3 ms·

It might not be. It might be. Uncertainty is the point of what Iran is doing. There might be mines in the straight that are sophisticated enough to be armed,

by beloch 7mo ago

It might not be. It might be. Uncertainty is the point of what Iran is doing. There might be mines in the straight that are sophisticated enough to be armed, disarmed, or moved on command, or there might not. There might be artillery emplacements* hidden and not found, ready to pop up... or there might not. There are probably still plenty of drones and missiles all over the country that can be called down on Hormuz at will. Iran might choose to save them for something else... or they might not. If a few oil tankers get through without Iran's permission, one might conclude everything Iran has in place has been found and that the straight is safe. Then again, it might not be. The Iranians might save a few choice surprises for the first aircraft carrier that gets too close. They might also choose to actually sink a large ship**, blocking the straight long-term. The Iranian regime has been planning specifically for a U.S. invasion since it's inception*** and they probably have some very well hidden and nasty surprises as well as plans to use them to maximum effect. Merchant vessels can't get insurance to go through because of all this uncertainty. The U.S. Navy has completely refused to go in there because losing a multi-billion dollar military vessel along with hundreds or thousands of sailors for a war that's already unpopular would likely knock the U.S. out of it completely. This is why Trump is desperate for other nations to come in and clear the straight. He doesn't care if they lose ships, but he can't afford to lose even one American ship for a "Wag the Dog" war that's already exploded the budget. ------------------- *The straight is narrow enough that artillery can actually cover it. Even the most sophisticated anti-missile defence systems aren't meant to deal with artillery shells fired from nearly point blank range. **The straight has only a couple of channels deep enough for large vessels to transit. One or two well positioned wrecks could block the works. *** They rebelled against a Shah installed by a CIA backed coup after all.

donalhunt 7mo ago
Lloyds who are one of the biggest players have indicated cover is available. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/mar/20/risk-london-shipping-industry-iran-war-lloyds-of-london-premiums https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/mar/20/risk-london...
- andyjohnson0 7mo ago
  At what cost, I wonder? And even then: "after you" ... "no, I insist, after you" ...
- fc417fc802 7mo ago
  So Lloyds is willing to reimburse the first crash test dummy if things go wrong while testing the waters. But unless they've figured out how to bring people back to life I don't think I'd want to be on the crew.
noduerme 7mo ago
So what's left of the Iranian regime is basically like the Houthis now, reduced to getting world attention by committing random acts of piracy and firing at random ships off their coast. To make whatever point they were trying to make. Seems like a win to me. Declare victory, say the straight is open, just like the Red Sea is open. If anything moves at shipping, destroy its source. They don't have a right to attack merchant vessels, and there's no reason to negotiate with them either.
- none2585 7mo ago
  > They don't have a right to attack merchant vessels This is a sovereign nation that is being attacked by a waning superpower. It's war and they are retaliating in really the only way that they can force America to back off - which is make the war really expensive and even more unpopular domestically.
  - noduerme 7mo ago
    That's clearly the strategy the headless Iranian regime is pursuing. Their prior strategy of arming regional proxy regimes and paramilitary groups to deter and expand their reach failed spectacularly, in large part because it sufficiently irritated the Gulf states, and Israel, and the US. So if all that matters here is whether they pick a winning strategy, then it's questionable whether further aligning all their neighbors against them is going to work out in their favor. However, even if it were a winning strategy, on the bet that the US will back off if the IRGC can inflict enough economic pain on US allies, it would still objectively amount to piracy and terrorism to attack merchant vessels not aligned at all to the US or involved in any way in the war. If you think the US or Israel has no right to attack and degrade Iran's military capacity to the degree they feel is necessary for their own security, you can't possibly say the IRGC somehow has a right to attack third parties to the conflict. If the disparity between who has the right to do what hinges upon who the aggressor is, consider that it was Iran which first fired a missile from its own territory at Israel, not the other way around. But in what case is a private vessel flagged in Malaysia and on its way to Japan or something a valid target? To say so would explicitly mean that every country in the world is fair game because Iran is at war with the whole world. If that's the case then what exactly is wrong with the world removing that regime? You seem to be implying that whether or not it's successful, the Iranian regime's strategy is justified in some vague moral sense. That isn't an argument, it's a feeling. All it exposes is that you have a favorite side in this war, which is at least anyone who opposes America, if not the Iranian regime specifically.

by beloch 7mo ago

donalhunt 7mo ago

Lloyds who are one of the biggest players have indicated cover is available. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/mar/20/risk-london-shipping-industry-iran-war-lloyds-of-london-premiums https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/mar/20/risk-london...

andyjohnson0 7mo ago
At what cost, I wonder? And even then: "after you" ... "no, I insist, after you" ...
fc417fc802 7mo ago
So Lloyds is willing to reimburse the first crash test dummy if things go wrong while testing the waters. But unless they've figured out how to bring people back to life I don't think I'd want to be on the crew.

noduerme 7mo ago

So what's left of the Iranian regime is basically like the Houthis now, reduced to getting world attention by committing random acts of piracy and firing at random ships off their coast. To make whatever point they were trying to make. Seems like a win to me. Declare victory, say the straight is open, just like the Red Sea is open. If anything moves at shipping, destroy its source. They don't have a right to attack merchant vessels, and there's no reason to negotiate with them either.

none2585 7mo ago
> They don't have a right to attack merchant vessels This is a sovereign nation that is being attacked by a waning superpower. It's war and they are retaliating in really the only way that they can force America to back off - which is make the war really expensive and even more unpopular domestically.
- noduerme 7mo ago
  That's clearly the strategy the headless Iranian regime is pursuing. Their prior strategy of arming regional proxy regimes and paramilitary groups to deter and expand their reach failed spectacularly, in large part because it sufficiently irritated the Gulf states, and Israel, and the US. So if all that matters here is whether they pick a winning strategy, then it's questionable whether further aligning all their neighbors against them is going to work out in their favor. However, even if it were a winning strategy, on the bet that the US will back off if the IRGC can inflict enough economic pain on US allies, it would still objectively amount to piracy and terrorism to attack merchant vessels not aligned at all to the US or involved in any way in the war. If you think the US or Israel has no right to attack and degrade Iran's military capacity to the degree they feel is necessary for their own security, you can't possibly say the IRGC somehow has a right to attack third parties to the conflict. If the disparity between who has the right to do what hinges upon who the aggressor is, consider that it was Iran which first fired a missile from its own territory at Israel, not the other way around. But in what case is a private vessel flagged in Malaysia and on its way to Japan or something a valid target? To say so would explicitly mean that every country in the world is fair game because Iran is at war with the whole world. If that's the case then what exactly is wrong with the world removing that regime? You seem to be implying that whether or not it's successful, the Iranian regime's strategy is justified in some vague moral sense. That isn't an argument, it's a feeling. All it exposes is that you have a favorite side in this war, which is at least anyone who opposes America, if not the Iranian regime specifically.