Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsIn a June 15, 2026, Associated Press report, some ships leaving the Strait of Hormuz by a passage along Oman were described as moving with their lights and location systems turned off, under U.S. forces’ guidance. The report did not say that their radios were off, identify the vessels, or explain why those systems were disabled. The episode was a dangerous, dated account—not evidence of a routine route or a safe way to move oil.
What “no lights, no radio” actually means in this report
The phrase “no lights, no radio” captures the concern in the headline, but it overstates what the AP account established. AP reported that some vessels on the southern passage had their lights and location systems turned off. It did not describe their radio configurations or say that all communications equipment was silent.
Lights, location systems and radios are different things. A ship not broadcasting an ordinary location signal may be harder for others to track that way; it does not follow that the ship is invisible, cannot be detected by other means, or has no communications equipment operating. The AP report supplied no ship names, exact transit times, vessel-by-vessel routes, details of the U.S. guidance, or explanation from crews, companies or military officials for switching off the systems.
Nor does “dark transit” mean every ship carrying oil was sanctioned. In its March reporting, AP described many dark transits as likely linked to Iran, while also reporting crossings by vessels affiliated with other countries.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
#1 Best Overall
Which routes did ships reportedly use?
AP reported on June 15, 2026, that ships were leaving by two broad routes: an Iranian-run vetting lane in the north and a southern passage along the Omani coast. It also reported Iranian threats against ships using established mid-strait lanes. The account does not provide enough navigational detail to draw a reliable route map or establish how an individual vessel’s track related to the designated traffic lanes.
| Reported route | What AP reported | Relationship to the IMO traffic scheme | What is not established |
|---|---|---|---|
| Northern route | An Iranian-run vetting lane | Not stated in the AP account | Specific ship tracks, transit procedures and vessel identities |
| Southern route | A passage along the Omani coast; some ships reportedly moved with lights and location systems off under U.S. forces’ guidance | Not stated in the AP account | Exact routing, the nature of the guidance, which systems were off, and whether radios were operating |
The IMO says the Strait’s Traffic Separation Scheme was proposed by Iran and Oman and adopted in 1968 to designate lanes and reduce collision risk. That safety purpose matters when considering reports of passages outside or differently routed from established lanes—but the AP report does not provide the chart-level information needed to say precisely how the described routes intersected the scheme.
Rank #2
- Ideal for Gifting
- Ideal for a bookworm
- Compact for travelling
Why a passage through the Strait can be dangerous
The risks described by maritime authorities extend well beyond whether a ship’s location signal is visible. In Maritime Advisory 2026-011, the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) identified threats including missiles, armed unmanned aerial vehicles, armed unmanned surface vessels, historical boarding operations and attempts to force commercial ships into Iranian territorial waters. It also reported significant interference with Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS), including spoofing and jamming.
That interference can complicate navigation even when a vessel is not trying to hide. MARAD’s recommendations for U.S.-flagged vessels included conducting a pre-voyage risk assessment, coordinating closely with NAVCENT’s Naval Cooperation and Guidance for Shipping (NCAGS), monitoring VHF Channel 16, and increasing reliance on traditional navigation methods such as radar ranges and visual bearings. It also advised cross-checking electronic chart display and information systems (ECDIS) with secondary systems. These are audience-specific maritime recommendations, not instructions for recreational boaters or a practical guide for attempting a transit.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →A Norwegian Maritime Authority notice dated June 23, 2025, had already raised the security level to MARSEC/ISPS Level 2 in Iranian territorial waters, the Strait and international waters in the Gulf of Oman. It warned of a very high risk of GNSS and AIS interference and called for comprehensive risk assessment, reporting, current procedures for signal loss and crew drills. That notice is historical context; its age means it should not be treated as a current route-status bulletin.
Who decides whether a ship should make the passage?
In May 2026, six maritime organisations—ICS, BIMCO, INTERCARGO, INTERTANKO, IMCA and OCIMF—issued navigational guidance calling for a voyage-specific threat and risk assessment. The guidance says the ship’s master retains overriding authority and that the final transit decision rests with the master and crew.
Rank #4
On June 9, 2026, IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez said: “Under such circumstances, safe passage cannot be considered to exist.” He was referring to the conditions then prevailing: a lack of credible security guarantees, significant known risks, and recent seafarer casualties and detentions. He also said the master and company bear ultimate responsibility for voyage planning and thorough, realistic risk assessments, and that commercial or operational considerations cannot justify exposing seafarers to such danger. This was a dated warning, not a permanent declaration about conditions on October 3, 2026.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What the traffic and oil figures show—and what they do not
The available figures describe March 2026, not traffic today. AP reported that Lloyd’s List Intelligence counted at least 89 ships crossing between March 1 and March 15, including 16 oil tankers. The same source estimated that before the conflict there were roughly 100 to 135 vessel passages per day. Those figures show the scale of the disruption relative to pre-conflict traffic; they do not count ships using the specific lights-off southern passage.
Best Value
- It can be a gift option
- Comes with secure packaging
- Helpful in various ways
AP also reported a Kpler estimate that more than 16 million barrels of Iranian oil had been exported since early March 2026. The same AP account said about one-fifth of the world’s crude oil normally passes through the Strait. These are attributed, dated figures—not a measure of current exports or proof that a particular dark transit carried Iranian oil. The IMO’s September 2026 Strait of Hormuz hub also notes that its transit averages combine multiple sources and are provided for general awareness.
The chokepoint matters to oil supply because a large share of normal crude movement passes through it. But the reported passage alone cannot establish how much oil was delayed, how long disruption would last, or what effect it had on retail fuel or household energy bills. The figures above do not resolve those questions.
Is the reported route still in use?
The June 15 AP account is a snapshot of routes and practices reported during the 2026 crisis. It is not evidence that the same routes, guidance or lights-off practice remain in use in October. The IMO Strait of Hormuz hub was updated September 29, 2026, but the information summarized here does not establish the current status of any individual transit. Maritime risk assessments and route conditions can change; a report of a risky passage should not be read as transit advice.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
