Strait of Hormuz Live Traffic Tracking
hormuz.now
hormuz.now
It was supposed to be a Beowulf cluster of Furbies, right?
In internet terms that's practically the Mesozoic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_Rolling_Stones_con...
Or are the attacks on ships more or less random?
If you observe the wording of everything they've said, they are being consistent: acknowledge our right to decide who passes and who doesn't (via a toll) or have your ship attacked. Those are words used to express consistency in policy, and to position themselves as reliable overlords of the region.
This is absolutely 100% not true. Iran had a fatwa against obtaining nuclear weapon weapons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa_against_nuclear_weapons
That is until the United States started bombing them
Iranian politician Ali Motahari said the fatwa only forbids the use of a nuclear weapon, not its creation.
https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-705027
>Despite Iran's insistence that its nuclear activity is for peaceful purposes only, former Iranian MP Ali Motahari revealed on Sunday that Iran "from the very beginning" aimed to make a nuclear bomb, in an interview with the Iran Student Correspondents Association.
He hasn't done it yet, at least not publicly but he very well might. If you look at the moves he has been making, he is putting people in charge of IRGC who are bigger hardliners. The new commanders in charge are very pro war, for example Vahidi and Mohsen Rezaei.
I think United States and Israel made a big mistake in their calculus, underestimating the number of supporters they have in Iran. I assume mostly because you only hear the voices of expats who are either Pahlavis or classic Liberals in the West.
Easily 40% of population is in support of the Republic and for good reason. Decades of US trying to destroy Iran has solidified their position and the war of 2025 put the final nail in the coffin.
The people here discussing the "Strait" are missing the forest for the trees.. Iran will control it, there may or not be alternative solutions but the biggest issue is that the entire region will be forever destabilized. At least until one side gives major concessions, even if US wanted to have an agreement, Israel wouldn't allow it.
It's a bad situation for everyone.
Gulf oil exporters will move away from utilizing the Strait over the next few years due to this continued threat - what will it be next time? Give us more chocolate or we’ll close the Strait again! ? You offended our Dear Leader, Straight closed for 4 days! Nobody is going to tolerate that.
So eventually we will wind up with a Strait in which primarily Iranian oil would pass, except by then the US will, if it decides to, maintain control over the Strait and no longer allow Iran to push oil through while Gulf powers just use alternative means.
It’s not necessarily the win that Iran or its supporters seem to think it is.
How exactly will the US do that?
They’ve been trying for months, and can’t because Iran have the literal high ground. It’s accepted that Short of a massive land invasion committing millions of US troops, they can’t control the strait.
If this will continue for too long, other countries may decide that they want to pass through the strait no matter what USA says. Then what will USA do, declare war on everybody? Threaten to use nuclear weapons against those who want to use the strait?
For decades, USA has used various blackmailing methods to force other countries to follow its policies, but nowadays most countries seek methods to free themselves from these constraints, so it is unclear if USA will be again successful in the future with such tactics.
Ok so both countries are wrong for stopping maritime traffic then.
> If this will continue for too long, other countries may decide that they want to pass through the strait no matter what USA says. Then what will USA do, declare war on everybody? Threaten to use nuclear weapons against those who want to use the strait?
They won't for the same reason they don't do it in the Strait. Nobody is willing to risk their lives. The US has boarded multiple ships - you're aware of that right?
So what exactly is the "world" going to do? If they can't come together and dislodge Iranian "control" of the Strait with what navy are they going to float over and dislodge the United States with? Be realistic.
> For decades, USA has used various blackmailing methods to force other countries to follow its policies, but nowadays most countries seek methods to free themselves from these constraints, so it is unclear if USA will be again successful in the future with such tactics.
Many countries engage in coercion where they can including China, the EU, and others. I don't think most countries are seeking methods to free themselves from any constraints here. Also what blackmail technique are you referring to that America is engaging in re: "future tactics"?
They certain don’t control the straight, because Iran can attack any ship passing through with ease and the US can’t stop them.
Notice how no US navy ships are going through? They know they’ll be sunk. That doesn’t sound like control to me.
Yes but that also means Iran doesn't control it. The US can attack any vessel passing through with ease and Iran can't stop them.
> Notice how no US navy ships are going through? They know they’ll be sunk. That doesn’t sound like control to me.
Well there's no reason to sail through and expose yourself to fire. Iran doesn't even have a navy anymore.
I’m not sure what other products transit the Straight from memory but the only one that matters for America and the global economy too is oil and so as long as that’s flowing nobody really cares about Iran threatening ships in the Straight. Eventually the only ships they can threaten will be theirs, but they won’t be allowed to leave. Oh well.
Iran doesn't really win that contest. Is your day-to-day intolerable? No it's not. Is the day-to-day of the average Iranian intolerable? No but it's trending that way.
On that basis, it’s less clear. How close Iran’s to meaningful instability is debated, and I’ve not seen a convincingly definitive argument from any side.
You're certainly correct that the level of pain tolerance varies between countries and governments, but we tolerated a lot of oil and gas pain during Russia's invasion of Ukraine (I support Ukraine then and now), and if you take your thoughts here to their conclusion you're in my view implying Iran can take more pain than the US can.
What is the conclusion then?
The conclusion is that the US military is completely irrelevant because any activity which seems to affect some sort of consumer or industrial good means the US just can't stomach $5/gallon gas for the MAGA trucks and thus we are incapable of fighting a war to support Ukraine or Taiwan for example because gas prices will go through the roof.
For US military power, it seems like the lesson is we can do two things:
- inflict a great deal of physical damage quickly, without any domestic support.
- fight a sustained conflict for an extended period of, with domestic support.
It seems they planned for the first, not the second. Both world wars, the Korean and Vietnam wars all inflicted great costs (loss of life, costs to the government budget, and costs to consumers), but were maintained for quite a while. But they all had significant popular support.
You're again right, the commitment of the elites in power in Iran matter. BUT if things get bad enough their hand will be forced. And if not, oh well, we can just maintain a blockade. Either way countries in the gulf region will move away from utilizing the Strait due to war uncertainty.
They are in a hard position because while they've mostly been peaceful countries, their militaries are weak and their infrastructure is at risk to Iranian drones and missiles - which again proves the need to stop Iran from acquiring more and making this more of an issue in the future.
But the US will ultimately be the one deciding what engagement will look like and the gulf coast countries will fall in line. While they certainly want the war to be over, they also don't want the US to leave the Middle East and leave them to quite literally become vassals to Iran (the US doesn't want this either) which is an option if they decided they would somehow "end the war" with an agreement with Iran. They're toeing a fine line here.
And it’s not only oil, it’s also LNG and Qatar is one of the world’s largest LNG exporters, and virtually all of its LNG currently has to pass through Hormuz.
That would be long and expensive infrastructure constructions.
The straight wasn’t a problem before the President of Peace
> The straight wasn’t a problem before the President of Peace
I don’t think this is true. Iran has already mined the Straight before when something or another didn’t go their way, and they were already building up missile and drone capacity to make their shutdown even less manageable by regional powers and American forces.
Had they been granted say another 2-3 years of buildup we really couldn’t have done anything and would have probably had to accept Iranian control.
You also can’t divorce this specific issue from Iran’s general behavior: helping to kill Ukrainians, killing innocent people in the Middle East and creating wars in countries like Syria, and other things like murdering over 30,000 of their own people. They also still stone homosexuals to death. The Straight and their attempt to hold global oil production hostage is just another item on the long list of grievances.
Iranian here, please give me the names of the 30,000 dead people so we can corroborate your claims with reality.
I have no lover for IRGC, my own family members were severly harmed by them but this claim is of 30k/40k dead is false.
Next, regarding the United State's ability to "block' the Strait: If the previous blockade was successful, it would have never been lifted.
Regarding the causalities: In this war alone, United State's have killed more than 3k Iranians, bombed schools, hospitals, bridges and other civilian infrastructure. IRAQ war resulted in 211k civilian deaths thanks to United States. I could go further back but I'll stop here.
I'm not saying Iran hasn't harmed anyone but simply on numbers alone, I would be more concerned about US as an adversary than Iran if I was a sovereign nation.
> The Straight and their attempt to hold global oil production hostage
Iran repeatedly warned everyone that if it is attacked, the Strait would be closed. TRUMP decided that we apparently needed to be "freed" and caused a global catastrophe. I like how you you shift the blame here.
Further, any attempts at diplomacy between US and Iran has failed because of US. United States attacked Iran during negotiations or reneged the deal.
Here is a reminder for you:
1. May 2018 - TRUMP wrecks the JCPOA that Obama negotiated (after 20 months of difficult talks from both sides)
2. June 2025 - Us attacks nuclear facilities, weeks after negotiations of April.
3. February 2026 - US strikes Iran during indirect talks in Switzerland
4. Multiple rounds of strikes by US during the 60 day "negotiation", US ignoring everything in the MOU, including trying to covertly move ships from the Oman side
I'm ignoring all other incidents of assassinating Iranian scientists and other diplomats.
Clearly, one side is not interested in peace.
I can't since I don't have access to the information. But the BBC started doing some reporting [1] back in February about people being killed. Maybe someone you know? The 30,000 number is confirmed by the US and EU.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62v248xkl5o
> Next, regarding the United State's ability to "block' the Strait: If the previous blockade was successful, it would have never been lifted.
This is inaccurate for a couple of reasons. First there's the general case which is that the US does indeed want oil to flow from the Strait and is willing to lift the blockade to allow that. Hardliners in the IRGC as deals were being made began attacking ships, and of course the US responded, and thus the Strait was closed by both sides yet again.
Second, the US is currently blockading the Strait now. The fact that it is doing it and doing it successfully is evidence that it can in fact do it and do it successfully.
> I'm not saying Iran hasn't harmed anyone but simply on numbers alone, I would be more concerned about US as an adversary than Iran if I was a sovereign nation.
Well of course. If you're a despotic regime, murdering people, and doing things like that there is only one country on the planet that is inclined to do anything about it. No other country has the will or capability, including Iran (that's not a criticism of Iran it's just a statement of fact). Countries around the world get along peacefully with the US - it's only certain countries that don't and you can tie US actions back to specific actions they continue to take, such as attempting to acquire nuclear weapons which the US, for the good of the world of all things, will not allow.
> I like how you you shift the blame here.
Well who is to blame, and when do we start deciding who is to blame and win? One can argue you start the blame in 2022 when Hamas (funded by and supplied by Iran) attacked Israel. Prior to that I don't recall too much else going on (relatively speaking).
Certainly the US should bear its criticism, but by and large it has been forced into a position in which it must take action. The way you know this is true is this: if Iran stopped trying to build a nuclear bomb, stopped funding terrorist groups (Houthis, Hamas/Palestine, Hezbollah, various groups in Iraq and Syria), and left the Strait of Hormuz alone there's nothing for the US to be upset about. Nobody in America cares about Iran one bit except that your country keeps doing the 3 items I mentioned above and we're simply not going to accept those items, thus, conflict.
> Here is a reminder for you:
Why do we need to only go back to 2018? Why not go back further or pick a different point in time? Better yet, why do we need a JCPOA in the first place? Just don't build nuclear weapons. Why does Iran need this special treatment and monitoring by the ha perfect American intelligence apparatus to ensure that Iran doesn't build a bomb. Just stop trying to build bombs!
> Multiple rounds of strikes by US during the 60 day "negotiation"
Iran also conducted multiple rounds of strikes during the 60 day "negotiation" and unlike Iran, the US actually has a leash on its military and when they say stop shooting they don't shoot, unless shot upon, which Iran of course did start shooting at tankers during this period. Nevermind activities in Iraq...
> Clearly, one side is not interested in peace.
Yes, Iran.
Maybe Iran did something but it didn’t really bother anyone.
Trump made the strait Iran‘s only way of leverage. They will try to keep it by all means.
Desperation makes such things way worse.
Ships aren’t transiting without American approval and if I recall the US said ships paying Iran were not permitted to utilize the Strait.
But we also know the US has quietly been escorting some number of tankers out of the Strait over the last few months, unless they are Iranian, so there are likely ships that are transiting under American protection and they aren’t paying Iran.
You might miss a submarine or two.
from 80-100 in February
to 1-8 past 200 days (tiny hump during fake MOU)
click on YTD
* https://en.macromicro.me/charts/94482/imf-strait-of-hormuz-n...
* https://i.imgur.com/fDonsfs.png
the real question is what is pressing down oil prices?
some scam we don't know about yet?
because strategic oil reserve is now below 300 million barrels which means it is experiencing permanent damage that cannot be repaired
What a fallen nation
/I kid, I kid, it wouldn't work
Unfortunately, none of the other things that should have been jokes, weren't
Henry Hill: You're a pistol, you're really funny. You're really funny.
Tommy DeVito: What do you mean I'm funny?
Henry Hill: It's funny, you know. It's a good story, it's funny, you're a funny guy.
[laughs]
Tommy DeVito: What do you mean, you mean the way I talk? What?
Henry Hill: It's just, you know. You're just funny, it's... funny, you know the way you tell the story and everything.
Tommy DeVito: [it becomes quiet]
Funny how? What's funny about it?
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION IN THIS MATTER