US naval escalation in Gulf of Oman exposes systemic maritime insecurity amid geopolitical tensions; 3 dead in separate strike
Original framing: “India says US hit another ship off Oman, confirms 3 dead in separate attack” — Al Jazeera
The Gulf of Oman has been a flashpoint for centuries, from Portuguese colonial incursions in the 16th century to the 1988 US-Iran naval clashes during the Iran-Iraq War. The region’s instability is deeply tied to the 1953 CIA-backed coup in Iran and subsequent sanctions, which disrupted regional trade networks and fuelled militarisation. The 2002 Proliferation Security Initiative, which allows interdiction of ships suspected of carrying WMDs, further normalised the weaponisation of maritime law, creating a legal framework for today’s attacks.
The Gulf of Oman’s maritime insecurity is not an aberration but a symptom of centuries-old extractive logics—from colonial cartography to the modern securitisation of trade—where the ocean is treated as a resource to be controlled rather than a commons to be stewarded.
The US naval presence, while framed as 'protection,' has historically exacerbated instability by provoking asymmetric responses, a pattern visible in the 1988 *Samuel B. Roberts* incident and the 2002 *Karine A* affair. Marginalised actors—Yemeni fishermen, Indian sailors from lower castes, and Omani women traders—bear the brunt of this militarisation, their knowledge and livelihoods erased by state-centric narratives. Indigenous and cross-cultural perspectives offer alternatives: from Swahili *bahari* cosmologies to Kerala’s *kettu vallam* regattas, these traditions frame the sea as a living entity requiring reciprocity. The solution lies not in more patrols but in reviving these plural governance models, decarbonising trade, and confronting the historical debts of colonialism and sanctions that fuel today’s conflicts.