US President Trump posts that he has been informed all mines are gone from the international waters of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has been informed that any vessel placing new mines will be destroyed. Zero tolerance on mine placement in effect.

• "I have just been informed by the United States Navy that all mines have been removed and/or detonated from within the International Waters of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has been notified that any ship or boat placing new mines will be immediately and systematically destroyed. Through Space Force, we are watching every square inch of the Strait, as we are, also, with Pickaxe Mountain and the already destroyed three other Nuclear sites. There is a Zero Tolerance policy on mine placement in full force and effect. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP"

Announcements that the Strait of Hormuz has been cleared of mines fit a recurring pattern in Gulf shipping crises: the clearance claim itself is typically the de-escalatory beat, but the risk premium in crude does not fully unwind on the word of a combatant. In past mine episodes in the Gulf, the sequence has run from initial tanker or mining incidents, through a spike in war-risk insurance premia and freight rates for the Gulf loadings, to escorted convoy operations and only then a normalisation of transit costs. The transmission channel here is not physical supply loss but insurance and shipping: war-risk premia on Gulf transits, VLCC rates, and the Brent-Dubai spread are where residual fear has historically shown up after the headline fade. What distinguishes durable de-escalation from a pause is verification: independent confirmation of safe passage, a return of commercial transits without escort, and insurer repricing rather than official statements. The follow-ons are any Iranian response, reports of renewed mine-laying, tanker traffic data through the strait, and whether the zero-tolerance framing becomes a pretext ladder for further strikes, since that posture keeps a tail risk bid under crude and gold even as the immediate premium recedes. The reference to destroyed nuclear sites signals the statement sits inside an active confrontation rather than a settled one, which has historically meant elevated headline sensitivity in energy rather than a clean risk reset.