8 ms·
U.S. Navy turns down Hormuz escort requests because of high risk
- gnfargbl 8mo agoWhat are the factors influencing the US Navy's position here? Not enough small/cheap ships for this work? Too hard to defend against guerilla speedboat attacks?
- IAmBroom 8mo agoNot wanting to lose USN ships as a de facto mercenary force is reason enough.
- jasomill 8mo agoProtecting the economic interests of the US and allies by defending commercial shipping is well within the remit of the US Navy. This is a risk management decision with a side of optics, not one of scope.
- lokar 8mo agoIt would take far more ships (ideally destroyers and frigates ) than we can muster to the gulf. Also, it exposes the ships to easy attack in a constrained body of water Also, the ships would need to exit the gulf and travel a long distance to re-arm their defensive weapons, requiring even more ships.
- cpursley 8mo agoWhile Iran still has fire control, these ships can be hit by shore-launched anti-shipping missiles, one way drones of even old fashioned shelling. Their "navy" was never even a factor.
- enraged_camel 8mo agoToo risky, and doesn't make sense from a cost-benefit perspective. Iran uses cheap and disposable weapons that are also effective. If you think about how much a single US ship costs, and the political price of US service members dying, I think the picture becomes clear.
- adrian_b 8mo agoI agree with you. The decision of the US Navy to not provide escort services makes perfect sense and it is no surprise. The only thing that is newsworthy about it is that this has exposed yet another lie of Trump, who at some point has promised that the traffic will not be affected, because USA will provide such escort services.
- EcommerceFlow 8mo agoThis isn't a military decision but more a public opinion one. Should an American ship take a hit, have casualties, become disabled, etc it would put immense pressure on the administration to settle/end the war, even though on a military objective level it makes a lot of sense. This is a reality of the instant informational world we live in.
- gzread 8mo agoI read the tone of this comment to be as if that's a bad thing, even though it's a good thing?
- margalabargala 8mo agoLike a lot of things, little about this war is purely bad or purely good. If the Iranian regime were over thrown, that would be good for basically the whole world except the people actually operating the regime. So, if the war ends without that happening, then that's at least partly a bad thing mixed in with the good of, y'know, not having a war anymore.
- EcommerceFlow 8mo agoYou can't really gauge 'tone' via text, I was just referring to the mission success reality on the President's side.
- butILoveLife 8mo agoArmchair here: Its like the issue with the Vietnam war. You need 100% perfect security, or its not worth it. If you are only 98% successful, you arent going to have oil tankers or any cargo ships even attempting it. A single failure every 2 months was a massive waste of resources.
- pm90 8mo agoImagine the optics of a single destroyer/cruiser being on fire. It would shatter the myth of American naval power (some are arguing that this war already did that, which I tend to agree with).
- arpinum 8mo agoYou could hit anything going through the straight with artillery and rockets from the shore. Escort won't do much.
- Caius-Cosades 8mo agoLet's see No minetrawlers, the four US had were scheduled to be scrapped earlier this year. So if there's even a single mine you're playing russian roulette with hundreds of people on board Probably heaps of various anti ship missiles that have been squirreled away with ranges reaching from few nautical miles to few hundred, just for this exact scenario, please keep in mind that you only need one missile to get through to cause dozens if not hundreds of fatalities. Unmanned naval drones of various kind, not exactly ultra-high tech in this day and age. And then there's the guerrilla speedboat attacks which means more missiles Did I mention that one ship has possibly hundreds of people on board? The political system of the US probably cannot tolerate a military mass casualty event of that scale and spectacle. It's therefore just too risky to get anywhere nearby with a ship so all US navy can do is just lob missiles from as far away as possible, while hoping that this whole mess ends before US runs out of standoff weapons. And between Ukraine, Yemen and now this, the armament stocks aren't probably looking too good considering the meager production numbers.
- comrade1234 8mo agoIt seems like Iran has a lot of options for attacking ships. So far theyve used speedboats to attack tankers in Iraqi waters and they used "unknown projectiles" to attack ships in the strait. The ships are on fire and crew have died with the remaining rescued by Oman's and Iraq's navies. I don't know what a us navy ship is going to do as an escort other than be a sponge for incoming projectiles.
- bwestergard 8mo agoHere are two of the weapons mounted on U.S. ships that would fire upon small boats. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf8RExzMdfg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf8RExzMdfg
- ge96 8mo agoLike the tracers bouncing off the water
- enceladus06 8mo ago[flagged]
- joe_mamba 8mo agoThey're our greatest ally! /ₛ
- dmix 8mo ago> It seems like Iran has a lot of options for attacking ships. I wonder if the recent USV shipping attacks came Iraqi militias. Maybe Iran set them up with some drone boats like how they send them missiles/drones to hit US bases with. Meanwhile the US was focused on surveilling the Iranian coast. I wouldn't be surprised if Iraq remains the hardest part of maintaining security in the region.
- Gravityloss 8mo agoThere's at least missile, gun, laser and electromagnetic countermeasures for air threats. It has been a mainstream subject for long, for example against aircraft and missiles. But also lots of startups also in this space, especially against cheap drones or UAV:s.
- juanani 8mo ago[dead]
- 0xR1CK 8mo agoAt least they're thinking cautiously about it in some ways and not completely forgetting lessons learned w/ Gen Paul Van Riper in the Millennium Challenge (2002). Worth a read. The sim had the USA lose even with superior weapons.
- 1970-01-01 8mo agoFear keeping our naval power in check is ironic given the "peace through strength" mantra. Turns out Iran has always held the long tactical advantage. How long does it take to build a desert road to the other side of the ocean? I think we're going to find out.
- ethagknight 8mo agoIt’s not fear, it’s cost-benefit, and it would take all the trucks in the middle east to move a tiny portion of the export that typically goes via ship. It would be easier and more aligned for Qatar, UAE, Saudis to pay mercs to keep the strait clear.
- sebastiennight 8mo ago> it would take all the trucks in the middle east to move a tiny portion of the export that typically goes via ship May I suggest an alternative mode of freight that pre-dates trucks and can move much larger volumes at a much lower CO2 cost, namely... a transcontinental train line? (obviously not going to happen, and might even trigger a few PR cycles about a "hyperloop", but if you were going to try to build large-volume freight, that's where I'd start)
- BurningFrog 8mo agoPipelines are by far the best option for large-volume oil freight on land! Note that it takes about 10000 trucks to carry the 2 million barrels of oil in one typical oil tanker.
- sebastiennight 8mo agoI can't believe that I didn't think of a pipeline first. So... yes. Also another argument against trucks: they consume fuel to carry fuel.
- beAbU 8mo ago
- ethagknight 8mo agoMy thoughts. The escorts serve little benefit to the US given the risk. US doesn’t “need” the Persian gulf exports as much as other countries (who could run their own minesweeping operations). Iran mining Hormuz is a feature not a bug for US effort in a “proxy war” against Iran (hint: it’s all about China)
- dnemmers 8mo agoWhat do you think happens when China starts increasing prices on goods sold worldwide, due to oil shortages? Global supply chain impacts have global ramifications.
- alephnerd 8mo agoBoth China [0] and India [1] are getting safe passage via the Straits of Hormuz from Iran. Additionally, Russia is redirecting LNG from Europe (the ongoing Hungary-Ukraine spat) to Asia [2]. [0] - https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-talks-with-iran-allow-safe-oil-gas-passage-through-hormuz-sources-say-2026-03-05/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-talks-with-ira... [1] - https://www.reuters.com/world/india/iran-allow-india-flagged-tankers-pass-through-strait-hormuz-indian-source-says-2026-03-12/ https://www.reuters.com/world/india/iran-allow-india-flagged... [2] - https://interfax.com/newsroom/top-stories/116517/ https://interfax.com/newsroom/top-stories/116517/
- lokar 8mo agoDidn’t they attack the Chinese flagged “Hailan Journey”?
- alephnerd 8mo agoI think you are confusing it with the Thai "Mayuree Naree" [0]. Honestly, it's best to ignore X/Twitter for this conflict. Internet access has been restricted bordering on nonexistent in Iran since the massacres in January, and most countries in the region have also either locked down internet access or don't interact in the English language social media bubble. The Ukraine War is the last war where OSINT had significant accuracy - most states have cracked down on information dissemination and enhanced OpSec. Edit: turns out the Heilan Journey transited [1]. [0] - https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/thailand-seeks-apology-iran-after-vessel-hit-strait-hormuz-2026-03-12/ https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/thailand-seeks-ap... [1] - https://chinaglobalsouth.com/2026/03/12/chinese-ships-strait-of-hormuz-transit-war/ https://chinaglobalsouth.com/2026/03/12/chinese-ships-strait...
- softwaredoug 8mo agoWhat I worry about is the shot in the arm Russian finances are about to get due to oil revenue at a point they seemed to weaken strategically. Not to mention pressure to weaken oil sanctions.
- toomuchtodo 8mo agoThe cover of war is a great use for targeting fossil fuel infrastructure Russia relies on for exports. Sufficiently inhibiting their ability to export will force them to shut in wells (as we're seeing with major Middle Eastern oil exporters as shore storage reaches capacity), which will potentially take years to restart.
- thisislife2 8mo agoCome again - what Russian fuel infrastructure is being targeted, with the Iranian war as a cover?
- toomuchtodo 8mo agoRussian shadow fleet vessels. https://fortune.com/2026/03/11/oil-situation-strait-hormuz-shadow-fleet-illegal-iran/ https://fortune.com/2026/03/11/oil-situation-strait-hormuz-s...
- dmix 8mo agoRussia's oil revenue was down but it was far from being game changing even with stricter sanctions. The oil sector hit has always been more of a big incentive to end the war then something than will impact it militarily on the ground.
- demosito666 8mo agoReally? Cost of extraction in Russia is about $30/barrel, sanctions introduced discount of about $20/barrel in 2025 which means 70% profit drop at market price of $60. Sounds pretty game changing to me.
- shadowgovt 8mo agoThis seems in-line with modern US military doctrine. The US generally only wages wars of aggression against a nation as well-organized and well-armed as Iran when it can do them at arm's length with remote weapons and air superiority. Since the US has a volunteer army, actual risk to soldiers for something not perceived by the public as an existential threat jeopardizes future fighting efficacy. The US public will tolerate missiles launched in its name; it is far less likely to tolerate video of entire Navy ships going down or sailors (not) coming home in body bags by the shipload for a cause that the administration didn't even try to sell them on as necessary.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- roughly 8mo agoThere’s a reason no prior administration did this - Iran’s had 40 years to plan for this war.
- burkaman 8mo agoAlso because prior administrations were successful with diplomacy and/or nonviolent sabotage.
- weregiraffe 8mo agoSo? USA and Israel had the same 40 years.
- gzread 8mo agoThey didn't spend it planning for this war.
- ukblewis 8mo agoYou clearly haven’t seen their militaries… the U.S. developed a bunker buster bomb that they didn’t need for anywhere else just to target the Iranian nuclear programme, which is what was used last June and it is believed that Israel hacked the Tehran traffic camera network… I would say this looks like preparation. As an Israeli too, I can tell you that the only thing that the military establishment was developing for in the last couple decades has been Iran… it is why Israel wasn’t prepared for the October 7th attacks from Iran and why in contrast the beeper attacks on Hezbollah (the Shia Iranian-run proxy in Lebanon) were so successful. But just discount the worlds largest and most successful military in history and the 7th largest military exporter… it is good for us when you underestimate us
- roughly 8mo agoFor Israel, sure - Iran's been considered the existential threat to them, so yeah, that's the IDF's primary focus. Israel's a peer-level state to Iran (with wide error bars around peer, but they're geographically colocated and neither is large or powerful enough to fully overwhelm the other) - without the US's involvement, this would be a very, very costly war for Israel (and likewise, Iran attacking Israel would be very, very costly for Iran without the US too). For the US, yes, we've spent a lot of time and effort focused on Iran, but our goal historically has been containment - Iran can't win a war against the US, but they're also not an existential threat to the US, so for us, the question's always been a cost/benefit analysis. Iran knows this, so their act for the last 40 years has been to keep the math on the US attacking Iran unfavorable enough to keep it from happening. This is why they never actually built a bomb - Iran's strategic position was calculated around not pushing Israel into the red zone while still making things too expensive for the US to be willing to bear the cost of attacking Iran. Unfortunately for all parties, there's three primary flaws in the US's strategic posture: the first is we're too fucking big to feel like we have to do our homework anymore. We can "win" any military conflict shy of full open war against China insofar as we'll be the last ones standing, which puts the rest of the world in the position of having to accommodate themselves to us, not the reverse. The second is that as a people, we've got the shortest memory of perhaps any major nation on earth - the Iranian revolution was in 1989 and the coup was 1953, and to Americans, that's not just distant history, it's practically archaeology. Why would we worry about the Iranians? It's been months since they did anything. The third is we've managed to elect the physical embodiment of that short-termism into office and given him and his friends unilateral permission to do whatever they want in the national scale, which means there's no strategic calculus happening at all - whatever plans, frameworks, or understandings we've built over the last 40 years are in the dustbin along with the rest of the woke DEI crap left over from, eg, the Bush administration. So, yes, the US has been planning for this for 40 years, but we've got the notable flaw of not reading our plans or caring what happened 40 years ago - as the old joke goes, "a serious problem in planning against American doctrine is that the Americans do not read their manuals, nor do they feel any obligation to follow their doctrine."
- fallkp 8mo agoThey do not seem to have a plan for Hormuz at all. Realistically, it takes Russia to supply 10 high precision drones per day to keep up the fear with pinprick operations. This can go on forever. The winners are Russia and Trump's LNG fracking friends. The losers are the EU, who had their pipeline blown up and now had their Qatari suppliers blown up. But EU politicians sit still and leave it all to Trump and Putin.
- margalabargala 8mo ago> Realistically, it takes Russia to supply 10 high precision drones per day to keep up the fear with pinprick operations. Considering Iran supplies Russia with a lot of its high precision drones, I don't think it even takes this. Iran can do it all on their own.
- thisislife2 8mo agoRussia no longer buys Iranian drones. Russia tied up with Iran to setup drone manufacturing in Russia instead, so that both can benefit ( https://edition.cnn.com/2025/08/08/europe/russia-drone-factory-iran-intl https://edition.cnn.com/2025/08/08/europe/russia-drone-facto... ).
- papyrus9244 8mo agoEurope's first mistake was abandoning nuclear energy, and their second mistake was not going all in on renewables.
- drgo 8mo agoApparently, Trump was told that the Iran war is 10 to 1 (politically) winning for him. What do you think are the real odds now?
- Rapzid 8mo agoThe reporting is the Trump administration was told NOT to attack Iran by the military and intelligence agencies but they did it anyway.
- morpheuskafka 8mo agoDon't you need an escort from a neutral country? Being escorted by a party to the conflict is just putting your non-military, non-target really close to a military, legitimate target?
- CommanderData 8mo agoNow the world suffers because of intel and pressure from Israel. It's like we never learnt from Iraq, Syria, Libya.
- Gagarin1917 8mo agoAt least there’s a major silver lining: Higher oil prices and more volatility in the oil market makes renewables even better of an investment. Climate change has somewhat faded from popular culture, but the problem still persists. The faster everyone gets off oil the better the less the world will suffer in the future for many different reasons.
- PowerElectronix 8mo agoYeah, they didn't expect iran to fuck everything up and now the dudes that sell oil in dollars because of security guarantees and their ships are being bombarded and running out of air defenses.
- thisislife2 8mo agoIran has no choice. They've been observing how US destroyed and / or co-opted all their neighbours, one by one, over the decades and have been preparing for their turn for a long time. The undeclared US-Israeli strategy against Iran, and Tehran’s counter-strategy - https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/analysis/the-undeclared-us-israeli-strategy-against-iran--and-tehran https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/analysis/the-undecla...
- ukblewis 8mo agoI’m honestly shocked by the support for the Islamic regime of Iran (I refuse to call it Iran since it and the IRGC and the Basij does not represent the Iranian people who showed us this January in their millions that they don’t support it) on this platform. Honestly, any sick human being who supports them, well they are either deeply ignorant or deeply evil and inhumane. I am awaiting the response comments from tens of Iranian bots and hundreds of idiots who ignored the Iranians demanding help in this January
- thisislife2 8mo agoSure, Iran (its regime) is bad. Iran's neighbour, Israel currently has a genocidal regime (where Netanyahu is trying to become the Jewish Ayatollah by crippling its democracy with the help of his right-wing buddies) that has already massacred and injured more than 50,000 children ( https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/unimaginable-horrors-more-50000-children-reportedly-killed-or-injured-gaza-strip https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/unimaginable-horrors-m... ). (The Palestinian genocide is still ongoing). The start of the Iranian war with a massacre of 100+ children suggest that an Iranian genocide too is planned. America is today run by a President who believes that the rise of India, China, Brazil, South Korea, EU etc, means that American might will be challenged soon, and thus America needs to drop its facade of respect for international law and order and use its full economic and military might to strengthen itself. The Attack on Venezuela and Iran has no politically moral goodwill behind it and is a pure resource grab - it's just a return of imperialism not even trying to pretend otherwise, which none of us in the Global South (former colonies) wish to experience again. So, tell me again, how is Israel and US morally better than Iran?
- ukblewis 8mo ago[flagged]
- tartoran 8mo agoI live in the US, and I have no idea what support you’re talking about. Is saying this attack on Iran was a massive fuck-up now considered support for the regime? Is pointing out that this chaotic, badly planned conflict looks terrible, and likely will not weaken the regime much at all, now considered support? If anything, it risks giving them exactly what they want: a younger Ayatollah, fresh grievances, and more national unity. Or is any criticism automatically support now?
- burnt-resistor 8mo agoThe modern US Navy lacks the number of ships it once had. And the destroyers it has in the area are already doing too many other jobs like defending carriers from unmanned drone vessels, firing million dollar missiles at 50k drones, and shooting Tomahawks to blow up little girls at school.
- yubblegum 8mo agoI am certain this entire misadventure was war gamed in Israel by AI. What is certain that regardless of what happens to IRI, United States of America will no longer have a welcome home in Middle East. GCC countries are also toast - gone is tourism, global air travel hubs, and techno hubs of the Arabs. Someone must have been rather jealous. None of what has happened to date was even remotely unforeseeable. It really took a special kind of stupid (that would be the commander in chief of our military) to get drawn in to this fiasco. We really need to get rid of dual citizens in corridors of power and influence in this nation. ASAP.