The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps warned that the Strait of Hormuz would remain unsafe as long as US aggression continues and announced targeting two oil tankers attempting to travel through the strait, claiming they were under coercion by the US Army

For: Tanker damage likely but specific IRGC claims unconfirmed

• Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps announced targeting two oil tankers attempting to travel through the Strait of Hormuz. Direct IRGC announcement of tanker targeting is exactly the claim the hypothesis deems likely but unconfirmed; the statement itself is verified even if the underlying incident remains contested. 1 source, primary

For: IRGC claims unverified; fire may be unrelated incident

• The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy intends to conduct punitive operations in response to United States transgression in the Strait of Hormuz. IRGC's stated intent to conduct punitive operations frames the tanker claim as part of a threat narrative; consistent with posturing rather than factual reporting of completed attacks. 1 source, named source
• Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps claimed two oil tankers exploded and were immobilised in the strait of Hormuz. IRGC claim of tanker explosions and immobilization is the central factual proposition under dispute; confirming this exact claim directly supports the hypothesis anchoring. 1 source, named source
• The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said the strait will not be safe for the transit of petrochemical products or oil and gas as long as the US strikes continue. The IRGC's explicit threat frames the tanker claim as deterrence messaging rather than factual reporting, supporting the reading that the announcement serves coercive purposes independent of actual attacks. 1 source, primary
• The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps pointed to two ships involved in an accident on Sunday in the same Strait of Hormuz area where the Dynacom vessels were later struck. The word 'accident' directly supports the view that IRGC claims of deliberate immobilization are unverified; an accident narrative contradicts claimed Iranian attack responsibility. 1 source, named source
• The IRGC declared that the Strait of Hormuz passage will not be safe for transit of chemical fertilisers or oil and gas as long as American actions continue in the region. IRGC's conditional threat that the strait will be unsafe 'as long as American actions continue' frames tanker incidents as deterrence messaging tied to US behavior, not independent tactical events. 1 source, primary

For: Prices stay high despite resumed shipping due to ongoing risk

• The IRGC declared that no oil or gas will be exported from the region through the Strait of Hormuz as long as the United States continues its mischief, aggression, and hostile actions. IRGC's conditional blockade threat—'no oil will pass as long as aggression continues'—directly underpins the hypothesis that prices stay elevated despite resumed shipping because the underlying conflict drivers remain unresolved. 1 source, primary
• The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy intends to conduct punitive operations in response to United States transgression in the Strait of Hormuz. IRGC's declared readiness for punitive operations demonstrates the threat will persist even if U.S. strikes degrade Iranian capacity, anchoring the risk premium that keeps prices high despite resumed flow. 1 source, named source
• The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said the strait will not be safe for the transit of petrochemical products or oil and gas as long as the US strikes continue. Iran's conditional threat that the strait stays unsafe 'as long as U.S. strikes continue' directly supports the view that risk persists despite shipping resumption, since strikes remain ongoing and the IRGC has tied safety to their cessation. 1 source, primary
• Oil price surge on July 20 reflects market fear of Strait of Hormuz disruption from escalating conflict. 1 source, analysis
• Brent crude oil for September delivery rose 2.72 percent to 90.50 dollars per barrel by around 0100 GMT on Monday. 1 source, verified

For: Escalation keeps prices up even if some ships try to pass

• United States and Iran have moved closer to full-scale war as interim peace agreement collapsed. Explicit collapse of interim peace agreement due to ongoing military escalation directly supports the hypothesis that conflict drivers remain unresolved and will sustain price elevation. 1 source, analysis
• The IRGC declared that no oil or gas will be exported from the region through the Strait of Hormuz as long as the United States continues its mischief, aggression, and hostile actions. IRGC conditional blockade threat—no exports 'as long as U.S. continues aggression'—creates the exact mechanism the hypothesis requires: escalation persists if U.S. does not cease, blocking shipping and sustaining prices. 1 source, primary
• The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy intends to conduct punitive operations in response to United States transgression in the Strait of Hormuz. IRGC declaration of punitive operations in response to U.S. transgression directly supports escalation continuing; if Iran retaliates, the hypothesis predicts U.S. and allies escalate further, keeping prices elevated. 1 source, named source
• Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps claimed two oil tankers exploded and were immobilised in the strait of Hormuz. Claimed immobilization of tankers directly confirms the mechanism blocking shipping resumption despite attempted passage, validating the hypothesis that escalation prevents normal flow. 1 source, named source
• Regional conflict risks spilling across Israel-Iran border and escalating to direct regional war. Direct prediction that conflict will spill across Israel-Iran border and escalate to regional war is precisely the escalatory scenario that would keep shipping unsafe and prices high. 1 source, analysis

For: Prices fall sharply when strait shipping resumes

No strong supporting evidence