If the price of the blockade is as high as you outline, the price to secure the strait military might look comparatively lower.
And, looking at the scenario you’re describing, it could be the most sane thing to do at this point.
And, looking at the scenario you’re describing, it could be the most sane thing to do at this point.
Everyone in the DoD with triple-digit IQ knew that this would be the most likely outcome of starting a war with Iran, but all of those people got purged by Trump last year.
---
[1] The status quo was that Iran was not in control of the strait, and all shipping traffic could pass through it.
[2] Iran has so far accomplished it's objectives in the war, the US and Israel did not. It didn't get regime-changed, and its in now in control of the strait.
Obviously 50-50 doesn't pencil out at $100 or even $200 a barrel. But 1:50 might at $2xx. IDK I'm not a shipping expert.
Someone could say the risk is financially worth it, but you are not going to have many takers. Also might find few crew who want to sign onto your vessels.
There are a lot of human beings on those ships. It strikes me as awful that their lives would be risked under these circumstances, and that happening wouldn't really be a proper solution to the overarching problem. It would be something of a tragedy if things got so severe that the risk was assumed worthwhile and presumably, people on board were exposed to it outside of their will or control. I suspect many of them don't have a lot of options.
Iran is not very nice to the ships, judging from videos and results of attacks.
There's a very noticeable difference. There are no parties, music videos, ship tours to abducted ships... with Iran, etc.
With Iran, the ships end up like this https://t.me/QudsNen/216170 or this https://t.me/presstv/179430
I also see false equivalence here in that the risk of death doesn't seem fungible. You're taking an aggregate death toll distributed across hundreds of millions of people, involving totally different voluntariness and causal structures.
The US and Israel are rapidly running out of munitions, while Iran is being resupplied by Russia (https://www.ft.com/content/d5d7291b-8a53-42cd-b10a-4e02fbcf9...) which is much more tooled out for munition production compared to NATO. The US also relies on both rare earths and Chinese supply chain for a lot of its munitions (which it is running low on).
IMO the best option is for Trump to TACO, take the major L, and cede Iran its demands, but this would partially mean an alignment shift from Israel which still feels unthinkable based on the US political realities.
The price to secure the straight militarily is a full ground invasion of Iran.
This would be done against a country four times bigger (in population and size) than Iraq, with the kind of terrain that makes Afghanistan look easily accessible, done without the help of a coalition of fools, because this isn't 2003, and nobody in Europe is very eager to send their kids to die for a war that Trump's ego started. His 2025 attempts to 'ingrate' himself with Europe are paying dividends now.
Also, if you think the war is unpopular now (nobody but the 40% of the country that's MAGA-brained supports it - and those guys will support anything), imagine what the popularity would be like with a full mobilization and invasion.
The GOPniks aren't that eager to become a 31-seat party this November.
The sane option would be to back down.
And no, not every adversarial regime can be taken down. The Soviet Union had to fall, nobody was going to invade it.