As has been well chronicled here, I'm no fan of Trump, but what's fair is fair.
1. Trump bombs the stuffing out of Iran, but the IRGC maintains its grip on power
2. IRGC knows it just has to wait out the bombing campaign, as the world (and American people) won't support an indefinite war
3. To ratchet up the pressure, Iran closes the Straits of Hormuz, driving up the price of oil and pressuring countries who need it. They also hope to exact a $2m/ship toll and thus regain some economic solvency that has been crippled by sanctions and the bombing campaign.
So, advantage Iran. They don't have to defeat the US, they just have to wait us out and survive until the bombing campaign fades due to international and internal pressure.
So, instead, someone on the military (whether Trump or someone else I don't know) says, "Hey! We have a stronger navy than Iran. We can take over the Straits just as well as they can. They're closer? So what? We can easily sink anything they can muster to enforce the closure."
So, we get:
1. Decreased international and internal pressure on Trump. People are willing to go to the streets and social media to lament bombing. But naval blockade? Most protesters barely even know what that means and, while "ceasefire now!" has a nice ring to it, "cease naval interdiction of ships" doesn't really.
2. There's no specific timeline that the blockade has to end. So now, it's not just a matter of the IRGC waiting Trump out. A blockade can theoretically last years.
3. Iran's ability to control the price of oil goes up in smoke - The US can allow Kuwaiti, Qatari, and Saudi oil shipments to traverse the straits. Also, no more $2m tax on ships.
4. Iran's economy doesn't get a chance to rebound, as the US can blockade Iranian ships with relative ease. Sure, they have ports outside the Straits, but the blockade decreases their ability to export oil. Plus, if the US decides to, they can start blockading the entire Iranian coast any time.
There's not really a whole lot Iran can do about it. If they engage the US navy, they may sink a ship or two, but there's no real prospect of a naval victory over the US.
So, what happens? Maybe they crawl back to the negotiating table? Maybe they finally agree to terms such as giving up their nuclear program?
We'll see.
And again, has the strategy been executed perfectly so far? I really don't know. There are conflicting reports, and it's not 100% clear what the navy is enforcing right now.
But the concept is brilliant.
@sh76 saidYou're ignoring that we still don't control the strait and that tankers still aren't going through for fear of attack by Iranian forces.
As has been well chronicled here, I'm no fan of Trump, but what's fair is fair.
1. Trump bombs the stuffing out of Iran, but the IRGC maintains its grip on power
2. IRGC knows it just has to wait out the bombing campaign, as the world (and American people) won't support an indefinite war
3. To ratchet up the pressure, Iran closes the Straits of Hormuz, driving up the price ...[text shortened]... orts, and it's not 100% clear what the navy is enforcing right now.
But the concept is brilliant.
Blockading Iranian ports doesn't change that.
@no1marauder saidThat's execution, not concept.
You're ignoring that we still don't control the strait and that tankers still aren't going through for fear of attack by Iranian forces.
Blockading Iranian ports doesn't change that.
Obviously, the ideal thing is if they sue for peace before this happens, but if the navy decides to, it can sink any naval vessels enforcing the Iranian blockade and knock out any land-based batteries that could enforce the blockade.
The politics of sinking Iranian vessels that fired at neutral tankers are much cleaner than those of knocking out bridges and power plants.
@sh76 saidI thought all the bluster beforehand was US Forces marking time until the Navy was in place ready to be deployed, which suggests the plan evolved while in play. If the Navy was on hand immediately after the first "incursion" the development of the war would have been vastly different.
And again, has the strategy been executed perfectly so far? I really don't know. There are conflicting reports, and it's not 100% clear what the navy is enforcing right now.
But the concept is brilliant.
The only question I have is the cost to deploy the fleet in blockade formation. Is it cheaper than paying $2 million per tanker to the Iranians? Sure the blockade means the Iranians don't get that tariff, but does the blockade mean the Iranians get to sell zero oil? Surely further economic boycott of Iran only pushes a violent outbreak further down the road?
2 edits
@kmax87 saidIt probably was a pivot. The initial strategy was to bomb them until the people rise up and depose the IRGC. That doesn't seem likely, so they pivot.
I thought all the bluster beforehand was US Forces marking time until the Navy was in place ready to be deployed, which suggests the plan evolved while in play. If the Navy was on hand immediately after the first "incursion" the development of the war would have been vastly different.
The only question I have is the cost to deploy the fleet in blockade formation. Is it che ...[text shortened]... o oil? Surely further economic boycott of Iran only pushes a violent outbreak further down the road?
===The only question I have is the cost to deploy the fleet in blockade formation. Is it cheaper than paying $2 million per tanker to the Iranians? ===
I'm sure it's not, but it's surely cheaper than keeping up a bombing campaign. The blockade's function is to force the Iranians to the negotiating table, but to save raw dollars. The problem with paying $2 million per tanker to the Iranians is not that $2m is so much money in a vacuum, but that you're capitulating to Iranian control of the strait and helping to finance them.
===Sure the blockade means the Iranians don't get that tariff, but does the blockade mean the Iranians get to sell zero oil? ===
No, but you may not have to decrease their sales to zero for economic pressure to work. Plus, you can pivot to decreasing their oil sales to zero if you need to.
===Surely further economic boycott of Iran only pushes a violent outbreak further down the road?===
Not necessarily. Maybe the IRGC figures the less risky road is to agree to give up their nuclear program for 20 years and allow IAEA inspectors in exchange for sanctions relief. That way, they can keep their power (not to mention their lives). That would certainly be a logical decision.
@sh76 saidThe blockade effects Iranian ports, it doesn't open the straits. It's just more economic pressure on Iran, which has been of limited value so far.
That's execution, not concept.
Obviously, the ideal thing is if they sue for peace before this happens, but if the navy decides to, it can sink any naval vessels enforcing the Iranian blockade and knock out any land-based batteries that could enforce the blockade.
The politics of sinking Iranian vessels that fired at neutral tankers are much cleaner than those of knocking out bridges and power plants.
@sh76 saidHard to call it strategy. The behavior reminds me of how a 9 year old girl will badger their parents to go on a sleepover even though they are grounded. It's genius because it punishes the punishers but also pointless.
It probably was a pivot. The initial strategy was to bomb them until the people rise up and depose the IRGC. That doesn't seem likely, so they pivot.
===The only question I have is the cost to deploy the fleet in blockade formation. Is it cheaper than paying $2 million per tanker to the Iranians? ===
I'm sure it's not, but it's surely cheaper than keeping up a bombing camp ...[text shortened]... they can keep their power (not to mention their lives). That would certainly be a logical decision.
@sh76 saidThat is all based on the assumption that oil tankers allied with the USA are getting though the strait . That is just another lie from the Trump administration. The US navy will not go anywhere near the strait of Hormuz.
As has been well chronicled here, I'm no fan of Trump, but what's fair is fair.
1. Trump bombs the stuffing out of Iran, but the IRGC maintains its grip on power
2. IRGC knows it just has to wait out the bombing campaign, as the world (and American people) won't support an indefinite war
3. To ratchet up the pressure, Iran closes the Straits of Hormuz, driving up the price ...[text shortened]... orts, and it's not 100% clear what the navy is enforcing right now.
But the concept is brilliant.
Trump has consistently lied about oil passage to bring down oil prices. This is just another lie. He knows his approval ratings will go down with the rise of oil prices. So he keep on playing the deception game.
Trump is gambling that Iran cannot endure an economic squeeze longer than the world economy. We will see how it plays out.
How long before investors price in Trump's consistent lies?
@sh76 saidSuggesting a pivot suggests a well thought out plan with all contingencies considered.
It probably was a pivot. The initial strategy was to bomb them until the people rise up and depose the IRGC. That doesn't seem likely, so they pivot.
If the plan depended on the people rising up, where's the evidence of malcontent on a large enough scale? 90 million people with mullahs at every level suggests that lopping off the top layer was never going to achieve anything.
The only conclusion is the whole exercise was a military action on behalf of Israel. Well for the very least Bibi's paranoia of what Israel required.
@AThousandYoung saidIran is punching above its weight in the cyber war.
Let us keep in mind that Iran is the country that got Carter defeated and Reagan elected. He even paid them for their support. They know how to play the election game.
This will not end just because Trump relents and goes home.
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/04/16/middleeast/iran-war-psychology-israel-intl
@sh76 saidNo genius is at work in Washington. Trump is, as always, making it up as he goes along and massaging the numbers to seem to be winning when he’s losing. He has much less leverage with Islamic fanatics than he thinks he has.
As has been well chronicled here, I'm no fan of Trump, but what's fair is fair.
1. Trump bombs the stuffing out of Iran, but the IRGC maintains its grip on power
2. IRGC knows it just has to wait out the bombing campaign, as the world (and American people) won't support an indefinite war
3. To ratchet up the pressure, Iran closes the Straits of Hormuz, driving up the price ...[text shortened]... orts, and it's not 100% clear what the navy is enforcing right now.
But the concept is brilliant.
The Taliban sat out 20 years of massive American air superiority and reconquered Afghanistan easily as soon as the US pulled out. The mullahs in Iran are no less determined, and America has no stomach whatsoever for another protracted foreign engagement so soon after the Afghanistan debacle. And don’t blame that on Biden. Bush got America into that war of choice, and it was T45 who negotiated the terms of the withdrawal.
@sh76 saidMost dont get it. It is not only about Iran. Trump has China by the balls, and Russia to a smaller extent.
As has been well chronicled here, I'm no fan of Trump, but what's fair is fair.
1. Trump bombs the stuffing out of Iran, but the IRGC maintains its grip on power
2. IRGC knows it just has to wait out the bombing campaign, as the world (and American people) won't support an indefinite war
3. To ratchet up the pressure, Iran closes the Straits of Hormuz, driving up the price ...[text shortened]... orts, and it's not 100% clear what the navy is enforcing right now.
But the concept is brilliant.
2 edits
@sh76 saidI'm no fan of Trump, but what's fair is fair.
As has been well chronicled here, I'm no fan of Trump, but what's fair is fair.
1. Trump bombs the stuffing out of Iran, but the IRGC maintains its grip on power
2. IRGC knows it just has to wait out the bombing campaign, as the world (and American people) won't support an indefinite war
3. To ratchet up the pressure, Iran closes the Straits of Hormuz, driving up the price ...[text shortened]... orts, and it's not 100% clear what the navy is enforcing right now.
But the concept is brilliant.
Maybe we should think about being "fair" to the American taxpayer. Every time the state of Israel goes to war with one of its neighbors, the US jumps in with military support, arms shipments, and everything else on the planet. I didn't see the state of Israel lifting a finger to help America during desert storm, operation Iraq freedom, or our long campaign in Afghanistan.
America does for Israel, but Israel does little or nothing for America. This doesn't look like much of an "alliance" to me.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidNonsense. China does not need America, and neither does Russia. Do you think Xi cares if his economy tanks? Not one bit. He does not worry about getting reelected if three hundred million Chinese are out of work. Neither does Putin.
Most dont get it. It is not only about Iran. Trump has China by the balls, and Russia to a smaller extent.