Only 19 Ships Crossed Hormuz After the Ceasefire. Before the War, 138 Did Each Day.

By 17:00 BST on April 10, only 19 ships had passed through the Strait of Hormuz since the U.S.-Iran ceasefire, compared with an average of 138 vessels a day before the conflict began on February 28, according to BBC Verify analysis of MarineTraffic data.

That gap shows how little a ceasefire headline has changed conditions at sea. Reuters snippets cited in the April 11 global scan said traffic remained well below 10% of normal levels, while BBC reporting showed that only four of the 19 transits were tankers carrying oil, gas or chemicals.

The ceasefire included a condition that “safe passage” through the waterway would be guaranteed, BBC reported. Shipowners have not acted as if that question has been settled.

Vessels in the area have received messages warning they could be “targeted and destroyed” if they attempted to cross without permission, according to the BBC. Analysts told the broadcaster that most shipping lines still lack clear details on what is required to transit safely.

Lars Jensen of Vespucci Maritime told the BBC that owners want details and reassurances before returning at scale. Richard Meade of Lloyd’s List said Iran still appeared to control practical access to the route and that it was not clear how permission from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps would work.

The strait links the Gulf to the Indian Ocean and carries a large share of the world’s seaborne oil trade. That has made it the most sensitive systems story beneath the ceasefire diplomacy.

In Washington and European markets, the story is being tracked through vessel counts, insurance risk and the timing of any energy price retreat. In the Gulf, the emphasis is less on whether a ceasefire exists than on who controls the chokepoint and on what terms.

That difference matters because normal shipping does not return when diplomats say a deal is in place. It returns when insurers, operators and crews decide that the route can be used without unacceptable military, legal or commercial risk.

BBC analysis found that ships which did cross took a northern route close to Iran’s coastline and within Iranian territorial waters. Before the conflict, vessels usually used a more southerly track through the middle of the waterway.

That route change suggests that passage remains conditional. It also gives Iran continued leverage even as negotiations continue in Islamabad over a wider political settlement.

The backlog is large. Meade told the BBC that nearly 800 ships had been stuck in the Gulf for several weeks and that fully loaded tankers waiting to leave would likely be the first priority if flows increased.

Yet the ceasefire’s two-week duration is itself a deterrent. Niels Rasmussen of BIMCO told the BBC he doubted there would be a large influx of ships because owners do not want to risk entering the Gulf only to become trapped if the truce collapses.

Another unresolved issue is payment. BBC reported that shipping companies are also weighing the possibility of tolls for passage through the strait. James Turner of Quadrant Chambers told the broadcaster that any payment to sanctioned individuals or entities could breach U.S. sanctions unless Washington created an exception.

That legal uncertainty is one reason this is not just an energy story. It sits at the junction of military control, sanctions policy and global supply chains.

Japan has already responded with an emergency oil release, according to the global scan, a sign that import-dependent economies in East Asia are treating the disruption as a live systems risk rather than a temporary market wobble.

The next test is operational, not rhetorical. If daily vessel counts rise steadily over the next several days, the ceasefire will begin to look real in commercial terms. If tankers continue to move only in small numbers under unclear conditions, Hormuz will remain only partially reopened no matter what negotiators say in Islamabad.