4 ms·

Because it's not true. CENTCOM can reopen the strait whenever they want, but doing it is slow and expensive, so there is insufficient political will to do it. I

Because it's not true. CENTCOM can reopen the strait whenever they want, but doing it is slow and expensive, so there is insufficient political will to do it. It's still a strategic defeat, but for different reasons than what you are saying. 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.

petilon 4mo ago
> doing it is slow and expensive, so there is insufficient political will to do it So the US Navy is unable to achieve the objective in a reasonable timeframe and cost. That's the same as failure.
- Levitz 4mo ago
  You can call it a failure, it's just not a military one. 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.
  - petilon 4mo ago
    > You can call it a failure, it's just not a military one. 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.
    - fc417fc802 4mo ago
      If your boss sets patently unreasonable expectations then that's arguably his failure as opposed to yours though obviously he will attempt to shift the blame to you.
scotchmi_st 4mo ago
Well sure, but everything short of committing the whole country to total war will always come down to “we could do it, it’s just too politically expensive”. Even in authoritarian countries, there is a limit to what you can get away with. 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.
- rayiner 4mo ago
  Do you think the military gave a realistic assessment of what time and resources it would take to control the strait? Was this pitched as an operation that would take a huge political commitment of troops and drag on for years?
  - esseph 4mo ago
    > Was this pitched as an operation that would take a huge political commitment of troops and drag on for years? That has been the military assessment in leaks, yes.
    - deleted 4mo ago
      [deleted]
  - scotchmi_st 4mo ago
    No idea. Do you think it was pitched like that before the conflict began?
    - rayiner 4mo ago
      I don’t know. My prior is that this admin was never willing to put boots on the ground. And for purely self-serving reasons, they wouldn’t have risked a scenario where Iran blocked oil traffic through the strait, causing gas prices to go up. 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.
kadoban 4mo ago
I assume you're talking about "slow and expensive" like sending tens of thousand of troops to occupy at _least_ the ~entire shore around the narrow part of the Strait, indefinitely? Yeah, shocking there's no political will for that.
- esseph 4mo ago
  Hundreds of thousands
- energy123 4mo ago
  You assumed wrong. Maybe listen to the interviews before responding with aggressive sarcasm.
  - kadoban 4mo ago
    It was an honest question.
    - energy123 4mo ago
      I would point you to Gen MacKenzie's interviews as the reference on that question, I would just be regurgitating his views. 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.
      - andriy_koval 4mo ago
        > Raids would be necessary to destroy any buried weapons, but these troops wouldn't need to stay there. 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.
cloche 4mo ago
This sounds a lot like what some lazy people will say "I could be a doctor/astronaut/millionaire/movie star. I just don't want to"
- microgpt 4mo ago
  [dead]
fakedang 4mo ago
The Vatican City could develop nuclear weapons whenever they want, but doing it is slow and expensive, so there is insufficient political will to do it.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
sanid 4mo ago
First of all it's a failure since they attacked without considering they would be closing the strait, they just did not believe Iran would do that, hence not positioned themselves. https://archive.ph/XkXCf https://archive.ph/XkXCf 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.
- drnick1 4mo ago
  > Admiral Cooper that brought us the famous 24h "Project Freedom"? Pardon our skepticism, some of their plans maybe sound nice to them At least some form of it secretly continued until now.
esseph 4mo ago
> Because it's not true. CENTCOM can reopen the strait whenever they want 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.
- drnick1 4mo ago
  > There are still a LOT of working ballistic missile launchers. 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.
  - swat535 4mo ago
    > About half or so have been destroyed if one averages various estimates This is a pretty bold claim. What's your source for this?
  - esseph 4mo ago
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2026/05/07/iran-missiles-war-cia/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2026/05/07/iran-missiles... 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.

petilon 4mo ago

> doing it is slow and expensive, so there is insufficient political will to do it So the US Navy is unable to achieve the objective in a reasonable timeframe and cost. That's the same as failure.

Levitz 4mo ago
You can call it a failure, it's just not a military one. 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.
- petilon 4mo ago
  > You can call it a failure, it's just not a military one. 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.
  - fc417fc802 4mo ago
    If your boss sets patently unreasonable expectations then that's arguably his failure as opposed to yours though obviously he will attempt to shift the blame to you.

scotchmi_st 4mo ago

Well sure, but everything short of committing the whole country to total war will always come down to “we could do it, it’s just too politically expensive”. Even in authoritarian countries, there is a limit to what you can get away with. 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.

rayiner 4mo ago
Do you think the military gave a realistic assessment of what time and resources it would take to control the strait? Was this pitched as an operation that would take a huge political commitment of troops and drag on for years?
- esseph 4mo ago
  > Was this pitched as an operation that would take a huge political commitment of troops and drag on for years? That has been the military assessment in leaks, yes.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
- scotchmi_st 4mo ago
  No idea. Do you think it was pitched like that before the conflict began?
  - rayiner 4mo ago
    I don’t know. My prior is that this admin was never willing to put boots on the ground. And for purely self-serving reasons, they wouldn’t have risked a scenario where Iran blocked oil traffic through the strait, causing gas prices to go up. 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.

kadoban 4mo ago

I assume you're talking about "slow and expensive" like sending tens of thousand of troops to occupy at _least_ the ~entire shore around the narrow part of the Strait, indefinitely? Yeah, shocking there's no political will for that.

esseph 4mo ago
Hundreds of thousands
energy123 4mo ago
You assumed wrong. Maybe listen to the interviews before responding with aggressive sarcasm.
- kadoban 4mo ago
  It was an honest question.
  - energy123 4mo ago
    I would point you to Gen MacKenzie's interviews as the reference on that question, I would just be regurgitating his views. 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.
    - andriy_koval 4mo ago
      > Raids would be necessary to destroy any buried weapons, but these troops wouldn't need to stay there. 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.

cloche 4mo ago

This sounds a lot like what some lazy people will say "I could be a doctor/astronaut/millionaire/movie star. I just don't want to"

microgpt 4mo ago
[dead]

fakedang 4mo ago

The Vatican City could develop nuclear weapons whenever they want, but doing it is slow and expensive, so there is insufficient political will to do it.

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

sanid 4mo ago

First of all it's a failure since they attacked without considering they would be closing the strait, they just did not believe Iran would do that, hence not positioned themselves. https://archive.ph/XkXCf https://archive.ph/XkXCf 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.

drnick1 4mo ago
> Admiral Cooper that brought us the famous 24h "Project Freedom"? Pardon our skepticism, some of their plans maybe sound nice to them At least some form of it secretly continued until now.

esseph 4mo ago

> Because it's not true. CENTCOM can reopen the strait whenever they want 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.

drnick1 4mo ago
> There are still a LOT of working ballistic missile launchers. 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.
- swat535 4mo ago
  > About half or so have been destroyed if one averages various estimates This is a pretty bold claim. What's your source for this?
- esseph 4mo ago
  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2026/05/07/iran-missiles-war-cia/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2026/05/07/iran-missiles... 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.