← Back to BracksterNews A large crude oil tanker underway on open water under a clear sky, illustrative photo, not the actual vessels struck.

World - Middle East

The U.S. Sank Three Iranian Oil Tankers on Saturday. A Day Earlier, Trump Called This War "Small Potatoes."

Iran fired ballistic missiles at two U.S. Navy warships patrolling the Gulf on Saturday. Both evaded the attack unharmed. Hours later, U.S. Central Command hit back by permanently disabling two Iranian oil tankers and destroying a third — the sharpest exchange in a war that has now run six months, a day after the president insisted it "is not a big thing."

By Gustavo Henrique · About the author

CAIRO & WASHINGTON, D.C. · SEP 5 ~7 MIN READ

Updated on September 8, 2026 · Editorial update: source review, context and clarity.

I want to start with the sentence that made this story impossible to ignore, and it isn't the one about the tankers. On Friday, in the Oval Office, a reporter asked President Trump about a war that has now killed 18 American service members and wounded hundreds more. "I call it a military conflict because it's small potatoes for us," he said. "It's not a big thing." Less than twenty-four hours later, Iran fired ballistic missiles at two U.S. Navy warships, and the United States responded by putting three Iranian oil tankers on the bottom of the Gulf or dead in the water. Somewhere between those two facts is the actual state of a war that the White House keeps insisting isn't one.

U.S. Central Command said Saturday that an American aircraft carrier and a guided-missile destroyer, patrolling regional waters, evaded "multiple unprovoked Iranian attacks" after the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps launched ballistic missiles at them. No U.S. personnel were hurt, and CENTCOM did not say how close the missiles came. What it did say, within hours, was what it did next: American forces permanently disabled two Iranian crude oil carriers and destroyed a third, in three separate locations across the Gulf, in what Adm. Brad Cooper, the CENTCOM commander, framed as a direct, arithmetic response to being shot at.

At a Glance

Iran fired ballistic missiles at two U.S. Navy warships patrolling the Gulf on Saturday.
Both evaded the attack unharmed.
Hours later, U.S. Central Command hit back by permanently disabling two Iranian oil tankers and destroying a third — the sharpest exchange in a war that has now run six months, a day after the president insisted it "is not a big thing."

Two ships targeted, three tankers gone

CENTCOM said it permanently disabled the M/T Downy off the coast of Kharg Island — the terminal through which Iran loads most of its crude exports — and the M/T Stark 1 near Jask, east of the Strait of Hormuz. A third tanker, the unladen M/T Kylo, was destroyed near the Gulf of Oman; CENTCOM said its crew was ordered to abandon ship before American forces struck it in multiple locations. The military released what it described as video of the strikes and said the vessels were part of a "shadow fleet" that helps finance the Revolutionary Guard and its armed proxies across the region — the same justification Washington has used for months to treat Iran's aging tanker fleet as a legitimate military target, not just a commercial one.

"If you shoot at two of our ships, we will impose an even higher economic cost — taking out three of yours," Cooper said in a statement. "We will not hesitate to defend American forces, and if necessary, destroy Iran's limited and exposed oil fleet." It's a blunt piece of math, stated almost proudly: two of ours gets you three of yours, every time, for as long as this goes on. Iranian state television offered its own version of events earlier in the day, saying four U.S. missiles had struck a tanker roughly six miles from Kharg Island — a place that's been hit before, including in U.S. strikes on military sites there back in March. As of Saturday afternoon, Tehran had issued no official response to the destruction of its ships.

"If you shoot at two of our ships, we will impose an even higher economic cost — taking out three of yours."Adm. Brad Cooper, commander of U.S. Central Command

A war the White House keeps describing in the past tense

What makes Saturday's exchange land differently is the week that preceded it. On Wednesday, Vice President JD Vance told reporters he wouldn't call the fighting a "war" at all, saying "there is no active shooting" — a claim he made even as Iran had fired at a U.S. Gulf ally, Kuwait, the day before in retaliation for American strikes. On Friday, asked to defend that framing, Trump backed his vice president completely, telling reporters the conflict is "intermittent" and pointing out that the U.S. death toll is lower than in some other recent American wars. He added, unprompted, a line he's repeated at intervals all summer: "Iran will not have a nuclear weapon because if they did you probably wouldn't be standing here." Whatever else is true about this war, the administration's instinct has consistently been to describe it as smaller than the evidence in front of it.

That evidence, this week alone, includes at least five people killed in a U.S. bombardment of southern Iran — one strike hit a wedding in Sirik county, killing four members of one family and wounding dozens more, an incident now the subject of a formal complaint to the International Criminal Court. It includes Iranian strikes on American-linked air bases in Kuwait and the UAE. And as of Saturday, it includes direct missile fire at two U.S. warships and the sinking or disabling of three tankers in response. Measured against that week, "small potatoes" is not a description; it's a choice about what to emphasize and what to leave out.

Aerial view of a large tanker ship underway in open water, illustrative photo. — Illustrative photo of a tanker underway at sea. Iran's oil fleet — much of it aging and uninsured by Western carriers — has become one of the war's primary battlegrounds, alongside the Strait of Hormuz itself.

Why the tankers, and why now

The timing isn't incidental. Saturday's strikes came a day after the Treasury Department announced fresh sanctions on a small Turkish investment bank and two of its subsidiaries, accused of helping move money for an arm of the Revolutionary Guard — the latest in a long campaign to squeeze Tehran financially now that the diplomatic track has gone nowhere. The nuclear negotiations that were supposed to end this war fell apart soon after Washington and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding back in mid-June, and Iran's remaining leverage has shifted almost entirely to the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway it can threaten without ever needing to win a battle outright. Commercial traffic through the strait has stayed far below its pre-war levels for months, even with the U.S. military helping guide ships through it, and every tanker Washington disables is, in effect, a message about who actually controls that leverage.

This war began on February 28 with U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran and has now run more than six months without a durable pause, at a cost the AP has put above $37.5 billion in American taxpayer money and 18 U.S. service members' lives. It has also, notably, outlasted the timeline Trump himself predicted at the outset, when he said the fighting would be over in a matter of weeks. None of that fits comfortably into "small potatoes," which may be exactly why the phrase was chosen — a war that's easy to minimize in a press briefing is a war nobody has to explain losing control of, and with midterm elections in November, control of the narrative is its own kind of battlefield.

Reporting and figures in this piece draw on NPR / The Associated Press, ABC News, NBC News, CNN, and USA TODAY, on Trump's and Vance's remarks about the war.

Editorial Analysis — Gustavo Henrique

I've written a lot of these dispatches about this war, and this is the first time I've felt like the language around it has become more dangerous than the missiles. "Small potatoes." "Not a big thing." "No active shooting" — spoken the same week Iran fired at a U.S. ally and, days later, at two U.S. warships directly. I don't think the president is lying about the casualty numbers; he cited them himself, correctly, while explaining why they don't matter to him. That's a different and in some ways more troubling thing than denial. It's an argument that eighteen deaths and hundreds of wounded Americans are an acceptable, almost background cost of a policy working as intended, delivered in the same breezy register you'd use to describe a stock dip. Adm. Cooper's statement, by contrast, was at least honest about what this is: an escalating, tit-for-tat war of attrition where the currency is tankers and warships, and where both sides are keeping score in public. I think that's the truer account of Saturday. A president who calls a war "small potatoes" one day and watches his own commander promise to sink Iran's "limited and exposed oil fleet" the next isn't managing a minor dispute — he's presiding over an active war he'd simply rather not name, right up until the moment it can't be avoided.

A NOTE ON VERIFICATION

Facts in this story were verified independently before publication; analysis is clearly labeled and kept apart from reporting. See our editorial methodology for specifics.