioMay 6, 2026
+120
they reportedly disabled the tankers rudder by firing several rounds from the 20mm cannon gun of a U.S. Navy F/A-18.
thats very interesting and impressive
120
Ok-Echidna5936May 6, 2026
+28
That’s actually pretty cool
28
MattC19776 days ago
+6
Jesus. What’s the math on that?
Ships rudder, I assume, would mostly be under water, so a relatively small target, an F-18 from how far away traveling at how fast a speed? That target window has to be microscopic?
6
Additional_Quiet2600May 6, 2026
-103
You think that's impressive? 🤣 Living in the 90s?
-103
idocardio6 days ago
+45
the aim is impressive
45
Additional_Quiet26006 days ago
-66
Our military is impressive. We spend more than anyone. Hitting a precise and slow moving target isn't impressive to me. Maybe I'm just old.
-66
Additional_Quiet26006 days ago
-57
After talking to a friend. The lie is impressive. There is no way a 20mm on an f18 did much to a tanker.
They could have used new weapons but that's air to air combat, not air to heavy steel. Bs propaganda.
-57
AcetaminophenPrime6 days ago
+21
I would assume a rudder is alot more fragile than a tankers hull
21
Scriefers6 days ago
+21
You have no idea what you’re talking about. You have no idea what a 20mm, 7,000 round per minute, computer aimed Gatling cannon is capable of. And you have no idea what munition types can do.
21
HotNurse96 days ago
+3
u dont know that, the guy may be eating incendiary 20mm ammo for breakfast
3
WhoSaidWhatNow20266 days ago
+2
I eat pieces of shit you like for breakfast!!
2
HotNurse96 days ago
+1
are you related to skin cube man?
1
BetLeast49436 days ago
+22
Its impressive that a 20mm cannon can disable a tanker rudder
22
Additional_Quiet26006 days ago
-23
Not really. Old tech.
-23
ForcaAereaBelka6 days ago
+28
That's what makes it impressive.
28
Additional_Quiet26006 days ago
-12
I just expect our military to do whatever they want given our expenditure. Pinpointing an easy slow target isn't impressive to me.
-12
Long-Draft-71286 days ago
+9
I was in the us navy, we never hit what we were aiming at. We lauched a missle at an island and missed. I shot the 5in cannon one time and nobody saw where it landed.
9
Additional_Quiet26006 days ago
-6
You weren't a pilot. I don't get the reference
-6
Long-Draft-71286 days ago
+10
Use your brain then. The refrance is i was in the military. Remember those 175 schoolgirls we just blew up? They were a few bocks away from.a mitary bace we were aiming at. To hit a ships rudder is absoluty f****** bonkers of a shot. Thats the deathstar kiling shot.
10
Additional_Quiet26006 days ago
-1
We actually misinterpreted the target because we are using AI, but anyway.
F-18s use guided delivery systems. It's not like dude raw dogged a 50 cal from a helicopter. He point and clicked. That's not to say he's not very skilled. All of our pilots are very skilled like I said. I just don't find nailing a slow moving target from the air given our technical prowess is something we should yank the USA, USA rhetoric about.
-1
BetLeast49436 days ago
+6
Yeah? 20mm are not big rounds... oil tanker rudders are huge pieces of steel. It would actually be *less* impressive to me if they launched a super duper high tech guided warhead at it.
6
Scriefers6 days ago
+3
They have so many different types of warheads for 20mm rounds. And they shot a lot of them, very f****** fast. And it is impact points are continuously guided with avionics/computers. You don’t have to destroy the rudder, just disable it, which to me means damaging the linkage or hinges the rudder pivots on to cause the tanker to make turns.
Using an super hornet ensures that nothing but the rudder is being hit. Which is super f****** important when the target is an oil tanker. The pilot will be able to make multiple passes to line up accurate hits, and repeat attacks to ensure the rudder is disabled. Guided munitions can still miss, cause excessive collateral damage, and are more costly than the flight hours and 20mm munitions it took to disable the tanker’s ability to turn.
3
Additional_Quiet26006 days ago
-2
Ever heard of guidance systems?
-2
BetLeast49436 days ago
+14
Hey bro I dont know how to dumb this down anymore lol
14
Additional_Quiet26006 days ago
-6
Same, really not impressive.
-6
Commercial_Art10786 days ago
+9
God damn you’re irritating. We get your point, you aren’t impressed.
9
IllllIlllIllllIlll6 days ago
+5
You have your answer bro, this supremely intelligent Listnookor is not impressed by what most other people would consider an impressive attack. You can’t change someone’s beliefs and there’s no point in arguing because they aren’t impressed and want to tell the world.
5
Additional_Quiet26006 days ago
-1
I feel the same about you, so? You are, annoyed, whatever. Works both ways, public/private forum and all.
I know that 20mm guidance systems are a thing and they can literally mark a spot on the deck and get a green light to nail it. All or our pilots are great, this isn't some Captain America shit.
-1
-------0--0------6 days ago
-15
20mm cannons would tickle a tanker.
-15
PoliticsIsDepressingMay 6, 2026
+85
News of the war being over is pure cope at this point and the strait isn’t anywhere close to being open.
85
jscummyMay 6, 2026
+53
My understanding is they're just changing the operation name so they can argue it's a new conflict, and avoid requiring Congressional approval (usually needed after 60 days)
53
badk11Z6 days ago
+15
This.
15
GriffinNowak6 days ago
+4
Just do a Korea or Vietnam and call it a SMO and there’s no time limit
4
MaximumPepper1236 days ago
+4
That might work if Trump could stick to a script, but he never does.
4
GriffinNowak6 days ago
+2
We called Vietnam a war… we literally had a draft for it?
2
[deleted]6 days ago
+1
[deleted]
1
jscummy6 days ago
+1
Laws are only as strong as the willingness to enforce them, which Congress has shown is near zero
Amazing we can barely find a spine among them
1
Least1Difficulty6 days ago
+1
Isn't that De Niro's character had to do in order to keep working at the C*****?
1
SomeBaldDude20136 days ago
+24
Hey now, it’s also market manipulation. Don’t forget about that!
24
TWIT_TWAT6 days ago
+1
It’s especially market manipulation.
1
Snigglybear6 days ago
+1
Pretty much. The US wants it close and Iran wants it open. Traffic has significantly died down, so I guess the blockade is working.
1
Thirtiethone6 days ago
+1
Just wait until next Tuesday
1
[deleted]May 6, 2026
-8
[deleted]
-8
Sticklefront6 days ago
+7
LOL. I heard that same thing six weeks ago!
7
[deleted]6 days ago
+2
[deleted]
2
Sticklefront6 days ago
-1
Neither side has conceded ground on anything. They are still exactly as far apart on the key point of nuclear enrichment as the were two months ago.
-1
[deleted]6 days ago
+2
[deleted]
2
Sticklefront6 days ago
Never count out a TACO, but I'll believe it when it happens. Are nuclear sites inspected for compliance, and if so, by who? Is Israel actually going to stop attacking Lebanon, and what happens if they start again in two weeks? The devil is always in the details and you aren't fitting any details on a 1 page agreement. It's a complete joke.
0
[deleted]6 days ago
+2
[deleted]
2
Sticklefront6 days ago
+1
"Small details" like "what they're actually agreeing on". Iran has always claimed they only want a civilian nuclear program and now they say that's all they'll work on for 12-15 years. Having read your article, I still can't name one point that is substantially closer to agreement now than it was two months ago, except that maybe TACO is closer to giving it up and calling it quits.
1
[deleted]6 days ago
+2
[deleted]
2
Kswan20126 days ago
-6
And then when its over you are going to move on and say it was a stupid war to begin with
-6
PoliticsIsDepressing6 days ago
+12
….its been a stupid war the second it started.
12
Kswan20126 days ago
-1
Talking points just keep changing. It's a good war. They were killing innocent people
-1
FeistyGate87846 days ago
+5
Yes, as most of America also thinks
5
CooCooClocksClan6 days ago
-2
Thanks for the update this is helpful
-2
Vulcant506 days ago
+4
Must be a ~~lucky~~ good shot to hit a vessels rudder and nothing else?
4
errorsniper6 days ago
+11
If you know all the variables its just a math problem. You point the computer does all the calculations and as long as its within the realm of physics to hit that spot it will. We can drop an icbm inside of a garage door from the other side of the planet in 25 minutes.
Hitting a slow moving target a few kilometers away with a target well within the weapons effective range isnt hard.
11
Vulcant506 days ago
+2
Even an underwater rudder, of an unknown size, without damaging the ship.
2
UwUHowYou6 days ago
+5
Well, its not like its sneaky or in an unexpected location I guess. You see the ship you know where to shoot
5
Vulcant506 days ago
-2
?
I never claimed it was “sneaky” or in an unexpected location? Merely that it was a good shot, if it was of an unknown size/confugeration - as a rudder is underwater and is a much smaller target than what’s seen above water. Do you know how far away it was?
-2
errorsniper6 days ago
+4
I guarantee they had the make and model of that ship pulled up and pre-planned target maps for it.
4
Vulcant506 days ago
Ok
Thanks
Seems like you have an inside view.
0
VastInvestment27356 days ago
-4
kinda crazy how easy they fall on schools tho hey
-4
errorsniper6 days ago
+8
That example as grim as it is proves my point.
An AI model incorrectly picked it as a target. The fact it was picked as a target was the mistake. It shouldnt have been picked. But unfortunately it was picked and it was a hit.
8
vand3lay1ndustries6 days ago
-4
All it costs is a sick and uneducated population.
-4
Majestic_Standard_51May 6, 2026
+20
Great idea from a country that says the war is over.
20
TrumpBad_UpvotesPlsMay 6, 2026
+93
They were very clear the blockade would continue.
93
2044DelphiniMay 6, 2026
+8
A blockade is an act of war regardless
8
HardlyW0rkingHardMay 6, 2026
+41
Well the Islamic republic is still attacking civilians ships that attempt to cross international waters. Keeping the blockade up until they back off that position is not a bad idea tbh.
41
AlfredoTheDark6 days ago
-6
Remind me again why Iran started doing that?
-6
2044Delphini6 days ago
+4
The Americans and Israelis attacked them during negotiations and wiped out most of their leaders and hundreds of innocent civilians.
4
Codex_Dev6 days ago
+3
And Iran attacked Saudi Arabia and the UAE?
3
2044Delphini6 days ago
-5
Well, that's where the Americans were.
-5
xxxxxxxsandos6 days ago
+7
The Americans were at Dubai hotels and uae refineries? Sounds just as believable as the Iranians being at the girls school.
7
MongooseStrange5976 days ago
+2
Hey man, don’t bother with him. Anyone that keeps their history private, isnt a good faith actor
2
BigCountry11826 days ago
+4
They want to assert regional supremacy and abolish the modern state of Israel and US is being stubborn about not letting them
4
HardlyW0rkingHard6 days ago
+6
If we are playing this game, Trump promised civilians in Iran that he would attack regime targets if the regime attacked them on January 8 and 9. The Islamic republic massacred tens of thousands of unarmed civilians and Trump attacked. There are other intentional reasons, but let's not act like the Islamic republic is innocent
6
GloryofSatan19946 days ago
+2
If that was the actual reason we wouldn't have waited until all the protesters were dead to bomb regime forces
2
HardlyW0rkingHard6 days ago
+7
The logistics of moving your army halfway around the globe takes time
7
GloryofSatan19946 days ago
+2
You are correct, but if we actually cared about the civilians, there were forces in the area that could have done something. But this admin doesnt give a f*** about Iranian civilians, hence us double tapping a school, blowing up civilian infrastructure, and threatening to blow up critical civilian infrastructure, also known as committing war crimes.
Trump wanted an easy win and he bit off more than he can chew. Hes too much of a coward to fully commit but hes too insecure to look weak and back down, so we're stuck in this waiting cycle.
2
HardlyW0rkingHard6 days ago
+2
oh don't get me wrong, they had many more reasons to attack than just those protestors, but that definitely moved the timeline up.
Look, I grew up in Iran. This was is very difficult to watch, but I'm going to be unbias and say that the majority of the civilian targets they've targetted were being used by the IRGC as military assets. The school you mentioned was in a military complex. The IRGC unfortunately relies on the use of human shields for survival; just a few weeks ago they lowered the age requirement for joining the basij to 12.
Based on my conversation with my family in Iran, I actually think that the Islamic republic has already collapsed, but the cut internet and threat of war is making the future undetermined. If Hormouz was not an issue, i think the government would have been toppled right now, this is why the IRGC are so adamant about holding their position on Hormoz.
2
AlfredoTheDark6 days ago
-4
We have gained nothing in this war. The Iranian people have gained nothing. Daddy Trump shot himself in the d*** and you people are pretending that actually it's really strong and smart to blow your d*** off.
-4
HardlyW0rkingHard6 days ago
+6
I am not American. I don't know what you people means.
6
AlfredoTheDark6 days ago
-2
Trump supporters. People like you, who will go out of their way to rationalize the decisions of a demented old idiot who is f****** everyone over.
-2
MongooseStrange5976 days ago
+4
lol dude, again he’s not American lol
4
HardlyW0rkingHard6 days ago
+3
why do you think I'm a trump supporter simply because I stated a fact that goes against your political narrative?
3
shryke126 days ago
+1
Attacking random countries civilian ships unrelated to the US is never appropriate regardless what the US does.
1
OldZaxSauce6 days ago
cuz they pressed their luck and found out.
0
badk11Z6 days ago
+10
So is emplacing sea mines in an international navigation route. Or demanding 2 million dollars per vessel to pass.
10
2044Delphini6 days ago
+5
Did they do that before they were attacked?
5
badk11Z6 days ago
+7
Yes, they did. Iran last heavily targeted shipping in the Strait of Hormuz in 2019–2021. Specific incidents included Iran's Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) seizing the UK-flagged Stena Impero in July 2019 and a South Korean tanker in January 2021. Tensions also escalated in 2011–2012, with similar threats to blockade the strait.
7
2044Delphini6 days ago
Lol, and yet, we didn't go to war then, and the straits remained open, and now here we are, straits closed and the US seems to be moving towards letting Iran own it and charge fees.
Really great move.
0
badk11Z6 days ago
+1
We’ve been at war with Iran for decades, albeit their proxies. Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, IAMGs in Iraq and Syria, etc etc etc.
Over 600 American soldiers were killed by Iranian designed EFPs in Iraq. 218 marines died from an Iranian VBIED in Lebanon coordinated by the Quds force (of which the current IRGC commanding general [Vahidi] who was a direct participant in)
1
Luna__Moonkitty6 days ago
-2
So what you're saying is we've always been at war with Eurasia.
Thanks for the Orwellian excuse for this unprovoked war.
-2
badk11Z6 days ago
Iran≠Eurasia
0
JoseSaldana65126 days ago
-1
We don't know! Faux News hasn't told us yet!
-1
chaotic567May 6, 2026
+9
But is Iran willing to restart the war cause of it? They just seem to just really mostly hit the UAE
9
no_kids-and-3_money6 days ago
+4
It’s not restarting a war - a blockade is war.
4
chaotic5676 days ago
+9
More apt to say question is if Iran is willing to restart the back and forth bombings over it.
US side is claiming there no war going on because of the ceasefire. Which means no need for congressional review as timer hasn't been hit.
If Iran attacked the US, they just can use that as justification for the review or claim it is a new war, thus new clock. Thus new 60 day waiting time.
9
MrTriangular6 days ago
+1
No, the blockade still being on as part of Operation Epic Fury means the war is not over until the US completely withdraws. Bombings or no, a continuous blockade means a single continuous war. Ceasefires do not pause the timer, only completely breaking off hostilities, ending the blockade, and withdrawing US military forces.
A blockade isn't a mild inconvenience, Iran imports a ton of food. A blockade is basically a siege. If you were in a fight with someone and you were strangling and punching each other, taking a break from punching while still strangling each other, only to start punching again doesn't make it 2 separate fights.
1
Fast-Satisfaction482May 6, 2026
+2
But not of THAT war, duh! We had one war, but what about second war?
2
Muronelkaz6 days ago
-2
So wait, it's not illegal to take control of a waterway and blockade international passage?
-2
TrumpBad_UpvotesPls6 days ago
It is, that's why we're stopping Iran from doing it.
0
blackestmateMay 6, 2026
+8
I don't think they want this war to end lmao
8
BOHIFOBREMay 6, 2026
+5
They're getting way too rich off of it to end it.
5
jackp0t789May 6, 2026
-9
We're apparently in our Dread Pirate era...
-9
speckledlobsterMay 6, 2026
But we're still totally in a "cease fire". Just ignore the various missile barrages and ship getting hit.
0
TheVenetianMask6 days ago
+2
Totally defensive action like Rubio said.
2
zeni196 days ago
+3
Good stuff 👏
3
Additional_Quiet2600May 6, 2026
-17
Hey guys our trillion dollar military stopped an oil tanker!
USA! USA! USA! /s
What a load of garbage.
-17
FedBathroomInspector6 days ago
+16
That’s one way to interpret this news
16
Additional_Quiet26006 days ago
-6
Sure is. Patting ourselves on the back for disabling a vessel isn't newsworthy imo.
It's been happening back and forth.
-6
ResortClear7306 days ago
+17
So you would prefer the US Navy to not report on actions they take?
17
Additional_Quiet26006 days ago
-7
Not necessarily.
I know for a fact that all of our military does more than we talk about and it isn't classified stuff. Flat out military action hardly talked about on page 3 of the news.
I think we are fighting a propaganda war and it's gross and an affront to our citizens.
-7
ResortClear7306 days ago
+6
I’m sure they do tons of stuff not talked about. Can you not see how maybe reporting actions taking place in the straight mmmaaaayyy be newsworthy at this current time?
6
Additional_Quiet26006 days ago
-2
Yes I can. I also know other actions aren't being pumped like this.
-2
ResortClear7306 days ago
+3
lol, again why is that? It’s almost like there is a huge conflict going on in a major international waterway. About 20 percent of the world’s oil goes through the straight and you don’t see why an Iranian tanker being shot by the US Navy is news.
3
Additional_Quiet26006 days ago
-1
Didn't day it wasn't newsworthy.
-1
ResortClear7306 days ago
+5
Well I mean, you did.
“Sure is. Patting ourselves on the back for disabling a vessel isn't newsworthy imo.
It's been happening back and forth.”
That’s called a quote my guy.
5
YourLocalMoroccanMay 6, 2026
-20
dont forget that iran disabled 43 boats since the blockade began but nobody talks about that i guess
-20
Wide_Yoghurt_4064May 6, 2026
+5
Nope, USA bad is the only propaganda listnookers will hear.
5
Abject-Director-5013May 6, 2026
-5
I mean the US is embarrassing themselves right now. This whole situation was unnecessary and completely unsuccessful trumps post on social media constantly contradicting the post before it. It is truly unique in how chaotic and stupid this situation has become
-5
Wide_Yoghurt_4064May 6, 2026
-3
Of course but that’s not what was being talked about here.
-3
DevilsAdvocate776 days ago
+1
Why would they do such a thing completely unprovoked?
Oh, wait.
1
Anustart15May 6, 2026
-13
Iran isn't running around insisting to the media that they are only taking defensive actions as a means to deny needing congressional approval for this conflict
-13
interstatMay 6, 2026
+14
USA has said they have a blockade. This seems consistent with it
14
Anustart15May 6, 2026
-1
But inconsistent with the claim that the conflict is over and that they are only taking defensive actions
-1
mForceofCors3106 days ago
+1
Yeah I don’t understand the downvotes. I’m with you.
1
snarky_answerMay 6, 2026
CENTCOM isnt either.
0
Anustart15May 6, 2026
+6
But marco rubio got on TV and said this yesterday:
> Now, what’s really important for you to report and for everyone to understand is this is not an offensive operation. This is a defensive operation. And what that means is very simple: There’s no shooting unless we’re shot at first, okay. We’re not attacking them.
So at the very least, they are (not surprisingly) putting out contradictory messages
6
[deleted]May 6, 2026
+1
[deleted]
1
Anustart15May 6, 2026
+3
A blockade in international waters is an act of war, not a sanction. The US has no inherent authority to prevent Iran from traveling in international waters
3
Exact_Patience_9767May 6, 2026
-24
Nobody cares, other than you're warmongering, Hegseth. Where is the cease-fire deal, jackasses?
136 Comments