The American strategy of sinking Iranian tankers in retaliation for attacks on US naval vessels faces a critical barrier: Tehran likely values the prospect of blasting a hole in an American destroyer more than the loss of an empty cargo ship. US Central Command reported that American forces have "destroyed" eight oil tankers over the past several days following two Iranian missile attacks on US Navy ships. Military analysts characterize this policy as part of a broader approach known as "punitive deterrence."

All of the targeted Iranian vessels belong to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a formidable force operating independently of Iran's regular military. The tit-for-tat strikes unfold against a backdrop of escalating tensions over control of the Strait of Hormuz, following the expiration of a ceasefire last month. Iran is attempting to seize control over all cargo transiting this critical waterway, while President Donald Trump maintains a blockade operation focused on cutting off Iran's vital oil exports.

Kelly Grieco, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center, said that while removing Iranian oil tankers from the shipping fleet would inflict damage on the Revolutionary Guard and Iran's economy, Tehran would nonetheless view striking a multi-billion-dollar US Navy vessel as an immensely attractive opportunity. She pointed out that the Trump administration's first round of sinking tankers did not deter Iran from subsequently attacking the American Navy again.

"Successfully hitting a target would send a message that the US Navy cannot operate without incurring costs, giving Tehran a victory it could tout both domestically and internationally," Grieco said. "Losing tankers certainly hurts, but Tehran likely deems it a price worth paying."

To date, there have been no confirmed reports of American warships being hit by Iranian missiles during the exchanges. While the specific weapons used have not been disclosed, the Pentagon stated that many were ballistic missiles. American authorities have also not revealed which systems were employed to intercept the latest round of attacks.

Becca Wasser, head of defense programs at Bloomberg Economics, suggested that Iran's repeated strikes on American warships effectively impose sustained costs on the US, which actually benefits Tehran. Iranian missiles are likely far cheaper than the air-defense interceptors used to neutralize them, and they are simpler to produce. This cost disparity has also been evident in Iranian attacks on US military bases throughout the Middle East.

"The sheer volume of interceptors expended on each attack is unsustainable," Wasser said. "The US faces the risk of depleting its inventories, and the cost of continuously draining those stockpiles may push Washington to reassess its response strategy."