Category: News

Tech firm suspended mass shooter’s ChatGPT account before attacks, but did not inform law enforcement.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has apologised over his company’s failure to warn authorities about the concerning online activities of a teen who went on to commit one of Canada’s worst mass shootings.

Jesse Van Rootselaar, 18, went on a shooting spree in Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia, on February 10, killing eight people.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

The victims included Rootselaar’s mother and half-brother, and five students at the remote community’s secondary school.

Rootselaar, who was born male but identified as female, died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

OpenAI said after the attacks that Rootselaar’s ChatGPT account had been flagged internally the previous June for misuse “in furtherance of violent activities”, resulting in its suspension.

The San Francisco-based AI company said at the time that it had not informed authorities, as Rootselaar’s usage of the chatbot had not met the threshold of posing a credible or imminent threat of harm to others.

In a letter shared on Friday by the Tumbler RidgeLines news site and British Columbia Premier David Eby, Altman acknowledged that OpenAI should have alerted law enforcement to Rootselaar’s suspension.

“I am deeply sorry that we did not alert law enforcement to the account that was banned in June. While I know words can never be enough, I believe an apology is necessary to recognize the harm and irreversible loss your community has suffered,” Altman wrote.

“I reaffirm the commitment I made to the Mayor and the Premier to find ways to prevent tragedies like this in the future,” Altman added.

“Going forward, our focus will continue to be on working with all levels of government to help ensure something like this never happens again.”

Altman’s statement of regret came after Eby said last month that the tech CEO had agreed to apologise to the Tumbler Ridge community over OpenAI’s failure to flag Rootselaar as a threat.

In his letter, Altman said Eby and Tumbler Ridge Mayor Darryl Krakowka had conveyed “the anger, sadness, and concern” being felt in the community in their discussions.

“We agreed a public apology was necessary, but that time was also needed to respect the community as you grieved. I share this letter with the understanding that everyone grieves in their own way and in their own time,” Altman wrote.

“I want to express my deepest condolences to the entire community. No one should ever have to endure a tragedy like this. I cannot imagine anything worse in this world than losing a child.”

Border security set to loom large as Colombia’s leader meets interim Venezuelan President Delcy Rodriguez.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro has become the first foreign leader to visit Venezuela since the United States military abducted Nicolas Maduro on January 3.

On Friday, Petro was greeted by Venezuela’s interim President Delcy Rodriguez at the Miraflores Presidential Palace in Caracas. Their visit comes after a previously scheduled meeting in the Colombian border town of Cucuta was abruptly cancelled in March.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

The pair embraced and waved before heading inside the palace. Their meeting is expected to be dominated by issues of security, as the two countries share a 2,200-kilometre (1,367-mile) border.

While the border region is a significant area of trade, it is also a major migration route as well as home to criminal drug smuggling and paramilitary groups.

Previous Colombian governments had accused Maduro, Venezuela’s former president, of working with those criminal groups.

Those claims, in part, formed the basis for the US criminal charges against the longtime leader, who is awaiting trial in US detention. He had served as the leader of Venezuela since 2013.

Gustavo became Colombia’s first left-wing leader in 2022. He became an important ally to Maduro, with the pair agreeing to increase the military presence along the border.

Petro has been a vocal critic of the US abduction of Maduro, which he called an “assault on sovereignty” in Latin America. The US operation has also been decried by legal experts as a flagrant violation of international law.

Washington maintained the abduction was necessary as a law enforcement operation to bring Maduro to justice. It also does not recognise Maduro as the legitimate leader of Venezuela, following a series of contested elections.

In addition, Petro has also condemned the ongoing US strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats in Latin America, which have killed Colombian nationals.

 

Petro’s criticism has prompted threats from US President Donald Trump, who floated possible strikes on Colombia’s territory. He has also called the Colombian president a “sick man who likes making cocaine and selling it to the United States”.

The US-Colombia tensions have since calmed following a White House meeting between Trump and Petro in February.

Rodriguez has also walked a fine line with Trump since Maduro’s abduction.

Formerly Maduro’s vice president, Rodriguez has cooperated with several US demands, including stopping oil exports to Cuba, opening Venezuela’s state-owned oil industry to foreign companies, and releasing political prisoners.

She has sought to do so without alienating Maduro loyalists in the country, including the influential leaders of the military and the interior security apparatus.

The Rodriguez administration has sought to attract investors in oil and mining to Venezuela, in an effort to heal the country’s economic crisis, including sky-high inflation.

But Rodriguez has also pushed the US to lift sanctions on the Venezuelan economy that she says are impeding long-term investments.

She said she accepted an invitation to meet Trump in the US, but no date has been set for the trip.

She has previously met CIA Director John Ratcliffe, US Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and US Energy Secretary Chris Wright when they visited Caracas earlier this year.

On Thursday, a new US envoy, John Barrett, also arrived in Caracas. He has been tasked with overseeing a US plan for the country, meant to culminate in new elections.

Judge had previously blocked move to end temporary legal status for those who entered US via Biden-era application.

The administration of President Donald Trump plans to again end the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of people who applied for asylum in the United States via the CBP One app.

The plan was detailed in a court filing in Boston, Massachusetts, and comes after a judge ruled that Trump’s earlier effort to terminate the legal status of those individuals was unlawful.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

Under US President Joe Biden, individuals who registered for an appointment with US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) were preliminarily vetted and granted temporary legal status in the US as their asylum cases were adjudicated.

About 900,000 people were granted so-called humanitarian parole under the programme.

But in April of last year, just months after Trump took office for a second term, many of those individuals received emails saying their status had been terminated.

The message told its recipients it was “time for you to leave the United States”.

Federal Judge Allison Burroughs subsequently ruled that the Department of Homeland Security did not follow the proper procedures in terminating the legal status immigration status of CBP One users.

The US Department of Justice, in the new filings, told Burroughs that the Trump administration was complying with ⁠her order.

However, the department said the administration would begin issuing new parole termination notices, pursuant to a Tuesday memo from CBP’s head, Rodney Scott.

The memo is not public, but according to the Justice Department, Scott provided ‌an explanation for why, in his opinion, “parole is no longer appropriate for those aliens”.

Lawyers for Democracy Forward and Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, which represent the individuals whose status faces termination, urged Burroughs in a subsequent filing to prevent what they called a “deliberate attempt to evade compliance with the court’s order”.

The next hearing was set for May 6.

During his second term, Trump has pursued a hardline immigration policy that has included staunching nearly all asylum claims at the southern border.

Shortly after taking office, Trump’s officials also dissolved the CBP One app and relaunched it as CBP Home, a tool for self-deportation.

His administration has claimed there was an “invasion” at the border that constituted a “national emergency”, thereby allowing Trump to bypass legal requirements to allow individuals seeking asylum into the country.

Asylum, however, is a right enshrined both in domestic and international law, to protect people fleeing persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.

Separately, on Friday, a federal appeals court ruled against the Trump administration’s ban on asylum at the southern US border, potentially clearing the way for applications to once again be processed.

The administration is expected to appeal the decision.

Judges say Trump’s order for swift removal at the border ‘cast aside federal laws affording’ right to seek asylum.

An appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump’s ban on asylum applications in the United States is unlawful, dealing a setback to the administration’s immigration crackdown.

In a decision released on Friday, a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals in Washington, DC, found that existing laws — namely the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) — give people the right to apply for asylum at the border.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

Trump had issued the asylum ban in a proclamation on January 20, 2025, on the first day of his second term.

But the appeals court questioned whether suspending asylum unilaterally was within the president’s power.

“Congress did not intend to grant the Executive the expansive removal authority it asserts,” the ruling said.

“The Proclamation and Guidance are thus unlawful to the extent that they circumvent the INA’s removal procedures and cast aside federal laws affording individuals the right to apply and be considered for asylum or withholding of removal protections.”

The decision validated a ruling by a lower court. While the judges blocked Trump’s order, it is unclear what its immediate impact will be. Already, the White House has signalled it plans to appeal.

Trump made immigration a major pillar of his 2024 re-election campaign, pledging to repel what he describes as an “invasion” of migrants by shutting down the southern border of the US.

Asylum in the US can be granted to people facing “persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group”. Such protections have been recognised as a fundamental human right under international law.

But unauthorised border crossings reached record levels during the administration of President Joe Biden, which had itself imposed asylum restrictions.

Millions of migrants — many suffering from gang violence and political persecution in Central and South America — have claimed asylum upon reaching the US.

Nearly 945,000 filed for asylum in 2023, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

In his January 2025 decree, Trump suspended “the physical entry of aliens involved in an invasion into the United States across the southern border”.

The proclamation was quickly challenged in court, as other measures in Trump’s immigration crackdown have been.

But the appeals court panel concluded that the INA does not authorise the president to remove the plaintiffs under “procedures of his own making”.

Nor does it allow him to suspend the plaintiffs’ right to apply for asylum or curtail procedures for adjudicating claims of torture and persecution.

“The power by proclamation to temporarily suspend the entry of specified foreign individuals into the United States does not contain implicit authority to override the INA’s mandatory process to summarily remove foreign individuals,” wrote Judge J Michelle Childs, a Biden appointee.

The Trump administration will likely appeal the ruling to the full appellate court and subsequently to the Supreme Court.

The White House stressed after the court’s decision that banning asylum is part of Trump’s constitutional powers as commander-in-chief.

“We have liberal judges across the country who are acting against this president for political purposes. They are not acting as true litigators of the law. They are looking at these cases from a political lens,” White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters.

Move is part of a broader US push to curb politically sensitive fuel price spikes before November’s midterm elections, even though impact on lowering fuel prices is questionable.

United States President Donald Trump granted a 90-day extension to a shipping waiver that makes it easier to move oil, fuel and fertiliser around the US, the White House has said, the latest effort to curb rising energy costs linked to the war with Iran.

Friday’s move, even though its impact on lowering prices is questionable, reflects a broader push by the White House to dampen politically sensitive fuel price spikes before November’s midterm elections, where affordability is expected to be a defining issue for voters.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

The Jones Act requires that goods hauled between US ports be moved on US-flagged vessels. Passed in 1920, this law aims to protect the US shipping sector, but it has also faced criticism over the years for slowing the delivery of goods, including critical aid during times of crisis.

In March, the White House said it would suspend Jones Act requirements for 60 days, in a measure amid wider efforts to counter steep oil prices and cargo disruptions due to the war. The Jones Act is often blamed for making gas, in particular, more expensive. Still, several analysts and industry groups say this waiver will do little to ease consumers’ fuel bills today.

The Center for American Progress estimated in March that waiving the Jones Act would decrease East Coast gas prices by a modest 3 cents, but potentially raise costs on the Gulf Coast. And the move “would also sideline American shipbuilders and workers and allow the oil industry to continue to profit from high prices while reducing transport costs”, the research and policy think tank said.

White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers confirmed on Friday that Trump had issued the extension.

“This waiver extension provides both certainty and stability for the US and global economies,” Rogers said.

The administration is taking the step of extending the waiver three weeks before its expiration to allow ample time for the maritime industry to ensure sufficient vessels are available, in order to keep moving applicable goods to where they are needed, a White House official said.

The Jones Act has long been a flashpoint between competing economic and national security priorities. Supporters, including US shipbuilders, maritime unions and a number of lawmakers, argue the law is critical to maintaining a domestic shipping industry and merchant marine that can support military logistics and national security.

But critics – including energy producers, refiners and agricultural groups – say the requirement to use US-built and -crewed vessels sharply raises shipping costs and limits capacity, particularly during disruptions, driving up prices for fuel and other goods.

“This extension of an already historically long and ineffective Jones Act waiver is not only an affront to hundreds of thousands of hardworking Americans who put this country first every single day, it sabotages President Trump’s agenda to restore American maritime dominance,” said Jennifer Carpenter, president of the American Maritime Partnership.

Falling approval

Recent polling suggests Trump and Republicans losing ground on the economy – once a core political strength – with approval of his economic handling falling sharply and rising gasoline prices weighing heavily on public sentiment.

Some 77 percent of registered voters in a Reuters/IPSOS poll, which concluded early this week, said Trump bears at least a fair amount of responsibility for the recent rise in gas prices, which was prompted by his decision to launch a war, together with Israel, on Iran.

The view was widely shared across the political spectrum, with 55 percent of Republican voters, 82 percent of independents and 95 percent of Democrats pinning blame on the president for the higher costs.

Trump has said crude and gasoline prices are likely to fall once the Iran conflict subsides, but analysts caution that costs could remain elevated even after hostilities end, as supply disruptions, higher shipping costs and a lingering geopolitical risk premium continue to ripple through global energy markets.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has announced plans to expand the use of the federal death penalty, including through the deployment of firing squads.

The announcement on Friday was part of a policy document issued by the Department of Justice, setting out the legal argument for various methods of execution.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

It touted steps for “restoring and strengthening” the death penalty as integral to the pursuit of justice.

“The Department of Justice acted to restore its solemn duty to seek, obtain, and implement lawful capital sentences – clearing the way for the Department to carry out executions once death-sentenced inmates have exhausted their appeals,” the Justice Department said in a news release.

While the Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution outlaws “cruel and unusual punishments”, the Justice Department maintains that execution by gunfire, electrocution and lethal gas are all legally acceptable.

The policy document also takes aim at Trump’s predecessor, Democrat Joe Biden, for implementing a moratorium on the federal executions.

“The federal death penalty has been rendered a dead letter, effectively transforming sub silentio each death sentence into a life sentence,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche wrote in a statement.

“This changed when Donald Trump became President.”

Trump has long been an advocate for increasing the use of the death penalty, even before his presidency.

In 1989, for instance, he took out full-page advertisements after the brutal rape of a jogger in Central Park, calling to “bring back the death penalty”. The five teenagers who were arrested and convicted in the case were ultimately exonerated using DNA evidence.

More recently, in November of last year, Trump accused a group of Democratic lawmakers – all veterans of the armed services or the US intelligence community – of “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH”. They had published a video online encouraging military members to refuse illegal orders.

In Friday’s policy document, the administration explained that it will return to using the drug pentobarbital for lethal injections, as it had during Trump’s first term.

It also dismissed a government assessment expressing uncertainty about whether pentobarbital, a neural depressant, “causes unnecessary pain and suffering” during executions.

The Biden administration, it added, “got the science wrong” in stopping use of the drug.

The report also calls on the Federal Bureau of Prisons to consider expanding the federal death row and constructing an additional facility “to permit additional manners of execution”.

Those techniques, it explains, could include the use of a firing squad, a rare form of execution in the modern-day US.

Currently, only five states allow firing squads for executions: Idaho, South Carolina, Utah, Mississippi and Oklahoma. But the pace of such executions is picking up.

Last year, South Carolina authorised at least three people to die by gunfire, the first such executions in 15 years. Idaho, meanwhile, passed a bill to make firing squads a primary method of execution.

While capital punishment is legal in the US, its use is highly controversial.

Last year, for instance, the autopsy of one of the men killed by firing squad suggests none of the bullets struck his heart, prolonging his death.

Critics of the policy also warn that capital punishment is disproportionately meted out against minorities and the underprivileged. They also note the rate of wrongful convictions in death penalty cases, arguing that once the sentence is administered, there is no going back.

The Death Penalty Information Center, an advocacy group, estimates that at least 202 people in the US have been exonerated since 1973 after receiving death sentences.

The Trump administration, however, has argued that capital punishment is a necessary penalty for severe crimes, and it described Friday’s steps to expand its use as a salve for grieving families.

“These steps are critical to deterring the most barbaric crimes, delivering justice for victims, and providing long-overdue closure to surviving loved ones,” the Justice Department said.

Approximately 55 countries permit capital punishment, though there has been a trend towards ending the practice.

Roughly 141 countries have abolished the death penalty, including all but one European nation – Belarus – as well as the US’s neighbours, Mexico and Canada.

US policy, meanwhile, has swung between different extremes. In 2020, the first Trump administration executed the first federal prisoner in nearly 17 years, ending an informal moratorium on the practice.

In the final months of his first term, Trump would oversee a total of 13 executions.

But Biden had pledged on the campaign trail to end federal executions, and when he took office in January 2021, his administration announced a moratorium on the practice.

In December 2024, during the waning days of his presidency, Biden also commuted the sentences of 37 of the 40 inmates on the federal government’s death row to life imprisonment.

In Friday’s statement, Blanche pledged that the Trump White House would seek to reverse Biden’s move.

“Justice had been thwarted,” Blanche said of the commutations. “Under President Trump’s leadership, the Department of Justice will do everything in its power to reverse these failures and restore justice.”

As tensions ramp up amid fragile truce, US military says it ‘redirected’ 34 vessels as part of blockade on Iran’s ports.

The United States has three aircraft carriers in the Middle East for the first time in 23 years with the arrival of the USS George HW Bush, the US military has said, amid a fragile ceasefire with Iran.

The Middle East-based Central Command (CENTCOM) of the US military said on Friday that the carriers include 12 accompanying ships, more than 200 aircraft, and 15,000 soldiers.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

“For the first time in decades, three aircraft carriers are operating in the Middle East at the same time,” CENTCOM said.

The last time the US amassed that amount of military assets in the region’s waters was in the lead up to the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The other two US aircraft carriers in the region are USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Gerald R Ford, which is the largest in the world.

The show of force signals that the US is preparing to return to fighting should the fragile ceasefire between the US, Israel and Iran unravel.

Diplomacy between the two countries has been in limbo, with Iran setting the lifting of the US naval blockade against its ports as a condition for resuming the talks.

US President Donald Trump announced extending the truce on Wednesday, but he said the naval siege would persist.

For its part, Iran has reblocked the Strait of Hormuz in response to the US blockade after declaring the waterway completely open last week when the regional ceasefire was extended to Lebanon.

Trump has not set a deadline for the extended ceasefire and suggested that he is comfortable with the status quo, which he argues is depleting the Iranian economy at a low cost for the US.

“I have all the time in the World, but Iran doesn’t,” he wrote in a social media post on Thursday.

The US president was later asked how long he would be willing to wait before receiving a proposed deal from Iran. He said: “Don’t rush me.”

Iran has described the blockade – which has seen US forces seize at least two Iranian oil ships – as an “act of war”.

Iranian forces have also captured foreign commercial ships in the Hormuz Strait, accusing them of violating maritime regulations.

With negotiations on hold, Trump has shown no signs of willingness to lift the siege in order to facilitate talks.

On Friday, the US military said it has “redirected” 34 vessels in the region. “The blockade against ships entering or exiting Iranian ports continues,” CENTCOM said.

Trump has previously threatened to destroy Iran’s civilian infrastructure, including bridges, power and water stations.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said on Thursday that his country is awaiting the green light from Trump to return Iran to the “age of darkness”.

“Israel is prepared to renew the war against Iran. The [Israeli military] is ready in defence and offence, and the targets are marked,” Katz said, according to The Times of Israel newspaper.

The announcement on Friday is expected to clear the path for the confirmation of his successor, Kevin Warsh.

The United States Department of Justice has ended its probe into US Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell, clearing a major roadblock to the confirmation of his successor, Kevin Warsh.

US Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeannine Pirro said on X on Friday that her office was ending its probe into the Fed’s extensive building renovations because the Fed’s inspector general would scrutinise them instead.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

Pirro, a Trump ally and the top federal prosecutor in Washington, DC, said she had instead asked the Fed’s internal watchdog, the Office of Inspector General, to examine cost overruns in renovations of the central bank’s Washington headquarters.

“The IG has the authority to hold the Federal Reserve accountable to American taxpayers,” Pirro said in a social media post. “I expect a comprehensive report in short order and am confident the outcome will assist in resolving, once and for all, the questions that led this office to issue subpoenas.”

The move could lead to a swift confirmation vote by the Senate for Warsh, a former top Fed official whom US President Donald Trump, a Republican, nominated in January to replace Powell. Powell’s term as chair ends May 15.

Senator Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican, had said he would oppose Warsh until the investigation was resolved, effectively blocking his confirmation.

The leadership transition at the world’s leading central bank could now proceed quickly.

Republicans praised Warsh during a Tuesday hearing even as Democrats questioned his independence from Trump, the lack of transparency around some of his financial holdings, and what they said was his flip-flopping on interest rates. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the committee, questioned if Warsh will be a “sock puppet“.

Still, Trump’s previous appointment to the Fed’s board of governors, Stephen Miran, was approved by the full Senate just 13 days after his nomination.

No evidence

The investigation was among several undertaken by the Department of Justice into Trump’s perceived adversaries. For months, it had failed to gain traction as prosecutors struggled to articulate a basis to suspect criminal conduct.

A prosecutor handling the case conceded at a closed-door court hearing in March that the government had not yet found any evidence of a crime, and a judge subsequently quashed subpoenas issued to the Federal Reserve.

The judge, James Boasberg, said prosecutors had produced “essentially zero evidence” to suspect Powell of a crime. Boasberg branded prosecutors’ justification for the subpoenas as “thin and unsubstantiated”.

More recently, prosecutors made an unannounced visit to a construction site at the Fed’s headquarters but were turned away, drawing a rebuke from a defence lawyer in the case who called the manoeuvre “not appropriate”.

Warsh said during the Senate hearing on Tuesday that he never promised the White House that he would cut interest rates, even as the president renewed his calls for the central bank to do so.

“The president never once asked me to commit to any particular interest rate decision, period,” Warsh said during the hearing. “Nor would I ever agree to do so if he had … I will be an independent actor if confirmed as chair of the Federal Reserve.”

Warsh’s comments came just hours after Trump, in an interview on CNBC, was asked if he would be disappointed if Warsh did not immediately cut rates and responded, “I would.”

The decision to abandon the investigation represents a rare pullback for a Department of Justice that over the last year has moved aggressively, albeit unsuccessfully, to prosecute public figures the president does not like.

Robert Hur, an lawyer for the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, did not immediately respond on Friday to an email seeking comment.

On April 20, the United States fired at and then seized an Iranian-flagged container ship close to the Strait of Hormuz in the northern Arabian Sea, amid its blockade of Iranian ports.

It was similar to a scene which played out in the 1980s during the so-called Tanker War between Iran and Iraq, during which both countries fired on each other’s tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, seeking to cripple each other’s economies.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

As naval tensions rise again in the Strait of Hormuz – this time between Iran and the US – we break down what happened in the 1980s and examine the parallels and differences between the situations then and now:

How the 1980s Tanker War played out – a timeline

The war between Iran and Iraq began in 1980 when then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein launched a full-scale invasion of Iran following Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution.

In 1984, this war reached the Gulf when Iraq attacked Iranian oil tankers, seeking to cripple its oil-revenue-dependent economy. Iran retaliated by firing at oil tankers belonging to Iraq and its allies in the Gulf.

According to a report by the University of Texas’s Robert Strauss Center for International Security and Law, Iran also threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz then, but did not do so since its own economy, already crippled by the war, was dependent on exporting oil to the rest of the world through it.

In November 1986, when Iran struck Kuwait’s ships, Kuwait asked for foreign help. The former Soviet Union was the first to respond and helped escort the nation’s ships in the Gulf.

The US, led by then-president Ronald Reagan, launched Operation Earnest Will in July 1987, also seeking to protect tankers in the Gulf and render more assistance than Moscow. The operation involved reflagging Kuwaiti tankers with the US flag so they could legally sail under US protection.

According to an article by the Veterans Breakfast Club, a US-based website which shares experiences of former US military veterans, during Washington’s very first escort mission in July 1987, a reflagged tanker hit an Iranian mine in the Gulf.

“The convoy continued, but the incident made clear that the United States had entered a shadow war with Iran at sea,” the article said.

“Over the next fourteen months, dozens of US warships rotated through the region escorting tankers and protecting shipping lanes. US forces also conducted special operations to hunt Iranian mine-layers at night and conducted strikes against Iranian military positions and ships. The mission wasn’t a small one, consuming 30 US Navy ships at one time,” the article added.

Then in April 1988, the US frigate USS Samuel B Roberts was damaged by an Iranian mine in the Strait of Hormuz. Historian Samuel Cox, writing for the US Naval History and Heritage Command (NHHC), noted in 2018 that by the end of 1987 that vessel was so badly damaged, that “the only thing actually holding the ship together was the main deck”.

So, the US launched Operation Praying Mantis, seeking to destroy Iranian vessels.

The tanker war eventually ended in August 1988, following a United Nations-brokered ceasefire agreement between Iran and Iraq.

Cox noted that by the end of 1987, “Iraq had conducted 283 attacks on shipping, while Iran attacked 168 times. Combined, the attacks had killed 116 merchant sailors, with 37 missing and 167 wounded, from a wide variety of nationalities.”

“Initially, there was great concern that the attacks would cut off the vital flow of oil from the Arabian Gulf, but all they really did was drive up insurance rates. The world’s need for oil was so great, that over 100 dead merchant seamen was apparently an acceptable price,” he wrote.

What is happening in the Strait of Hormuz now?

The current hostilities between the US and Iran in the Strait of Hormuz began when Tehran, whose territorial waters extend into the strait, closed passage to all vessels after the US and Israel began bombing the country. On March 4, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) declared that it was in full control of the strait, and ships would need to get clearance from them to pass through it.

Shipping through the strait collapsed by 95 percent, sending the price of oil – 20 percent of global supplies of which are shipped this way – soaring above $100 a barrel.

Iran, through its imposition of control over who passes through Hormuz, has for almost eight weeks now, determined which vessels can exit the strait from the Gulf into the Gulf of Oman.

At first, Iran indicated that it would allow “friendly” ships to pass if they paid a toll. On March 26, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told Iran’s state TV: “The Strait of Hormuz, from our perspective, is not completely closed. It is closed only to enemies. There is no reason to allow the ships of our enemies and their allies to pass.”

Vessels from Malaysia, China, Egypt, South Korea, India and Pakistan passed through the strait through most of March and early April.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) provided these vessels with an alternative route through the Strait of Hormuz to avoid potential sea mines. US officials, including Donald Trump, have said mines have been placed there by Iran, although it has not officially confirmed or denied this.

But on April 13, alarmed that Iran was continuing to ship its own oil out of the strait, the US imposed a naval blockade of all Iranian ports. Since then, US Central Command has said US forces have directed 33 Iran-linked vessels to turn around or return to an Iranian port.

On Monday, the US military fired on and then captured the Iranian-flagged container ship Touska close to the Strait of Hormuz in the northern Arabian Sea, and, a day later, detained another oil tanker sanctioned for transporting Iranian crude oil as it sailed in the Bay of Bengal, which links India and Southeast Asia.

In a post on social media after detaining the Touska, the Pentagon wrote: “As we have made clear, we will pursue global maritime enforcement efforts to disrupt illicit networks and interdict sanctioned vessels providing material support to Iran – anywhere they operate.
International waters are not a refuge for sanctioned vessels.”

Since the US naval blockade of Iranian ports began, Tehran, which was earlier allowing vessels from “friendly” nations to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, has further tightened its grip on the strait.

Justifying the decision not to allow any foreign ships to pass until the US ends its naval blockade on April 19, Iran’s First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref said the “security of the Strait of Hormuz is not free”.

“One cannot restrict Iran’s oil exports while expecting free security for others,” he wrote in a post on X.

Last Saturday, Iran reportedly fired at two Indian-flagged merchant vessels in the strait. The IRGC said the two ships were attacked because they were “operating without authorisation”, according to state media reports.

Then, on April 22, Iran captured two container ships seeking to exit the Gulf via the Strait of Hormuz after firing on them and another vessel.

What are the parallels between the two wars?

Just like during the Tanker War of the 1980s, shipping has been severely disrupted by the US-Israel war on Iran, upending global oil and gas prices.

According to an April 17 article by the World Economic Forum, from the mid-1980s when the Tanker War took place, to the start of the new millennium, a barrel of crude oil averaged $20.

On Friday, while a ceasefire between the US and Iran was in effect, a naval battle was still playing out in the Strait of Hormuz, and Brent crude, the international benchmark, topped $106 per barrel. During open warfare between the US, Israel and Iran in March and early April, oil rose as high as $119 per barrel.

Mines in the sea are another problem common to both time periods.

While vessels were damaged by mines during the 1980s Tanker War, there has so far been no report of vessels being damaged by mines in the current war. However, the risk is the same.

US President Donald Trump has said the US will ramp up efforts to remove mines from the Strait of Hormuz. This has not begun yet, however.

According to CNN, there are only a few US minesweeping ships in the Gulf. The US Navy also told the broadcaster that four dedicated minesweepers stationed in the Gulf region were decommissioned last year.

John Phillips, a British safety, security and risk adviser and former military instructor, told Al Jazeera: “There are some clear parallels between the current situation in Hormuz and the Tanker War of the 1980s. In both cases, the basic idea is the same: pressure at sea can have effects far beyond the water itself.

“A relatively small amount of naval disruption, whether that means mining, harassment of shipping, missile threats, or attacks on tankers, can create real strategic and economic consequences, especially in a chokepoint like the Strait of Hormuz. So in that sense, the original Tanker War is a useful reminder of how vulnerable global trade can be when the maritime domain becomes part of a wider political or military confrontation.”

What are the differences between the two wars?

During the Tanker War, the US escorted ships to protect them from Iranian attacks and also deployed vessels to remove mines. NATO countries like the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, France and Italy also joined.

But in the current standoff in the Strait of Hormuz, US allies like the UK and other NATO nations have refused to join Washington in reopening the Strait of Hormuz, or begin minesweeping operations, fearing they will be dragged into the war.

In a post on Truth Social in early April, the US president took aim at allies, “like the United Kingdom”, which, he said, have “refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran”, telling them to either buy US fuel or get involved in the rapidly escalating war.

“You’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us. Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil!” Trump wrote.

The framework of the US-Israel war on Iran is different from that of the war between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s, experts say.

“In the 1980s, the Tanker War was part of the broader Iran-Iraq War, so the shipping attacks were tied to a much larger land conflict between two regional armies. Today, the situation is more about Iran’s standoff with the United States and its allies, and the maritime activity is less about asymmetrical war at sea and more about deterrence, signalling and the threat of escalation,” said Phillips.

“The military lesson, really, is that Hormuz is still one of those places where limited actions can have outsized effects, but the modern setting is more fast-moving, more technologically advanced and potentially more volatile than the original Tanker War,” he added.

Analysts have also pointed out that, unlike in the 1980s, Iran is currently stronger when it comes to withstanding attacks and naval blockades by the US.

In the Tanker War, Iraq was militarily supported by Western allies, while Iran was under a US arms embargo imposed in 1979 after the Iranian revolution. While this gave Iraq a military advantage, Iran’s IRGC used asymmetric warfare tactics by striking Iraq’s allies’ ships and oil tankers.

Experts also say that since the 12-day war between Iran and Israel last year, Tehran has shifted its military doctrine from one that is primarily about defensive containment to an explicitly offensive asymmetric posture.

“Iran today appears more structurally aggressive in doctrine where it is formally embracing earlier and more extensive use of regional missiles, drones, cyberattacks and energy coercion [when energy resources and infrastructure are targeted or cut off], but is operationally constrained by battle damage, sanctions and internal instability,” Phillips, the risk adviser and a former military chief instructor, told Al Jazeera in an interview on March 2.

A former US ambassador to Bahrain, Adam Ereli, also told Al Jazeera that Iran and the IRGC have “revolutionary fervour”, which means they can “survive”.

“They can tolerate pain for a lot longer than I think most American decision-makers and planners calculate,” he said.