From June 10 to 11, 2026, in less than twenty-four hours, a new round of confrontation erupted between the U.S. and Iran over the Strait of Hormuz: The Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy announced on the 11th that the Strait was closed until further notice, while the U.S. Central Command emphasized the night before that commercial ships were "still moving in and out." The two narratives collided at this maritime chokepoint, which carries about one-third of the global oil trade volume. Almost simultaneously, Trump claimed in a media interview that U.S. military aircraft were executing missions over Iran, stating that he had directly spoken to Iranian officials, who requested the bombing to stop and threatened that "the bombing will soon stop, but more attacks cannot be ruled out"; Iranian state media, meanwhile, quickly cited senior officials denying any contact, drawing this "phone call" into the battlefield of information warfare. Thus, a crisis was distilled into three core points of contention: whether the Strait of Hormuz had indeed been closed, whether Washington and Tehran had truly communicated, and whether U.S. military actions had involved large-scale strikes. Energy, shipping, and platforms like Polymarket, alongside the broader crypto-asset market, were placing bets on their respective versions amidst these three uncertainties.
Who Closed the Strait? The Strait of Hormuz as the Main Battleground of Information Warfare
On the night of June 10, the U.S. Central Command first spoke out, labeling Iran's claim that "the Strait is closed" as "incorrect," emphasizing that commercial ships were still moving in and out of the Strait of Hormuz that evening; less than a day later, on June 11, the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy issued a statement declaring that the Strait of Hormuz was closed until further notice. The same waterway was described as being in entirely different states in two nearly simultaneous and opposing official announcements, with the Strait itself becoming a "trophy" in the information war; those whose words are believed temporarily gain the narrative authority over the situation.
For Tehran, "closing the Strait" is not a spur-of-the-moment threat but a fixed option developed over many years in response to U.S. sanctions and military pressure— the Strait of Hormuz accounts for about one-third of global oil trade, and if it is deemed at risk of being obstructed, global shipping routes, energy transactions, and insurance risk parameters will be rewritten. However, publicly, there is currently a lack of verifiable real-time traffic data, leaving the outside world unable to decisively judge which of the two statements is true or false based on concrete numbers. They can only speculate on which side has more motive to exaggerate or downplay the risk; for the global shipping and energy markets, what is truly "closed" is often not the passage itself but the original certainty and pricing anchors.
Call or Confrontation: The Narrative Conflict Between Trump and Tehran
While the situation regarding whether Hormuz was "closed or not" remained unclear, Trump extended the battlefield to the other end of the microphone. In a media interview on June 10, he claimed that U.S. military aircraft were executing missions over Iran while asserting that he had had "direct communication" with Iranian officials, who begged him to stop the bombing under the gunfire. He further claimed that he had previously raised two additional demands to Iran—diluting enriched uranium stocks within 60 days and promising not to charge tolls for ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz. Originally expected to reach some arrangement by the end of May, this was now interrupted by Iran's "default" and current actions. This narrative painted him as the only decision-maker able to order "heavy strikes" while also controlling the cease-fire button, placing Iran in a position of passive begging for mercy.
At nearly the same point in time, Iranian state media quoted high-ranking officials denying any contact with President Trump, effectively stripping this "historic phone call" of its legitimacy. For Tehran, acknowledging such communication amidst accusations of the temporary cease-fire being "violated by the U.S." would be interpreted as sending a message of surrender under duress, damaging its domestic sovereignty narrative and weakening its bargaining chips in subsequent negotiations. For the Trump administration, emphasizing that "the other side called to request a cease-fire" within the context of continued increased sanctions and military pressure helps prove to voters and allies that its hardline approach is "working." Whether the call ever took place became a secondary issue; what mattered more was which party could control the story: Was it the U.S. president issuing a directive while Iran complied with the cease-fire button, or Iran refusing to acknowledge any posture of seeking help, positioning itself as an equal or even confrontational counterpart?
Bombed or Not? The Gray Area of Military Threats and Propaganda Wars
Beyond the narrative of "who made the call first," another narrative line emerged concerning "who struck first." A U.S. official (from a single source) leaked that U.S. forces would carry out "heavy strikes" against Iran on the night of June 10, targeting key facilities; almost simultaneously, Trump claimed in the interview that U.S. military aircraft were already executing missions over Iran, emphasizing that "the bombing will soon stop," while also adding, "we do not rule out more attacks." This formulation deliberately intertwined actual actions with future threats: showcasing a hardline stance of having "already acted" while retaining flexibility to escalate further or pull back at any time, treating the rhetoric itself as a battlefield.
On Iran's side, another discourse responded to the same scenario. An armed forces spokesperson publicly stated that Iran would respond to each threat from the U.S. with "a harsher, stronger, and more devastating response," defining any U.S. actions and statements as "threats" that could trigger escalation, verbally pushing the deterrence stakes up a notch. However, within this cycle of mutual escalation, a key question has remained unresolved: Did a so-called "large-scale strike" actually occur? Where did it hit? What consequences followed? All of these lack publicly verifiable details. Including claims from some media outlets about "hitting two vessels," these remain at the level of unverifiable reporting, more like ammunition in the information war than established facts; in the gray area where "bombed or not" cannot clearly be answered, what significantly influences the situation is each side's ability to use limited footage and fragments to seize narrative dominance in domestic public opinion, regional audiences, and the global market.
The Echo of the Oil Chokehold Dispute Amplified in the Market
When the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy announced on June 11 that "the Strait of Hormuz is closed until further notice," it transmitted not just a military signal. For the energy market, this statement almost equated to pulling the trigger on the chokepoint of one-third of global oil trade; the night before, the U.S. Central Command had publicly emphasized that "commercial ships are still moving in and out," denying the closure of the Strait. For traders sitting in London, New York, or Singapore, such information fragmentation means that no one can discern which path is the real navigable route from their terminal screens, leading them to leave room for discounts or premiums in the "worst-case scenario."
In such information asymmetry, the response mechanisms of the energy and shipping markets have long been solidified: on one side, Iran uses the "closure of the Strait" narrative as leverage, while the U.S. strives to release comforting signals of "the channel is still open" to allies and the markets. In between, insurance companies, oil enterprises, and ship owners are recalculating risk premiums. Even in the absence of explicit price curves, experience tells participants that news related to Hormuz will first manifest in a widening of oil price expectation ranges, tightening shipping insurance conditions, and a rise in risk requirements for assets exposed to the high-risk region of the Middle East; at this time, Israel emphasizes that it is not participating in U.S. actions, which can only provide limited cooling in regional risk assessments and is insufficient to quell doubts about "whether the Strait will truly be closed." In this retraction of narrative, traditional finance and commodity markets first bore the shock waves, while subsequent on-chain predictions and crypto-asset pricing merely continued the reverberations from the other end of the same risk curve.
From Television Stations to On-Chain Markets: How the Crypto Market Prices the Clouds of War
When the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy announced on June 11 that "the Strait of Hormuz is closed," and the U.S. Central Command insisted the night before that "the Strait is still open, and commercial ships are passing as usual," television stations and news pushes were only the first layer of the battlefield, with the second layer quickly opening up on-chain. Decentralized prediction markets like Polymarket had long posted event odds around "whether the Strait will be closed," "whether there will be large-scale strikes," and "whether the U.S. and Iran are truly entering into full conflict," where the buying and selling prices are no longer mere speculative games but real-time scorecards from participants on the probabilities of these events happening. With each statement countered, the implied probabilities in the odds were tugged back and forth within minutes, as concerns over energy and shipping in the traditional financial market were translated by some investors into more direct bets on war through these odds.
At the same time, Trump asserted in media that "aircraft are already over Iran" and "he has communicated with Iranian officials," while Iranian state media promptly denied any contact, the contradictory narratives spread through social media, and emotions entered the market along two pathways: one being cross-platform trading of crypto-assets like Bitcoin, the other being the repricing of event probabilities in on-chain prediction markets. In the absence of verifiable casualty data and real-time traffic volume in the Strait, these markets are driven on one hand by sensational headlines that amplify short-term emotional fluctuations, while on the other, as more participants enter and more information is pieced together, they gradually converge on a collective judgment through price. For those observing this information war, these constantly fluctuating odds are, in themselves, a part of the story's progression.
The Fog of Information Surrounding Hormuz: Market Games Amidst Unclear Truths
Surrounding the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. claims the Strait is open and ships are still moving in and out, while the Iranian Revolutionary Guard announces it is closed; Trump talks about communicating with Iranian officials and conducting strikes over Iran, while Iranian officials deny contact and keep silent about the scale of attacks, with three narratives colliding over whether "the Strait is closed," whether there was "direct communication," and whether there have been "large-scale strikes," forming a typical information war. At this time, facts remain heavily contested: the actual traffic conditions of the Strait, specific U.S. strike targets, and casualty data await validation, but the market has already pre-emptively scored these unclear risks with prices—from energy and shipping-related assets to on-chain prediction markets like Polymarket and broader crypto assets, information itself is simultaneously used by the U.S. and Iran to shape domestic and foreign perceptions, becoming a "weapon" to pressure opponents, while traders view it as a tradable "asset." Moving forward, what truly deserves attention is not merely new verbal battles, but whether the Strait remains open or is materially obstructed, whether both sides are willing to provide more verifiable evidence, and how both prediction markets and traditional financial markets adjust their pricing and tolerance towards the risks of this conflict after each statement and counter-statement.
Join our community, let's discuss together, and become stronger together!
AiCoin exclusive Hyperliquid benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
AiCoin exclusive Aster benefits: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
