Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike
lloydslist.com
lloydslist.com
There are endless numbers of military objectives that the US military that could have been sent on where they would have had no chance to succeed. That they generally weren't is a function other administrations, however bad, not being so embarrassingly incompetent as this.
The US navy was unable to keep hormuz secure for civilian traffic but was able to blockade it themselves. I think that's exactly the outcome you'd expect in this scenario.
No, not at all. As I said, controlling straits and keeping them open for shipping is a fundamental function of a navy going back to Roman times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_navy (“By far, the navy's most vital task was to ensure Roman grain imports were shipped and delivered to the capital unimpeded across the Mediterranean.”).
The inability to keep the strait clear shouldn’t have been expected. It’s a purely military objective that’s squarely within what our ridiculously overspecced Navy should be able to do.
Similarly it is a fundamental function of the infantry to maintain ground control over a region but it is easy to come up with hypotheticals where any given power including the US would fail to do so.
> It’s a purely military objective that’s squarely within what our ridiculously overspecced Navy should be able to do.
I'm sure they could if cost was of no consequence but depending on the size of iran's drone stockpiles the interceptor costs might well bankrupt us. And even then they would only manage because (I assume) iran either can't or won't employ hypersonic missiles against tankers.
I think that’s exactly what they thought. I think this was supposed to be a quick and dirty campaign like Venezuela.
> I'm sure they could if cost was of no consequence but depending on the size of iran's drone stockpiles the interceptor costs might well bankrupt us. And even then they would only manage because (I assume) iran either can't or won't employ hypersonic missiles against tankers.
I think this is the part they overlooked. The military has been planning to attack Iran for 50 years. I can totally believe that they underestimated Iran’s drone capabilities and hypersonic missiles.
Either way, there’s a real military lesson here. Iran has enormous leverage over the world through its control of the strait of hormuz. Even the most powerful navy in the world can’t protect the world’s oil shipments without a land war against Iran (which I expect would be a trillion dollar effort). The Iranians are much more powerful than we thought.
It depends on who "they" is. The accounts seem to be that Mrs Trump and Hegseth and co thought like this.
But everyone else (including the professional strategists let go in the DOGE purges, and the remaining ones in the room) thought that this was an incredibly stupid idea that was bound to fail for obvious reasons.
They were overruled. Another case of "they said it couldn't be done. But we tried anyway, and what do you know, they were right." Hubris, incompetence and idiocy.
> The military has been planning to attack Iran for 50 years.
And Iran has been preparing for attack for a long time too. Hence the drone stockpiles.
The Iranian regime might be deeply unpleasant, but they do not appear to be stupid or incompetent at this.
> there’s a real military lesson here
Agreed, but I think the lesson is more about listening to the professional strategists who are stating the obvious.
What’s your source for this?
it is widely known that Mr Netanyahu has suggested this same plan to every US administration from Bush onwards (1), and was rejected by them all until now.
It is widely known that the military analysts all made the obvious prediction that Iran would seize Hormuz (2)
I might be a bit off the mark with "professional strategists let go in the DOGE purges" but not by much (3) DOGE Cuts have affected the Pentagon as well (4), so it's less clear. What's your source that it had no effect?
Recent reporting on the decision to attack in 2026 includes (5)
Trump attacked based on "a feeling" (6) not advice.
1) https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ED_096-xmEk
2) https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/02/us/politics/trump-iran-st...
3) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
4) https://defensescoop.com/2026/06/23/pentagon-workforce-cuts-...
5)
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/politics/trump-iran-wa...
https://www.poynter.org/commentary/2026/nyt-haberman-swan-le...
and also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48708072
6) https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/vibes-over-intel-white-house...
What does that mean? Is this an excuse to dismiss his assessment? I don't necessarily value his opinion, but "oh, he's known to be a sceptic of it" is often dismissive rather than acknowledging that there are real reasons be be sceptical.
> Trump was warned protecting the strait would be difficult. Was it the military?
The other link that you were already given makes it clear that it was the military. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48708072
Common sense makes it clear that it was the miliary who know the score. Who else would have studied it in as much detail and wargamed possible scenarios? I refer you to my grandparent comment re "professional strategists who thought that this was an incredibly stupid idea"
> For years, the U.S. government has conducted war games dealing with potential conflicts with Iran, including ones at the Pentagon attended by dozens of military officials and policymakers. Over and over, participants say, they concluded that Iran would respond to a major American attack by closing the strait of Hormuz.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/02/us/politics/trump-iran-st...
NB: this is one of the links given above, and yet you ask the question "Was it the military?" that is answered therein. Why?
Did the military advise the administration it would take a lengthy ground war to control the strait? Or was it pitched as something the Navy could do without a ground occupation?
From Feburary:
https://www.axios.com/2026/02/23/iran-strike-trump-gen-dan-c...
Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine has been advising President Trump and top officials that a military campaign against Iran could carry significant risks, in particular the possibility of becoming entangled in a prolonged conflict,
Recently:
https://www.ms.now/news/trump-iran-war-haberman-swan-book-in...
“He felt that this regime was a paper tiger, that this was going to be a fast war,” Swan said on “The Last Word.” “He just said he felt that that was going to be the case, that they were going to collapse very quickly.”
“It’s a form of magical thinking, actually, is what it all boils down to,” he added.
It's pure greed. The IRGC relies heavily on oil money for funding the massive militia (hundreds of thousands of Basij) that allows it to stay in power; if that income collapsed then it would eventually lose control. Trump however not only refused to bomb Iran's oil infrastructure but even stopped the IDF from doing so, just because he thinks he'll somehow be able to take that oil for himself and his cronies in future like he did in Venezuela.
Imho the regime was made stronger because of this war. It was really a bad moment to strike. Khomeini had a cancer, and waiting for his death and the succession crisis that would have ensued would have been a better choice. Now the regime is stronger than ever.
Although my real thoughts is that this strength the Khomeini project is temporary, in the sense that the only reason the regime lasted this long before was because the power was shared. If they keep pushing for more control, without sharing, they will end up loosing everything.
That’s why Trump has allowed Iranian oil already outside the gulf to be sold, was willing to drop oil sanctions on further Iranian shipments, and was so panicked when Israel hit an Iranian oil facility.
That means effectively taking out 25℅ of global oil supply -> oil at 150-200 a barrel -> Trump and the Republicans lose the midterms badly -> Trump gets impeached. I'm sure somebody explained it to him that this is exactly what would get happened, which is why he did not overextend or let Israel do so.
Recommend studying the public comments of General MacKenzie who was the previous CENTCOM commander, comments from Admiral Cooper before he was appointed to current CENTCOM commander, or previous Joint Chiefs of Staff.
They've all given public interviews about Hormuz during the current war or before it over the last decade saying the same thing about what's required and whether it can be done.
That “we could do it, we just don’t want to” argument will face its acid test later in the year when the midterms are closer, but certainly if I were in charge of Iran I’d be feeling pretty good about the current situation.
So, to me, the two possibilities are: the military told the administration it couldn’t control the strait without boots on the ground, and Trump disregarded that advice.
The other possibility is that the military was overconfident. We know it has been developing plans to attack Iran for decades. It’s possible the military thought it could control the strait based on obsolete plans that didn’t account for new developments like Iranian fast boats and drones.
That has been the military assessment in leaks, yes.
So the US Navy is unable to achieve the objective in a reasonable timeframe and cost. That's the same as failure.
Hell there's an argument to be made that the US should downsize its military because there's no universe in which exercising its full capability is not either the end of the world as we know it or absolute political suicide.
Would that work in corporate America? Try telling your boss, "I didn't actually fail because had you given me an unreasonable amount of time and resources I would have succeeded." Every project has an expectation of time and cost, and if you can't meet that expectation then you failed.
This is not true.
There is too much coastline to guard to protect from coastal drone launches.
There are too many cheap drones and not enough cheap drone counters.
There are still a LOT of working ballistic missile launchers.
There are still a lot of anti-air threats, including medium and short range anti air, and combination infared+electro-optical MANPADS capable of shooting down true 5th gen stealth fighters.
They don't need to hit 999 of their drone or missile launches, they need to hit 1 or 2 to make insurance companies unwilling to take the risk of allowing movement through the straight.
Not to mention the cost of this... military excursion has been extensive in both depletion of competent military officers, depletion of strategic use precision guided weapons, we have lost some very expensive and critical airframes, and politically and around the world, have shown to be somewhat of a very expensive paper tiger in modern large scale operations that is clearly not yet ready for the realities of a modern conflict that isn't being fought by a state in the middle of a civil war.
I could go on and on from both a tactical and strategic angle about why this was awful, but I don't think I'd sway the minds of anyone already set in their perspective.
About half or so have been destroyed if one averages various estimates. The continuation of combat operations was the sensible option: not finishing off a wounded but aggressive animal is always a mistake. Iran will put whatever sanctions relief they get out of a "deal" towards rearming and rebuilding their nuclear facilities, and we will be back to square one in a decade or so, only against a more emboldened enemy.
CIA report claims 70% available.
There are massive connected and independent tunnel systems that house, protect, and maintain those systems.
Very hard to get all of them.
This is a pretty bold claim. What's your source for this?
Second, you are basing your assessment that they could open it whenever on some statements what the US could do - again not taking into consideration what Iran what respond with. It's like with all the other goals of this war, the US telling us what they could be doing (which boils down to "more bombing"). Admiral Cooper that brought us the famous 24h "Project Freedom"? Pardon our skepticism, some of their plans maybe sound nice to them, they just expect the other side to not react appropriately, that has been the biggest mistake with Iran.
At least some form of it secretly continued until now.
Yeah, shocking there's no political will for that.
There is no way to keep the straight open without cooperation from Iran, or a near destruction of all their military assets.
He says that a sustained coastal invasion is not necessary. Raids would be necessary to destroy any buried weapons, but these troops wouldn't need to stay there.
Other than this you need more of what they were already doing, "shaping operations" as he calls it, which is ISR drones overhead and lots of bombing/strafing runs.
Eventually, because they don't have a remaining industrial base and cannot effectively replenish their stocks (excepting more simple one way attack drones), they will lack the ability to project enough power beyond their borders to keep the strait closed.
Operation Praying Mantis is a somewhat dated case study, but still required reading.
The reason it's so expensive should be more intuitively obvious - interceptors are expensive and are needed to pace China, and a few more months of closure is significant inflation before the midterms.
Shaheds can be launched from trucks from inside densely populated cities. Good luck with those raids.
> Eventually, because they don't have an industrial base and cannot effectively replenish their stocks
Modern drones are cheap and easy to assemble, Iran's allies (Russia, China) can easily smuggle them inside country.
USA's reputation has taken a severe beating, because of Trump.
We've paid for the entire world order outside the Soviet Union/Russia and China for decades. Time to present a bill, close the relationships (e.g., NATO, UN) and put our money and resources to better use for us in the USA.
Before Trump, the US was the best option by far. With Trump this needs to change obviously as the US might become an autocratic country similar to Russia soon.
> put our money and resources to better use for us in the USA.
I find it weird that people think that in a globalized world, the world order that evolved around the US was sustained out of altruism.
You don't want to influence what happens in the strait of hormuz? You won't hear complains from Iran. You really think all that hassle about the strait was done out of altruism? Venezuela as well?
Great Britain was once a global super power and now, well today they concentrate much more on themselves, so to say. You can concentrate on yourself, but others will keep playing the global power game and you won't get the better end of deals anymore.
I hope the power/wealth redistribution ends up helping Europe to a significant degree and not China.
1) https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/vance-says-wa...
Ten years down the line it may be the case that India will sail up and enforce toll-free waterways instead. That will never happen as long as the US puts up the resources for it. The American taxpayer will be better off if the burden of global free trade is borne more equitably.
If the US citizen think being a super power is to expensive, that's fine for the world. No empire lasts forever. The US can become an important regional power, having its destiny more influenced by the upcoming super powers that fill the vacuum.
And there are no "upcoming super powers" that are remotely able to "fill the vacuum".
Why even maintain such a vast navy to consume money in international waters? Just protect your immediate coast line, why would you care what's going on in the Pacific or Atlantic Ocean or the Arctic, that's just costing money.
Perhaps your citizenry want to buy or sell something from overseas?
The US could open the strait and eliminate all opponents but we don't have the political stomach for it. It would be a longer and more destructive process than people are prepared for right now. Nonetheless, what occurs next will enlighten us as to how to proceed.
Time will tell.
Stop short of what? A land invasion? I think it’s highly unlikely that was ever on the table. Much more likely, the plan was to attack key Iranian targets with air power while the Navy kept the strait of hormuz clear.
this function is outdated since u-boat appearance, and now cruise missiles and drones. More important modern function of navy is projecting power.
Japan made public that one of the motivations for continuing rail gun research is defending naval vessels against saturation attacks.
The U.S. has been secretly moving ships for months. And Iran no longer has any significant naval force, it's all been wiped out. What is difficult to completely stop, short of glassing the entire country, is harassment by drones or other forms of "asymmetric warfare."
A naval force isn't required to control the Strait. Artillery, drones and missiles fired from inland can do that quite easily.
Every time the US shoots down a Shahed with a Patriot, the US is further from winning. The problem is that the USA is running out of US$4 million patriot missiles long before Iran runs out of $40K shaheed drones. And Iran can restock sooner.
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/new-report-us-muni...
https://www.scmp.com/news/world/middle-east/article/3357037/...
Sorry, it's a video but it does a fabulous job explaining this: https://youtu.be/khtWPycU-PA
It was never gonna work, but not because of the navy being weak.
As others have said, the US can “reopen” the straight at any time they want. It’s not an issue of capabilities. But it’s very resource intensive and very expensive.
The logistics of escorting ships in and out of the straight isn’t trivial. I forget the name of the operation, but they did implement it for a few days before shutting it down. Politically, I imagine it’s pretty hard to justify the cost /benefit
On the Iranian side it takes a very small amount of resources and logistics. All they have to do is project power, whether they have it or not, and the shipping & insurance industries have to respect it.
Drones are really cheap, and that’s about all it takes for Iran to leverage their influence over the straight. Which is kind of crazy when you think about it. But it’s about the only bargaining chip they have left and they aren’t going let go of it easily.
Those are tactical objectives, not strategic aims. The US is very good at winning tactically, but losing strategically. This is yet another example.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence US aggression towards Venezuela, Cuba & Iran are all happening at the same time. These things are all connected and nobody’s really talking about it.
I don’t think regime change was the strategy, I think they were happy with just a “reset” of the top leaders, same as in Venezuela.
If they did get full regime change it would have just been a side effect. They were hoping the Iranians would seize the opportunity and rise up, but that didn’t happen. And I don’t blame them, that’s a big ask when they are getting gunned down in the streets or executed for dissent on a daily basis.
They were probably also riding off the “high” of how shockingly easy Venezuela went. But Iran is much more complex obviously
How much of it would you attribute to bad planning? (The full plan of which the Navy will be part.)
Now you can use a drone that costs a few thousand dollars to take out a hundred million dollar ship.
It's a pricing issue. Whereas before, you had to use expensive guided missiles or your own naval or air force assets, now you can send a bunch of cheap drones.
Everything we know about war is going to change.
What is new is Irans willingness to use them. Which skyrocketed after a few missiles assassinated their supreme leader.
In 2026 we have swarms of cheap drones that are fire and forget and they are cheap for mass production.
That’s totally different game.
Nope I think that's nothing new and that was already in the news like months ago when countries started asking Ukraine to buy drone warfare know-how.
Using cheap drones for asymmetric warfare can't be new or surprising for a country with a supposed vast intelligence network. Or for a country that's supposed to have a modern military which means having effective answers to what an enemy throws at you in battle.
I think you vastly overestimate speed with which people acknowledge new facts.
Second best is only Catholic Church fully acknowledging heliocentric theories in 1992.
Indeed it isn't. The military has been doing cheap drone swarm research since well before ukraine. But I think that for everyone - including the military - whether or not the people in charge update their worldviews is an entirely separate matter.
FTFY
The military objective can be achieved, it would just require the 'No New Wars' party to implode from having 272 seats to having ~150 seats after the midterms.
That 'political reason' is that US is war-weary, and the electorate will flip their shit when their kids get sent into the meatgrinder of a pointless war that none of them wanted, ran by TV stars, where the stated objective changes every 30 minutes.
> That 'political reason' is that US is war-weary, and the electorate will flip their shit when their kids get sent into the meatgrinder of a pointless war that none of them wanted, ran by TV stars, where the stated objective changes every 30 minutes.
I totally agree. It's just that they were bragging regarding restrictions for political reasons and that they wouldn't do that, just 'effective' warfare.
It somehow seems like there were good reasons that the US never went to war against Iran before. Maybe there were reasons for a lot of other stuff as well that people just not fully understand and the US now voted a man into power that doesn't understand it either. That's also why some people celebrate Trump as a genius. "Finally, a man with the same line of thought as me!" might possibly not be the same as being a genius.
No matter how much military we put into the strait, Iran was just going to blow up UAE and Qatari refineries.
And despite all the madman theory of our current President, there's just too many bribes in those countries who have the attention of the President. So Total War is unacceptable to USA leaders.
-------
That being said: I'm still amused that the ship we needed in this fight was the long cancelled Littoral Combat Ship
I mean, buildings and hardened targets do care. But ships can just move and the missile will miss.
But yes, defenses vs Drones and Cruise missiles is more than sufficient vs Iran. And navigating narrow waters with higher degrees of mobility is better than our other ships.
https://warontherocks.com/irans-anti-access-and-area-denial-...
Even setting the ballistic missile threat aside, LCS can't defend itself against regular drones and cruise missiles. It's severely limited in terms of sensors, fire control, and magazine depth. In order to operate in that area with reasonable survivability it would have to be escorted by a more capable surface warship with area air defense.
It has long been clear for any analyst that securing the straight without boots on the ground would be materially impossible. Air power isn't enough to stop the very modest force of the Houthis from closing the Bab-el-mandeb straight, it was clear from the beginning that it wouldn't work better against a much more capable Iran.
Trump launched a war without any plan, and absolutely no willingness to launch an full-scale invasion of Iran (rightly so, because it would have been unlikely to work well with regards to the polical goals), so it's not exactly surprising that it didn't work.
Starting a war is always a bad idea, even when you have bipartisan support for it at home, but starting a war you don't want to fight is absolutely dumb.
"Traffic is generally picking up in the strait, with several laden tankers seen exiting into the Gulf of Oman over the weekend, though some of them turned off their transponders. The latest was a Greek-flagged tanker carrying Iraqi crude to Singapore."
https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/iranian-crude-oil...
Maritime Intelligence — AI-powered analysis of current strait conditions, insurance markets, and diplomatic developments using real-time web data.
Energy Market Feeds — Live Brent crude oil pricing from financial data providers.
AIS Vessel Tracking — Automatic Identification System data for real-time vessel positions.
TradingView — Interactive historical oil price charts with full technical analysis capabilities.
News Aggregation — Curated news from major international outlets covering the Hormuz crisis.
though they do not say what the actual data sources are.
Worse still, many mariners are effectively prisoners and can become trapped if corporate decides to cut them loose without also providing passage off the vessel
Stranded sailor allowed to leave abandoned ship after four years https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-56842506
Stuck at sea for years, a sailor’s plight highlights a surge in shipowner abandonment https://apnews.com/article/abandoned-seafarers-labor-unpaid-...
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/29/podcasts/the-daily/iran-s...
From this report, I'm getting the feeling that they're running out of time to just float around and it's now or never.
And eventually it's just not worth transiting the strait no matter how "open" it's claimed to be, if there are still unacceptable risks.
1 — The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war are signing this MOU to declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon.
But Israel has continued to attack intensively in Lebanon, killing dozens (if not over 100 since the MOU was signed, not sure), and continues to have a sizeable invasion force in Lebanese territory. Lebanon was explicitly and specifically mentioned to stress its significance - it is the country suffering the most right now, with hundreds of thousands of internally displaced due to threats from the Israeli forces against the civilian population of the south.
With that being the case since day 1, the MOU cannot be said to have even gone into effect. Certainly, the closure of the straights should be seen in this light, rather than a violation.
Claiming that a country can't exercise military control over its territorial waters seems like a legal or political fiction to me. Granted they share part of the waterway with their neighbors but expecting a country at war to honor such things also seems like wild fantasy to me. They've been bombing those same neighbors.
Of course in the real world law takes a back seat to force.
> their territorial waters extend only 3 NM from their shores
Do you suppose their current government would agree with that statement? Personally I rather doubt they would.
But even if they did, as you say law often takes a back seat to force in these matters meaning that they could just as well say "yeah you're right but we're at war so get bent".
Israel is not part of the deal, wasn't directly involved in discussions, and did not sign anything.
The USA controls Israel's purse strings btw and if it just stopped sending it money the war would be over in a few months - and there probably wouldn't be an Israel any more, so Netanyahu would do well to prevent the USA from choosing this option, by following any terms imposed by the USA, like to stop attacking Lebanon.
It has to do with ships moving through the Oman side of the strait. Iran is unhappy with that, because the want to control all the movement through it.
This is the quintessential American project, the U.S. has invented and developed the oil industry in Saudi. Saudi Aramco was originally the "California-Arabian Standard Oil Company".
I don't know why this hasn't happened during the last 40 years where Iran has always been an enemy, Saudi Arabia has always been an ally and the U.S. has always had enormous amount of access to the Kingdom for the purpose of building oil infrastructure.
Haven't you seen the amount of sand they displaced for the foundations of "the Line" project?
Let's say dig a hole in the desert build the pipeline and then cover it with 15ft of sand that you previously excavated , can't be that hard for a country that is boasting about building a 1mi tall skyscraper and a 100mi long 1000ft tall Line , or a floating NEOM city
The exception is that this project would actually have positive ROI .
I agree that the point of arrival of the pipelines would present a vulnerabily but look at the map , Jeddah is about 1000mi from Iran coast.
That buys you a lot of time and a lot of opportunities to intercept the drones
> > extended war of oil infrastructure destruction.
My point was that ingenuity could be used to avoid oil infrastructure destruction , which is not desirable anyways.
Your point is to get there via drone MAD. I don't think Saudi and Iran can be trusted with MAD