top of page

AIG Edition 9

  • Writer: AIG Team
    AIG Team
  • Jun 20
  • 7 min read

Summary: European foreign ministers met with the Iranian foreign minister for new nuclear negotiations with Tehran. Europe’s nuclear negotiations with Tehran are likely being driven by fears of regional escalation and its possible repercussions for European energy supplies due to the dependency on the Strait of Hormuz. 

Development: On 20 June, European leaders entered into discussions with Iran’s foreign minister in Geneva, aiming to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the conflict between Israel and Iran. The talks involve Britain, France, Germany, and the European Union (EU), alongside the U.S. Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, emphasizing a return to negotiations to avoid further escalation. The diplomatic push by Europe follows Israel’s airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and Iran’s missile counterattacks. Crude oil rose to over $78 a barrel on 13 June, and is currently around $10 higher than it was this time last month. The Strait of Hormuz, influenced by Iran, currently sees about a third of global oil transportation. Tehran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz if Israeli airstrikes continue. After the Russia-Ukraine war started in 2022, Europe shifted away from Russian gas and oil and turned toward the Middle East and the U.S. for gas and oil. Europe imports 58% of its energy, making it highly sensitive to Middle East supply shocks.

Analysis: The EU’s diplomatic efforts likely aim to secure Europe’s energy supply, as the escalating Israel-Iran conflict could drive up oil and energy costs, pushing Europe to seek more affordable energy alternatives. The conflict poses a threat to Europe’s energy security through higher oil and gas prices and potential supply disruptions if Iran closes access to the Strait of Hormuz. While Europe’s diversified imports offer some stability, a prolonged or escalated conflict could lead to a considerable energy crisis. Iran’s threats to close the Strait of Hormuz could push global oil prices to $100-$200 per barrel, impacting Europe, which relies on Middle Eastern oil imports. If Iran continues to threaten or disrupt trade through the Strait of Hormuz in response to Israeli strikes, the international community will likely heighten its posture to safeguard the strait, given its critical role in global commerce.


[Jacob Faciana]



Summary: Iran’s electronic interference in the Strait of Hormuz disrupts vessel navigation systems, drives freight rates, delays trade, and heightens global energy security concerns. Given the global reliance on the strait, the interference will likely force commercial operators to seek alternate routes and state actors to weigh costly military and diplomatic responses. 

Development: On 17 June, the Front Eagle and Adalynn, two oil tankers transiting near the Strait of Hormuz off the coast of the United Arab Emirates, collided and caught fire. The United Arab Emirates coast guard safely evacuated all crew members, and no oil spill was reported. At this point, the incident has been labeled a navigational mishap, not an act of aggression from the ongoing Israel-Iran conflict. However, GPS and AIS data from hundreds of other vessels over the past week have shown severe navigation interference consistent with electronic jamming and spoofing from Iranian military installations near Bandar Abbas. The interference has no ties to airstrikes but traces back to the ongoing military activities. Escalating Israeli airstrikes on Iran and Iranian threats to close the strait have contributed to heightened maritime risk perceptions. Tehran has made similar threats in the past, so it “absolutely has the ability to close this strait” again, according to former British Royal Navy officer Tom Sharpe. Major shipping firms have already begun rerouting or halting operations in the region. Freight rates on critical oil routes have surged between 20–40%, and maritime insurers have raised premiums and advisories. Governments, including the United Kingdom, Greece, Qatar, and the U.S.-led Combined Maritime Force’s Joint Maritime Information Center, have warned about the uncertainty of interference and cautioned that ships should proceed.

Analysis: Electronic interference in the Strait of Hormuz is likely a deliberate attempt by Iran to signal its leverage over global energy corridors without engaging in overt military escalation. The pattern of GPS and AIS disruptions in the strait originating from Iranian military positions near Bandar Abbas strongly suggests a coordinated effort to create operational uncertainty. Iran is using asymmetric tactics to pressure adversaries and international stakeholders while avoiding direct conflict. Tehran has a history of threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz, and the current level of disruption aligns with past behavior intended to raise the cost of regional instability. The sharp rise in freight rates and insurance premiums and the rerouting of vessels by major shipping firms reflect growing risk perceptions among both commercial and state actors. Rerouting around the Cape of Good Hope would force significant time and cost burdens, with disparate impact on smaller carriers and developing economies. A full or partial closure could push oil prices toward $120 per barrel, with downstream effects including supply chain disruptions, increased inflation, and market unpredictability. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), as the largest exporter of oil through the strait, stands to suffer the most severe economic impact from any disruption in the waterway. In the event of Iranian disruption, KSA will likely increase its military and diplomatic efforts to secure the strait, potentially increasing cooperation from the U.S. or regional allies to protect the oil trade. Spoofing in the strait risks miscommunication or navigation failures that could inadvertently escalate into a military confrontation, especially under heightened regional tension between Iran and Israel. Given the global reliance on oil flows through the strait, an accidental incident risks drawing in major world powers and expanding the conflict beyond the region. Commercial stakeholders must reassess route planning and invest in non-GPS navigation systems and electronic countermeasures. Meanwhile, governments and insurers may face mounting pressure to establish maritime escorts or regional de-escalation plans. Without coordinated mitigation, the current environment risks mobilizing long-term changes to maritime strategy, global energy plans, and defense postures in the Gulf region.


[Delaney Kingsland]



Summary: Israel struck key Iranian nuclear facilities, along with key nuclear scientists and military officials inside Iran, prompting Tehran to retaliate by launching 100 drones and 200 ballistic missiles toward Israel. Iran has shown restraint and sustainment over an escalation in past attacks from the U.S. and Israel. Tehran will likely de-escalate tensions with Washington and continue with sustainment over escalation if the U.S. joins the conflict. 

Development: On 13 June, Israel targeted key Iranian nuclear facilities, scientists, and senior military officials within Iran, prompting Tehran to retaliate with an assault on Israel involving 100 drones and 200 ballistic missiles. The U.S. is repositioning its fighter jets and refueling tankers to the Middle East from strategic European locations. The U.S. has not taken any offensive military action against Iran, instead opting for defensive strikes on Iranian projectiles headed toward Israel. U.S. President Donald Trump has set a two-week deadline before the U.S. becomes involved in the conflict, potentially signaling plans to deploy munitions designed to destroy fortified Iranian bunkers believed to house its nuclear weapons program. In the past, Iran has responded to U.S. and Israeli attacks with limited and calculated actions aimed at sustainment over direct escalation. Following the U.S. assassination of Qasem Soleimani in 2020, Tehran launched a retaliatory missile strike on U.S. bases in Iraq. Similarly, after the Israeli assassination of Mohammad Reza Zahedi in Syria in 2024, Iran responded with a large-scale but largely ineffective missile and drone barrage that caused no reported Israeli casualties. During the Israel-Hamas war, Iran has supported regional proxies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen, allowing Iran plausible deniability.

Analysis: Tehran has demonstrated a consistent unwillingness to escalate the conflict with both Washington and Tel Aviv, which will likely persist even if Washington participates in strikes on Iranian nuclear infrastructure. Iran's pattern of restrained responses to past U.S. and Israeli attacks will likely continue, allowing it to maintain the appearance of acting defensively rather than pursuing offensive escalation. In the event the U.S. enters the conflict and strikes Iran, Tehran would likely pressure the Houthis to resume their attacks on U.S. assets in the Red Sea. If Iran targets U.S. assets, it will likely aim to avoid causing American casualties, reflecting its past strategy of provoking a limited response, knowing that previous attacks without U.S. casualties have not triggered direct retaliation. Given the strait's critical importance to global trade, Iran is unlikely to carry out military strikes in the Strait of Hormuz. Disrupting it would almost certainly provoke a response from the U.S. and potentially other major powers seeking to protect their strategic and economic interests. In previous attacks by the U.S. and Israel, Iran has responded with limited force, often causing few or no casualties, while relying on regional proxy groups to act on its behalf. In the event of a U.S. strike, Iran will likely turn to the Houthis in Yemen to target American assets, preserving plausible deniability as it has in past confrontations.


[Santiago Rodriguez]



Summary: The Jordanian military intercepted Iranian drones and missiles in its airspace during an Iranian attack on Israel, claiming it was a violation of Jordanian sovereignty. Iran is likely to continue its attacks over Jordanian airspace, attempting to pull the Jordanian population into political dissent with its government. 

Development: On 13 June, the Jordanian military intercepted Iranian missiles and drones that entered its airspace during an Iranian attack on Israel. Iran and Israel have been exchanging strikes since Israel struck Iranian nuclear facilities, high-ranking members of the government, and key nuclear scientists on 12 June. Jordan has a large Palestinian diaspora, with more than 65% of its population being of Palestinian descent. In September 2024, the Islamic Action Front (IAF) received the most seats in the parliamentary election. The IAF has gained major support amongst the population in Jordan, alongside increasing criticism of efforts to defend Israel and Jordanian alignment with the U.S. The Kataib Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed militia in Iraq, vowed to arm 12,000 Jordanians in April 2024 with the goal of the "disruption of the land route leading to the Zionist entity," according to the Middle East Monitor. The Jordanian military has vowed to protect its airspace and "not allow any violation of Jordanian airspace under any circumstances," according to the Middle East Eye. 

Analysis: Iran is likely to continue launching strikes over Jordanian airspace, knowing that the Jordanian military may intercept them, an outcome that could spark civil unrest, boost public support for Iran, and fuel anti-government sentiment. As the Jordanian military continues to intercept Iranian attacks on Israel, the government risks becoming increasingly entangled in political dissent from its population. Iran's likely objective is to exploit public sentiment to destabilize Jordan from within. Kataib Hezbollah may attempt to exploit any civil unrest in Jordan over the defense of Israel by using the Iraq-Jordan border to stoke unrest with resources. Jordan will likely increase security measures in the east and along its border with Iraq. King Abdullah II of Jordan will likely place the IAF under increased scrutiny due to its support for Iran and the promotion of ideologies he views as threatening Jordan's stability and sovereignty.


[Unnamed Contributor]


 
 
 

Recent Posts

See All
AIG Edition 11

YEMEN: U.S. Ceasefire with Houthis Unlikely to Hold Due to Increased Regional Attacks  Summary: The Houthi rebels in Yemen launched an...

 
 
 
AIG Edition 10

SYRIA: Ankara is Likely to Increase Counterterrorism Efforts to Stabilize South Border  Summary: A suicide attacker fired shots and then...

 
 
 
AIG Edition 8

RUSSIA: African Expansion Likely to Increase Due to Heightened State of War in Ukraine Summary: Russia announced that it will increase...

 
 
 

Comments


Apogee Intelligence Group

  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
bottom of page