Replies

The problem is that there are literally hundreds of ships to protect, and they are in a quite large area, including in anchorages in the Persian Gulf well to the north of the Straits of Hormuz, and again in the Gulf of Oman, extending well to the south of the Straits. In normal circumstances, large numbers of ships are in transit, and many others are in ports all along the coastlines.

I’d suggest you spend some time on the “What’s Going On With Shipping” channel on You Tube to get a better grasp on the enormity of the problem. The vids from the ship tracking services are quite, shall we say, instructive, and more so if put up on a large screen. (My biggest is only 43”.) In any event, be sure to be well aware of the scale you are looking at. The Persian Gulf is ~97,000 square miles area, and the Gulf of Oman is another ~44,000 square miles.

That doesn’t count the Houthis potentially getting involved in areas they’ve attacked before. (Red Sea, Arabian Sea...)

Then consider that missile defense is not a 100% proposition. We have already had a couple of our THAAD radars hit, which is a pretty big deal.

https://youtu.be/Ox63eOD9Fxs?t=255

Further yet, the insurance companies see this as a wonderful opportunity to hugely jack up rates, and without insurance, ships cannot do business with legitimate (or at least “by the book - the “Western” book) entities. Try sailing a tanker, even one exporting US oil, into any US port or terminal without validated insurance...

The US can offer insurance, but then someone has to reduce the threat greatly (see above) for the US to not itself be liable to a huge claim should a major spill occur. And, practically in another sense, only the Iranians and their ilk would risk killing off those waters — a major food supply source in the region - which already is heavily imports reliant. (Sort of a double whammy.)

All in all, if the Iranians do go for broke (seems likely), it will take a considerable effort to suppress their effort at economic warfare fully. At a minimum, if we try to do it alone, with destroyer escorts, supported by a carrier, we are likely talking about 10 or so Arleigh-Burke destroyers.

What needs to happen also is for the Gulf countries and Europe to go all in to support our suppression of Iran’s efforts. Cover / dominate every square meter the IRCG can launch trouble from. That’s a big proposal and will require a lot of coordination, or we could have numerous friendly fire incidents OR gaps left even with many resources being applied. It also requires many of these countries, particularly the Euro’s, to become much more aggressive toward Iran. I suppose money may well talk them into it, but, some countries like the UK have capability problems even worse than I’d have thought a month ago: The UK has 6 pretty good missile defense destroyers that theoretically could help, but only one really available... sometime...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LuMTF3fYfo
(AI vid, but the info. appears to be mostly correct.)

What can one say besides “ugh!”, even before we get to the “insufficiency of stones” issue. Double “ugh!” followed by retching noises?

The US may itself be caught a little flatfooted because despite all the buildup, I suspect the initial US / Israel attack got moved up after the Iranians actually bragged that they had enough enriched material for 11 nukes enriched to 60%. That was suicidal of them, but rushed us.

And, again, keep in mind: Missile and drone defense is not a 100% proposition... :-(