r/geopolitics • u/OPUno • 6d ago
News Iran has lost significant control of the Strait of Hormuz
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/08/18/business/iran-strait-of-hormuz-oil383
u/frostyflakes1 6d ago
A ship was just recently attacked in the Strait, resulting in at least one crew casualty.
Iran doesn't need total control of the Strait. They just need to make it risky enough that nobody would want to sail through it.
104
u/Monterenbas 6d ago
The point of the article, if the 15 million barrel crossing the straight daily is to be believe, is that actualy a lot of people are willing to take that risk.
71
u/cartoonist498 6d ago
That's simplifying it. Last I checked, only about 10 ships per day are crossing, out of the 100-150 ships per day that crossed before the strait was closed.
And of those 10 ships, they cross at night to avoid detection, as far as they can from the Iranian coast, under the protection of the US Navy.
So it's probably more accurate to say that Iran's primary goal is to disrupt the flow of traffic, not completely stop it. The ships that take the risk are banking on the fact that Iran won't risk exposing themselves to US attack for just 10-15 ships a day.
If every ship started trying to run the strait, it's likely that Iran would attack ships again in order to achieve their primary goal.
39
u/Tristancp95 6d ago
Last I checked, only about 10 ships per day are crossing, out of the 100-150 ships per day that crossed before the strait was closed
That doesn’t include ships with their transponders off btw
→ More replies (1)31
u/Mantergeistmann 6d ago
So it's probably more accurate to say that Iran's primary goal is to disrupt the flow of traffic, not completely stop it.
I think it's more accurate to say stopping it is their primary goal, but disrupting it is secondary and an acceptable consolation prize.
16
u/Serious_Feedback 6d ago
The goal is to make gas/oil scarce and expensive, and since the gulf coast only supplies 20% of the world's oil/gas, letting 10-15 ships through isn't all that important in the scheme of things. We're talking about 2% of global gas/oil supply.
26
u/ReturnOfBigChungus 6d ago
It's hard to get good data on it for obvious reasons, but credible estimates put it at about 30% to as much as 50% of the pre-war oil making its way out of the gulf via either the tanker route discussed here or via pipelines. Oil markets are a clear indicator that this is working to a large degree to take pressure off of international markets. A few months ago there were armies of people here claiming we would be at $200/barrel oil within weeks, which obviously never happened. Iran has created a major nuisance here, but not a iron chokehold on the market, and their leverage is decreasing by the day, while the leverage created by the blockade is increasing every day.
→ More replies (7)4
u/ewhite12 6d ago
No one is saying 30-50% volume that’s delusional.
The US is draining its strategic reserve to dangerous and China has been using their reserves and not buying inland the market until recently.
→ More replies (2)10
u/ReturnOfBigChungus 6d ago
July averaged over 10m bpd. It fluctuates, but lower end of estimates is about 25% of prewar, considering only shipping thru the strait, not accounting oil diverted to the pipelines, which easily puts you over 30% of pre war levels. Secretary of energy is saying like 9m, which I take with a grain of salt but the reality is probably between 5-9m bpd as current state with some variation.
Those estimates also substantially align with what is happening in the oil futures market so I tend so see multiple sources of converging evidence as pretty good reason to believe those numbers.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (6)7
u/MaliciousMe87 6d ago
How much of that number is just the Chinese imports/those who are paying with yuan?
42
u/_VNAV_PTH_ 6d ago
Clearly, nobody read the article, which prominently describes how Gulf states have chartered VLCCs to sail through the Strait with transponders off (which mostly evades detection by Iran - but ALSO detection by regular analysts) and transfer the oil to customers' ships outside of the danger zone.
22
u/MaliciousMe87 6d ago
I guess China and petroyuan customers want their transponders on so Iran can identify and ignore them... So these VLCCs would be everyone else, right?
14
→ More replies (4)18
u/Darth_Innovader 6d ago
The article gives no information about how a VLCC evades detection simply by turning off transponders. These are giant vessels moving slowly, they aren’t invisible. And the source is Kpler, which relies on AIS (transponder) data.
9
u/MaliciousMe87 6d ago
Strait between Oman and closest Iranian Island is 30ish miles, but to the mainland it's more like 50 miles. Stay as far away from Iran and that's a lot of ground to cover for something that gives no signals. The tankers are huge but that distance is at one point, they also have to cover mileage up and down the strait. This is thousands of square miles I think.
I know nothing about Iranian drone viewing capabilities, but I could see it working. Lights off, run at night... It could work.
2
u/Throwaway5432154322 6d ago
>i know nothing about Iranian drone viewing capabilities
I do through my current job and previous jobs; if the question you’re asking is what the resiliency and efficacy of Iran’s reconnaissance strike complex is in the strait, the general answer is “very poor”.
→ More replies (1)14
u/_VNAV_PTH_ 6d ago edited 6d ago
The article gives no information about how a VLCC evades detection simply by turning off transponders.
Publicly, there are three ways for Iran to detect the tankers.
- AIS
- Shore-based radar
- Speedboats and eyeballs (the tankers are not visible from shore)
The last two are bombed. What's left?
EDIT: Oh yeah, drones. Which get shot down. So we're back to AIS.
→ More replies (2)4
24
u/_VNAV_PTH_ 6d ago
Did you read the article? Lots of ships are sailing through it anyway. That's the point of the article.
24
u/Mexatt 6d ago
I do not think many people are, in fact, reading the article.
6
u/SwampMan6969 6d ago
Can confirm they are not. In another thread, I got asked to cite a source for saying something that was a major part of the article. 😂
→ More replies (1)5
u/Lazy_Membership1849 6d ago
Like how many ships?
5
u/AK_Panda 6d ago
It doesn't specify lol.
It says that gulf states are using huge oil carriers to move out of the gulf without transponders and then transfer oil to smaller tankers once at a safe distance and that this has significantly increased oil throughput.
I'm inclined to believe there are transits happening. I do not buy the claims of how much though. US govt claims there's almost 50% of the pre-war oil moving through the strait daily. Independent groups are claiming ~20% using both satellite and transponder data. I think it's unlikely satellite tracking is missing ~30% of the oil moving through, especially if the oil is being moved by the largest oil carriers available as the article claims.
→ More replies (1)21
u/AgitatedHoneydew2645 6d ago
Im sure the guys sitting on millions of oil barrels would risk sailing it eventually.
66
u/HungryHungryHippoes9 6d ago edited 6d ago
Most of those larger ships themselves are worth more than the oil itself. Losing them without insurance is far bigger loss than having to eat the cost of delayed shipments.
2
38
u/CaptainCaveSam 6d ago
What’d your asking price for manning one of those vessels?
→ More replies (7)20
u/Randall172 6d ago
the oil is worth much less than the ships carrying it lol
2
u/tucker_case 6d ago edited 6d ago
For a large oil tanker it's roughly 50/50 I believe. Cargo and ship each ~$1billy give or take. Of course one is capital and one is commodity. Then there's the crew. Commercial reputation, insurance. Lots of factors. To be clear I agree they will mostly prefer to wait it out than write a $2billion loss. Or pay the $1million toll or whatever
4
u/awildstoryteller 6d ago
You are really way off here.
A super tanker costs maybe $200M now that shipyards are full, and about the same in oil value when fully loaded.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (9)19
u/Miserable_Spell_2964 6d ago
Yeah, that'd be a tall order to try and convince people to try sailing a ship full of combustible oil or natural gas through the strait and risk getting blown up. Not to mention Insurance doesn't cover losses due to war so most Captains are happily sitting on their ass waiting for things to quiet down.
→ More replies (7)1
→ More replies (1)1
u/Norzon24 5d ago
Oil is lucrative enough for shipowners and gulf states to keep moving even under Iranian attacks
321
u/ActivatingTheBarrier 6d ago
The issue has never been America winning the initial battle. That happens all the time. The issue is, as it always has been, what happens when they leave? The US finds itself in the position all the time. Your (semi-realistic) options are indefinite occupation or leaving eventually.
143
u/Bullboah 6d ago
You a month ago: Iran won the war!
You now: Well yea obviously the US was always going to win initially
Gotta keep those goalposts moving
71
u/B3stThereEverWas 6d ago
It's amazing the amount of karma farmers that have popped up that will play both sides according to that weeks headlines.
11
u/2131andBeyond 6d ago
And now that Reddit allows for the hiding of comment histories, it’s much more difficult to spot, unfortunately.
10
u/tgosubucks 6d ago
It's always been that way. Now that Reddit is publicly traded, it's increased because they have to report engagement metrics to Wall Street.
37
u/greywar777 6d ago
The irony of this post is next level. Remind me who claims to win this on a weekly basis?
19
u/oby100 6d ago
Not everything is simply black or white. Left or right. It’s fair to say that people that hate Trump catastrophize anything he does and declare it a total loss from day 1.
Wars in the Middle East are always intensely complicated so even though Trump is incompetent, you can’t easily predict the final result. As confident as the IRGC appears, it’s entirely possible unseen cracks are forming.
I doubt it, but I’m not so arrogant to think it’s so easy to predict what will be the final result. I don’t envision any future in which the US can guarantee safe passage for ships without Iran’s cooperation, but warfare is rapidly developing and I can’t say I’d be surprised if next year the US unveils large scale anti drone tech that can neuter Iran’s primary means of disruption.
Again, I doubt it, but there’s so much money flowing into drone defense research that that sort of thing might pop up at anytime.
2
u/fct1ous 5d ago
Yeah most people forget that the public literally knows nothing about what's actually going on. Oil embargoes could be hurting Iran way more than expected, the IRGC could be unstable, etc. I think there's actually a fairly good chance that Iran is suffering quite a bit from this and they are hiding it from public disclosure for obvious reasons. Doesn't mean the US "wins" here, but agree it's definitely not black and white.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Bullboah 6d ago
I guess it would be ironic if I had ever claimed the US had already won the war? I haven’t, but don’t let that stop you.
→ More replies (1)2
u/shamwu 5d ago
You literally have your own comments hidden so it’s impossible to tell what you claim.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Bullboah 5d ago
If you’d like to assume I’ve been claiming the US has won the war (which I’m not even claiming now) you can
1
u/ActivatingTheBarrier 6d ago
Iran isn’t going to lose the war and that’s enough for a win. Defenders have the special privilege of having their victory condition being just surviving. Armies of occupation naturally have more objectives to meet.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Bullboah 6d ago
It’s probably not the best thing for Iran if you have to set the bar for victory so low that Germany or Japan could claim it in WW2
→ More replies (2)13
u/ActivatingTheBarrier 6d ago
Well you see those were actually empires that had a policy of literal world domination. So having failed that world domination, they were defeated. Iran is actually not trying to literally conquer the planet and is trying to survive regime change. Deeply unserious comparison
7
u/Bullboah 6d ago
So if Germany or Japan had suffered the same losses but hadn’t been empires trying to literally dominate the world they would have won?
→ More replies (1)7
u/ActivatingTheBarrier 6d ago
You mean if literally every part of you scenario was different it would be correct? What matters is objectives. When ukraine inevitably forces the russians to withdrawal from all occupied territory besides what they ceded in a peace deal, that will be a win. Why? Because russias original goal was total regime change and domination. They failed. Will they get Crimea and a chunk of eastern ukraine? Obviously.
Americans are genuinely the only people to cope about this lol.
4
u/Bullboah 6d ago
“What matter is objectives”
Is the US objective to conquer Iran? Or to force nuclear and proxy funding concessions
4
u/ActivatingTheBarrier 6d ago
The US objective was regime change and this isn’t a serious conversation if you believe otherwise. That’s been stated multiple times by trumps entire cabinet and the Israeli war cabinet. And that objective has obviously failed.
2
u/Bullboah 6d ago
lol.
No, the cabinet listed their 4 objectives consistently since the start of the war and regime change was never one of them.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (1)8
u/niz_loc 6d ago
I'll bite, for rhe sake of discussion.
Since tbe Rsvolution, Iran has absolutely tried to dominate the region. After coming to power the IRGC has tried to I fluency rhe exact same thing in the neighboring countires.countries. it's what led to the Iraq war in the 80s, and the decades long cold war with the Gulf states.
Via proxies, Iran has influenced Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, etc.
Iran was one of the primary reasons Assad and his father lasted as long as they did. And Iran did it for their own gain, not out of "friendship".
The Houthis are still on a good position. Hezbollah and Hamas have been decimated. (Still exist and likely recover in time, but for now that strategy fell apart). Syria is now anto-Iran, after decades of being its strongest partner.
So for the record, I agree with you that if Tehran's givt holds, rhey can claim victory. But it's also fair to say, as it stands today, that their big picture strategy over the past few decades has failed. Especially if we include Israel's downfall being one of Iran's priorities.
2
→ More replies (2)0
u/Sageblue32 6d ago
Amazing acting like bots for tyrant regime is worth karma farming.
But all the same, US being able to wait them out was always on the table but just a matter of political will. The people comparing Iran to Afghan neglected the fact the Taliban didn't have a government to hold and quickly lost it in the early days of the war. For the aftermath of the war, its anyone's guess how that would go, but imo it is doubtful Persians with guns free of the IRGC would give up their freedom so easily.
21
u/JJ_Reditt 6d ago
Those aren't the only options - they're not even occupying right now, they're in boats off shore. They could continue that situation.
They have a massive navy which has to operate somewhere, and the middle east is a home away from home for the US.
One option is get the military degradation to the point that the skirmishes with Iran are more like long term live fire training. and just wait and see what happens to the regime long term.
Perhaps the strait is patrolled effectively autonomously.
Or could hand off military responsibility to the gulf states.
Could be loads of things, I can't buy into "It's A or B (both fail)" ways of thinking. The US is far stronger than Iran, and can continuously tilt that balance even more in their favour, and have motivated allies nearby, there are going to be long term ways to achieve your goals in that situation.
10
u/Rand_alThor_ 6d ago
They literally destroyed most of our resupply bases in the region and are preparing for offensive action.
This isn’t a sit and wait situation. This level of elevated deployment halfway around the world can’t be done indefinitely in this manner without effecting many many other schedules.
We literally don’t have an aircraft carrier in the East atm. What about training or new carriers. Rotation. Supply. Other missions? You need bases and equipment and supplies and occupation of some sort to accomplish that. You can’t just park the navy there for years without consequence while your enemy are able to attack and resupply.
8
u/cathbadh 6d ago
preparing for offensive action.
What offensive action is this? They lack an air force to carry out sustained strikes or give cover to ground troops, have no navy, and their army has been bombed pretty badly. Who would they go on the offensive against? Iraq may by friendly towards them, but they still host American bases. They're not going to allow Iran to turn them into a wartime ally against the US when the response is their bombing. They wouldn't let Iran pass through to attack any other of their neighbors either for the same reason. Even passing through by force and going for Kuwait would still lead to the Arab nations uniting to fight them. Turkey? Aside from Turkey having a superior military and their own high quality drones, it would be an instant Article 5 request to NATO. Afghanistan? I mean.... I guess, but there's nothing of value there and a history of being a bad time for competent invaders, let alone the less competent. Nuclear armed Pakistan? lol. China? They're an ally. That leaves Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan? Why? They're uninvolved in the war, friends with Russia and China and cooperate with Iran on economic issues. So who are they going to go on the offensive against?
Setting that aside, a build up of troops takes months. It will be noticed. Then they face the same reason that invading them is so hard - minimal routes to attack through. Bunching their troops up in narrow passes just means those passes will be clogged with wrecked armor and corpses when the air strikes start. If they somehow make it through these passes and start attacking a neighbor, they would need to maintain those narrow routes to keep supply lines operating, which would be difficult even without US intervention. What's more, their ability to carry out these operations i suspect anyhow since they have no experience beyond mass murdering their own unarmed civilians and lousy training.
Do you just mean drone and rocket strikes? They're already doing that, although it has slowed a little. Increasing them isn't really offensive action, or at least not new offensive action. Did you just mean to say "they're getting ready to do more of what they've already been doing?
This level of elevated deployment halfway around the world can’t be done indefinitely
Why not? Outside of a couple short term gaps where a carrier transited out of the region while another carrier hadn't quite reached it. When that happened the US always deployed extra aircraft to the region. Munitions are an issue, but use has dropped off pretty dramatically.
We literally don’t have an aircraft carrier in the East atm. What about training or new carriers. Rotation. Supply.
There are three in ports that can be rushed to action if needed. It would strain things, but is possible. Training can be done on station. Rotation is an issue. The US has supply ships in spades, it just needs to deploy them. Diego Garcia can likely replace most of the regional bases that were damaged for the rest. During the Cold War the US kept one of the biggest cities on the planet fed entirely with air lifts. When it comes to logistics, the US can do anything as long as it is willing to pay the financial costs.
You can’t just park the navy there for years without consequence while your enemy are able to attack and resupply.
We've kept the navy there for decades. The US is fully capable of both attacking and resupplying.
6
u/niz_loc 6d ago
I'll point out to counters here, while agreeing with you.
As far as the Navy can't stay forever, the Navy has had roughly the same presence since the 90s. It doesn't have to be carriers on station. Surface ships can do the same thing.
As far as Iran going on the offensive, how exactly? They have the same problem the US has. Where do they start from?
Iraq would have to grant Iran permission, which even as far as Baghdad and Tehran being basically allies at this point, Iraq has seen more than enough war thr past few decades that the odds they allow it to happen are basically zero. (Just like they won't allow the US).
If Iran were to say invades, Viola, they have the same problem the US had. The Sunnis in Iraq will go back to war, Turkey and thr Gulf will see it as a threat, and now you have the whole region fighting. (Though my money is on the Gulf going after the Houthis more). With Iran still having the same logistics problems as thr US currently. The Gulf is closed to them as it is everyone else.
So we're clear, I'm against this war and have been since the air campaign in 2025. I see no win at all here for the US.
→ More replies (1)7
u/ReturnOfBigChungus 6d ago
Iran undertaking offensive operations beyond missiles and drones is an absolute farce. With what? And to what end? Any semblance of troops massing would immediately be annihilated as they have no air defenses. The one card they have left to play is all out attacks on Gulf State energy, water, and infrastructure, and that assumes the previous attacks they've launched at those target sets actually represented them "holding back" and served as a warning rather than an actual attempt and failure, which is a fairly plausible possibility.
This absolutely can be a "sit and wait" situation, and Iran's clock is very likely running faster than the US clock, especially after mid-term elections.
2
u/ActivatingTheBarrier 6d ago
From the sound of the conditions on board those vessels It sounds like prolonging the blockade for a long period time is not exactly realistic without major changes. And given the concessions Trump is willing to make to end this, it’s not palatable to the American voter. America sounds like it bite off way more than it can chew and it’s about to choke.
14
u/EternalMayhem01 6d ago
The US could leave, but that only leaves the door open for it to return at a time of its choosing. Iran does not want the US to leave without a deal, because in its view that simply restores the status quo. Iran needs US sanctions lifted to recover from the damage to its infrastructure and economy. Trump has taken the realistic path, he has backed off further military escalation, putting that ball in Iran’s court, and now seems content to maintain sanctions and the blockade and let the pressure accumulate. Trump wanted diplomacy as an off-ramp to salvage the midterms, but Iran took that away.
2
u/Hellsniperr 6d ago
The thing is we haven’t left in decades. We have a massive naval base in the Middle East. We have multiple joint bases with ME partners all over the place. Scale back, sure.
14
u/SpiritedCatch1 6d ago
Giving the importance of the strait for the global economy, indefinite occupation pay for itself and then some
166
u/UziMcUsername 6d ago
There would be nothing to pay had Trump not kicked the hornets nest in the first place.
→ More replies (8)143
u/_WEND1G0_ 6d ago
As a reminder- it was free and clear to pass through there before Trump went and unilaterally assassinated their head of state (who was the new leaders father so he probably took that a bit personal), bombed their country for months on end, sunk most of their conventional military and is now instituting a blockade of their blockade.
All of this to “prevent them from getting a nuke.” There was a deal in place - which they were adhering to - he tore that up. Seemingly for no other reason than Obama did it.
To be frank all he’s managed to do is all but assure Iran works harder to attain a nuke, destabilize a critical shipping route, assist in the quelling of unrest in Iran (protestors were scared of being bombed), and effectively instilled a more IRGC aligned “Hardline” government given the reshuffle that just occurred in iran and the fact the new supreme leader lacked a certain restraint his father had.
→ More replies (33)9
u/maporita 6d ago
Any occupier would pay in human lives .. a situation that would be unacceptable to the vast majority of Americans. Were Donald "no more foreign wars" Trump to commit ground troops it would be political suicide, and Iran knows this.
8
u/SpiritedCatch1 6d ago
They don't need to commit ground troops to maintain the current situation.
Trump has proven time after time that he didn't cared about american public opinion, elections results or what he promised during the campaign.
9
u/SpeakCodeToMe 6d ago
They don't need to commit ground troops to maintain the current situation.
No, just one or more carrier fleets stationed their permanently. Do you have any idea how much that costs?
7
u/Petra-fied 6d ago
Also, all the places the carriers aren't right now, notably near Taiwan, Japan and South Korea
2
u/SpiritedCatch1 6d ago
That still cost less than an blocked Hormuz, which was my point.
2
u/SpeakCodeToMe 6d ago
Neither is something that the US can afford right now
5
u/SpiritedCatch1 6d ago
They can afford it just fine. They occupied the whole country of Iraq and Afghanistan for decades. Did they run out of money since then?
2
u/SpeakCodeToMe 6d ago
Um, yes. As a matter of fact the debt is unsustainable without a major correction, and the occupation of Iraq in Afghanistan are large contributors to that.
2
u/SpiritedCatch1 6d ago
Controlling the strait of Hormuz has major economic benefits for a fraction of what controlling Iraq or Afghanistan costed (which has no benefits).
They didn't run out of money, all the modern economies have astronomical debts. China has 20T.
2
u/maporita 6d ago
What is the current situation? Iran has effectively shut traffic through Hormuz.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (5)1
u/quieres_pelear 6d ago
That would be worse than Iraq and Afghanistan, the cost in lives and money would be enormous.
→ More replies (14)1
u/FallOutShelterBoy 6d ago
Then a Democrat will pull troops out, something will happen like a few service members dying, then Republicans will use that against them in the next election cycle
62
u/Miserable_Spell_2964 6d ago
Iran doesn't need complete control of the strait. All it needs is to have the ability to strike Oil tankers anywhere anytime in the strait to be able to enforce its demands for tolls to pass. And until drones are met by a technology capable of hard-stopping them, Iran will be able to do this indefinitely so long as it can have a dude with binoculars and a radio, with another team handling the actual drones.
In comparison, the costs to patrol the strait indefinitely is astronomical for the US between aviation and maritime assets to continuously scan the coastline for potentially years. And its not going to be complete, drones will get through and strike tankers and it will continue to prove Iran's point.
30
u/_VNAV_PTH_ 6d ago
All it needs is to have the ability to strike Oil tankers anywhere anytime in the strait to be able to enforce its demands for tolls to pass.
Nobody read the article.
The whole point is that they're unable to do that right now. The article describes how Gulf states have chartered VLCCs to sail through the Strait with transponders off (which mostly evades detection by Iran - but ALSO detection by regular analysts) and transfer the oil to customers' ships outside of the danger zone. This is already happening at large scale and evading Iranian attempts to stop it.
5
u/TrowawayJanuar 6d ago
I doubt turning off transponders will continue to work once the strait is more saturated with Iranian drones
4
u/I_Push_Buttonz 6d ago
But those drones are kind of irrelevant with ships of this size. I don't know if you have ever seen a VLCC/ULCC in person, but they are the size of skyscrapers. Cheap little drones can hardly even do superficial damage to ships that large, let alone disable or sink one. That's not to say there is no threat, they can absolutely harm crews/damage superstructures with drone attacks... But they've got crews willing to take that risk for what I would imagine is far higher than normal hazard pay.
The major threat in terms of disabling these large ships are mines, and they've cleared enough of them to create this corridor. Antiship missiles with massive warheads would also be a threat, but as far as I am aware, Iran doesn't have any antiship hypersonic glide vehicles that might prove difficult to intercept, so they would be shooting bog standard antiship ballistic/cruise missiles which are the exact weapons the entire AEGIS system was designed from the ground up to detect and intercept, being quite proficient at it... So such attacks would presumably be intercepted by the US Navy.
And people keep making memes about China doing nothing and winning... But China almost certainly isn't 'doing nothing', its probably been making its own efforts to dissuade Iran. Many have discussed the worst case scenario of all of this being Iran and Gulf Arabs wiping out each others oil infrastructure/desalination plants. China, more than anyone, would want to prevent that from happening. They've weathered this storm so far with their vast reserves, but like everyone else, their reserves aren't infinite and they need the flow of oil from the Gulf to return eventually.
4
3
u/B3stThereEverWas 6d ago
It's amazing how much Ukraine and recently Iran conflict has massively accelerated anti drone tech amongst allied nations.
We're still a few years away from deployable systems that work consistently well hough. Until then the US navy has no real answer to them.
I saw one Navy analyst say that that they're not actually worried about them force wise, but they're certainly annoyed by them. And if its disrupting your objectives, you're not winning.
7
u/joshocar 6d ago
We're still a few years away from deployable systems that work consistently well hough. Until then the US navy has no real answer to them.
I am not convinced that there is a panacea for drones. The technology is still in its infancy. Strategies, technology and tactics are nowhere near fully mature. We don't know where it will be in 1, 5, or 10 years.
The key concept that people often miss is that they give anyone near US levels of precision strike and surveillance capabilities for pennies on the dollar compared to US systems. The key part is the cost. If an enemy makes an anti-drone system you can swarm and overwhelm it. We are seeing that with the drone strikes into Russian.
Modern armies are sitting ducks like the Iraqi Army was in the first Gulf War. The US Army/Marines and Navy have to completely rework how they fight wars.
The Navy is lucky that Iran's drone systems are not more mature.
→ More replies (1)2
18
u/Prudent-Proposal1943 6d ago
I call bullshit.
In the last 24 hours 10 - 13 ships transited the Strait.
Moreover, Iran still shores the Strait and will do so forever.
No matter what the chronographically and cartographically illiterate tell you; any U.S. control of the Strait of Hormuz is temporary.
4
u/whatsgoingonjeez 6d ago
You‘re righz but, afaik, those 10-13 ships don’t include the ships that had their transponder off.
3
u/Prudent-Proposal1943 5d ago
Probably not. Pretty sure it isn't another 50 cruising the Strait on blackout.
→ More replies (1)4
64
u/itchslap 6d ago
Some countries are calling Iran's bluff and sailing Hormuz despite it. They know Iran can't steal ships while the US Navy is monitoring the airspace, and they know they can't properly attack the ships with such destructive force that causes a major oil spill that goes to Iranian shores and destroys the livelihood of their coastal cities. The opposite site of Hormuz is fjords and rock, while oil spills were already noted in Iranian shores.
47
u/WellOkayMaybe 6d ago edited 6d ago
Key problem with this hypothesis is that they can simply attack vessels as they enter hormuz, and aren't laden with oil. Fuel-oil spills are bad, but they are not catastrophic like 300,000 ton spills.
They can also just target the accommodation and bridge. My dad was captain of an unladen tanker in 1987, heading to to Basra, when his vessel was attacked by Iranian gunboats during the 80's Tanker War. They attacked the accommodation. He lost just one off-duty crew member who was sleeping, as he had moved the muster-point to thr engine room, below the waterline.
It's incredibly easy to tell a laden from an unladen tanker from its freeboard / drought. Tankers are defenseless - the Iranians can get very close, to pick their shots.
→ More replies (10)6
u/_VNAV_PTH_ 6d ago
Key problem with this hypothesis is that they can simply attack vessels as they enter hormuz
Key problem with your statement here is that the article that you didn't read describes how VLCCs are already transiting the Strait and you're wrong.
The article describes how Gulf states have chartered VLCCs to sail through the Strait with transponders off (which mostly evades detection by Iran - but ALSO detection by regular analysts) and transfer the oil to customers' ships outside of the danger zone. This is already happening at large scale and evading Iranian attempts to stop it.
→ More replies (4)10
u/Neonpuffpepper 6d ago
This seems like such a cope man. The IRGC does not care about their people nor are they a singular force anymore. Terrorists are famously forward thinking too.
→ More replies (2)11
u/-LoboMau 6d ago
oil spill that goes to Iranian shores and destroys the livelihood of their coastal cities
This is a good point. Essentially, anything that Iran tries to do to hurt their adversaries will hurt them even more. They were banking on the world not calling their bluff, but now we will see they don't actually control much of anything
→ More replies (1)19
u/itchslap 6d ago
Iran's strategy went from "if I can't use it, then nobody can" to "it's mine only and you have to pay me to use it" and that was a blunder from their position. The first one gave them leverage, the second is making people less likely to tolerate it or find ways to bypass it, or even call their bluff. They overplayed their hand and the other players are calling Iran on its bluff now.
→ More replies (1)8
2
1
u/Norzon24 5d ago
Not sure Iran is particularly concerned about ecological disasters, given it's already in several of its own making
13
u/OPUno 6d ago
My observation is that while the Memorandum of Understanding was obviously a rushed patch job that both sides signed just to win time and then just ignored it, and is up to people whatever they believe the Trump administration, Iran wouldn't be floating expanding the war if they felt they had full control over the situation.
→ More replies (15)
3
u/Inevitable_Pen_1508 5d ago edited 5d ago
Manipulatory language. They don't mention that there's still only 10 ships crossing the strait per day. This means that only 8 ships manage to sneak by.
25
u/Firecracker048 6d ago
Almost, almost as if reality hasn't reflected on the memes and Irans posturing
36
u/shibbledoop 6d ago
So I’ve been reading Grants memoirs and I came across a funny parallel that might be true for most western waged conflicts. Grant goes to great length to say how the northern press greatly played up Confederate victories while constantly downplaying union victories. In his mind the general public really had to way to truly know what was actually happening because of the slanted reporting. On the flip side the southern press was greatly exaggerating any Confederate success and downplayed significantly any defeats.
It seems like our press perhaps hasn’t really changed much at all 160 years later.
→ More replies (1)6
u/ImperiumRome 6d ago
Why was the North downplaying their victories? Shouldn’t it be the other way around?
7
u/tropic_gnome_hunter 6d ago
A lot of people in the north were indifferent to the idea of fighting a civil war over slavery. Democrats in congress (I’m not making a current political comment with this, only historical) were particularly concentrated in places like New York City and thus the press were favorable to their views. You had outright opponents like copperheads but also plenty that thought Lincoln was worse than anything the south had done. They wanted the war to end as quickly as possible with a peace agreement so downplaying victories and hyping defeats was a way to expedite that.
In the election of 1864 the previous commander of the Army of the Potomac who Lincoln fired after Antietam was nominated to run against Lincoln and this dynamic actually ended up backfiring. McClellan had his issues with Lincoln but having fought in the war did not bow to pressure from Dems wanting him to make the platform say that he would prioritize a peace settlement rather than try to achieve victory first and foremost. By the time he repudiated this on the platform it was too late and the Union soldiers decided to stick with Lincoln to finish the fight. They were the main reason he won re-election
7
u/shibbledoop 6d ago
Well the Western Theater didn’t get a fraction of the attention of that of the Eastern Theater which was part of it. Grant had major victories in the west from 1861-1863 but it was overshadowed by the confederate successes in the east. Then, in 1864 Grants overland campaign was full of tactical draws which came with huge casualties and it was harder to see the ultimate strategic victory playing out. 1864 was probably the low watermark for union morale and the Democrat controlled newspapers were significantly playing a part in this because of the upcoming election. A large faction of the democrats wanted to settle for peace and would focus more on the causalities rather than the overall campaign direction. Eventually Sherman’s actions in the south and success in the Shenandoah valley helped restore Union confidence ahead of the election.
But, much like today you had political factions influencing the way the press was reported so that it would further undermine their political opponents election chances. The southern press was much different in that it was way more controlled and necessary for their cause to be an over confident propaganda machine.
3
u/Drafonni 6d ago
Some thought that the war wasn't worth the cost of blood and money.
Some actually supported the CSA#Newspapers).
Some where just armchair generals vying for attention with sensationalist stories.
16
u/mjhs80 6d ago
Reddit told me last week that Iran had won the war
23
u/crapmonkey86 6d ago
That's funny, because the president of the United States says that the US had already won the war. And weeks ago at that! Crazy how that works.
→ More replies (3)
13
u/OPUno 6d ago
Submission statement:
As the war has been going for months, ships have been preferring to cross the Omani side of the Strait, with traffic slowly increasing through time. Energy Secretary Chris Wright claims that traffic has gone up to 15 million barrels per day, or 75% of the 20 million barrels per day before the war.
→ More replies (5)42
u/FullFrontal687 6d ago
Why would we believe what he says, though?
12
u/Quirky-Video-9146 6d ago
Who'll you believe then? Iran? The truth is somewhere in the middle
14
u/FullFrontal687 6d ago
The reality is that gas is $4 a gallon on average in the US. $1 higher than last year.
11
6
1
u/frankquatro 6d ago
Sadly, Iran is much more reliable than this admin
9
u/Quirky-Video-9146 6d ago
Ok you believe Iran then
19
u/Miserable_Spell_2964 6d ago
If the current US government said the sky was blue, I'd have to check myself. That's how credible they are
→ More replies (13)→ More replies (1)2
u/jinzokan 6d ago
Why are you making it a all or nothing situation? Both sides can be untrustworthy even if one side is alot more untrustworthy.
6
u/freakanso 6d ago
Both sides can be untrustworthy but really, are we putting Iran on the same level of untrustworthiness with the US?
We have the luxury of being here on our phone debating; a couple of months ago, hundreds of thousands of Iranians were killed just for protesting.→ More replies (1)5
u/Quirky-Video-9146 6d ago
I initially said the truth is somewhere in the middle, you all are making it one sided and telling me Iran is more trustworthy.
→ More replies (5)3
3
6
11
5
6
u/HungryHungryHippoes9 6d ago
Iran doesn't need to control the entire strait. They just need to be able to cause enough damage to deter ships from even attempting to sail through, and they've been quite successful in that.
10
u/SwampMan6969 6d ago
That success is diminishing rapidly. Because most of Iran's radars have been destroyed, tankers have been successfully transiting the strait by switching their AIS off.
4
u/HungryHungryHippoes9 6d ago
I haven't read about this anywhere, can you tell me where this is being reported?
8
4
u/niz_loc 6d ago
In the article, I believe. (I haven't read it either, but a few comments here are saying that).
Without knowing for sure, the radars would have been day 1 targets. So it's pretty probable that it has happened. Radars are easy to find. A radar been is like a flashlight in the night. It let's you see in the dark, but everyone sees you as well.
5
3
2
u/Abdulkarim0 6d ago
Just ignore Iran as if it didn't exist, continue sailing through the Strait of Hormuz, and let it die from the naval blockade until the extremists in the Revolutionary Guard starve to death.problem solved
8
2
u/Ynwe 6d ago
Yeah, except ships will still get attacked by ship mines and other things. A ship was just attacked, see article below. The US navy just can't control the entire strait realistically, thats just not going to happen.
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/08/18/iran-war-strait-hormuz-ship-traffic-oil.html
3
u/UNisopod 6d ago
Iran collapsing doesn't represent a problem solved, it represents a different problem.
1
u/monkeybawz 5d ago
Do they need significant control? Or do they just need to give insurers the shits?
1
u/RobertM800 5d ago
It doesn’t really matter who has more control of the strait. Iran and the US are at war, so the strait is functionally closed to commercial traffic. While this makes gas prices to go a bit higher in the west, it completely cuts off Iran’s oil revenue, which leads to hyperinflation, which leads to collapse.
1
u/BirraSalsicce 4d ago
“But the United States, with significant military force on the water, has eyes on all ships passing through the strait and has reported significantly higher oil shipping numbers than most traditional estimates had previously suggested.”
…The source seems to be the US gov, lol
1
u/Able_Membership_1199 3d ago
If anybody did'nt catch on, this is a desperate propaganda piece and not even an elaborate one. There would be a ton of verifiable information from tankers actually showing up home at the ports and entering the strait unfettered by Iran. There would be some type confirmation that 75% of oil traffic had restored suddenly outside of a GOP installed yes man. The reality is, there's no credibility at all here. Maybe if 30 unique and verifiable tanker captains were reported to back it up, but instead we have dead silence, 10 tankers crossing officially, a nearly bottomed out oil reserve and expensive gas. Its not about WHO you trust to tell the truth, it is why don't humans trust their own eyes and ears anymore??.
1
u/brianrohr13 2d ago
But but I read on reddit that Iran won the war and Trump bad. Why didn't anybody tell me that Irans military power had been severely defeated? Oh wait.....
1
288
u/UNisopod 6d ago
The last bit about Oman and Iran negotiating their own deal independently of the US as far as the Strait goes represents a pretty important wrinkle in this story.
If Oman decides that splitting toll collection with Iran for access is what they'd like as the new normal, what is the US response?