Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike • Hacker News Board

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#21

Post by einpoklum » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 8:08 PM UTC

So, Trump claimed the closure and the attack "was a “foolish violation” of the ceasefire". However - that is not the case. The first and foremost item of the Iran-US MOU is the following:

1 — The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war are signing this MOU to declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon.

But Israel has continued to attack intensively in Lebanon, killing dozens (if not over 100 since the MOU was signed, not sure), and continues to have a sizeable invasion force in Lebanese territory. Lebanon was explicitly and specifically mentioned to stress its significance - it is the country suffering the most right now, with hundreds of thousands of internally displaced due to threats from the Israeli forces against the civilian population of the south.

With that being the case since day 1, the MOU cannot be said to have even gone into effect. Certainly, the closure of the straights should be seen in this light, rather than a violation.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#22

Post by dragontamer » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 8:08 PM UTC

echelon wrote: post #16

rayiner wrote: post #2

Nobody is talking about how big of a failure this has been on the part of the U.S. Navy. Controlling and securing shipping routes has been a fundamental function of a navy since Roman times. The U.S. Navy was unable to achieve that objective in this war. Ill-advised American wars often end up as losses because we fail to achieve our political objectives. But this may be one of the few times we have been unable to ach…

Drone warfare is new. Now you can use a drone that costs a few thousand dollars to take out a hundred million dollar ship. It's a pricing issue. Whereas before, you had to use expensive guided missiles or your own naval or air force assets, now you can send a bunch of cheap drones. Everything we know about war is going to change.

Not new. These drones were in production in Iran since 2016 after the capture of the downed Reaper Drone in 2011.

What is new is Irans willingness to use them. Which skyrocketed after a few missiles assassinated their supreme leader.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#23

Post by yogthos » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 8:09 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #2

Nobody is talking about how big of a failure this has been on the part of the U.S. Navy. Controlling and securing shipping routes has been a fundamental function of a navy since Roman times. The U.S. Navy was unable to achieve that objective in this war. Ill-advised American wars often end up as losses because we fail to achieve our political objectives. But this may be one of the few times we have been unable to ach…

I expect this will be a far more consequential loss than Vietnam for the US in the long run. This has been a spectacular defeat and likely means the US will be forced to exit from the region because everybody can see now that American bases cannot be defended and they put countries hosting them at risk. This is a major geopolitical upheaval.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#24

Post by andriy_koval » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 8:09 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #2

Nobody is talking about how big of a failure this has been on the part of the U.S. Navy. Controlling and securing shipping routes has been a fundamental function of a navy since Roman times. The U.S. Navy was unable to achieve that objective in this war. Ill-advised American wars often end up as losses because we fail to achieve our political objectives. But this may be one of the few times we have been unable to ach…

> Controlling and securing shipping routes has been a fundamental function of a navy

this function is outdated since u-boat appearance, and now cruise missiles and drones. More important modern function of navy is projecting power.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#25

Post by hamburglar » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 8:11 PM UTC

pohl wrote: post #7

rayiner wrote: post #2

Nobody is talking about how big of a failure this has been on the part of the U.S. Navy. Controlling and securing shipping routes has been a fundamental function of a navy since Roman times. The U.S. Navy was unable to achieve that objective in this war. Ill-advised American wars often end up as losses because we fail to achieve our political objectives. But this may be one of the few times we have been unable to ach…

Part of that traditional naval success has come from having presidents not stepping on their own dicks.

Specifically, not overestimating their own abilities and thus biting off more than they can chew. “Stepping on their own dicks” is a superset that includes all sorts of buffoonery like constantly making empty threats and backing off, but the basic assumption that the US Military is flawless and omnipotent and we can act accordingly seems to be our most fundamental error.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#26

Post by energy123 » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 8:12 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #2

Nobody is talking about how big of a failure this has been on the part of the U.S. Navy. Controlling and securing shipping routes has been a fundamental function of a navy since Roman times. The U.S. Navy was unable to achieve that objective in this war. Ill-advised American wars often end up as losses because we fail to achieve our political objectives. But this may be one of the few times we have been unable to ach…

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.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#27

Post by msabalau » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 8:12 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #2

Nobody is talking about how big of a failure this has been on the part of the U.S. Navy. Controlling and securing shipping routes has been a fundamental function of a navy since Roman times. The U.S. Navy was unable to achieve that objective in this war. Ill-advised American wars often end up as losses because we fail to achieve our political objectives. But this may be one of the few times we have been unable to ach…

This is fundamentally a failure of political leadership. You don't try to achieve a goal when you don't have the military means to achieve at a cost you are willing to bear.

There are endless numbers of military objectives that the US military that could have been sent on where they would have had no chance to succeed. That they generally weren't is a function other administrations, however bad, not being so embarrassingly incompetent as this.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#28

Post by CerebralCerb » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 8:13 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #2

Nobody is talking about how big of a failure this has been on the part of the U.S. Navy. Controlling and securing shipping routes has been a fundamental function of a navy since Roman times. The U.S. Navy was unable to achieve that objective in this war. Ill-advised American wars often end up as losses because we fail to achieve our political objectives. But this may be one of the few times we have been unable to ach…

If the US wants to abdicate their position as a global hegemon of every waterway and trade route this seems like a good way to do it. The US is much less dependent on the Strait of Hormuz than its competitors.

Ten years down the line it may be the case that India will sail up and enforce toll-free waterways instead. That will never happen as long as the US puts up the resources for it. The American taxpayer will be better off if the burden of global free trade is borne more equitably.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#29

Post by vkou » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 8:13 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #2

Nobody is talking about how big of a failure this has been on the part of the U.S. Navy. Controlling and securing shipping routes has been a fundamental function of a navy since Roman times. The U.S. Navy was unable to achieve that objective in this war. Ill-advised American wars often end up as losses because we fail to achieve our political objectives. But this may be one of the few times we have been unable to ach…

> But this may be one of the few times we have been unable to achieve a purely military objective.

The military objective can be achieved, it would just require the 'No New Wars' party to implode from having 272 seats to having ~150 seats after the midterms.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#30

Post by einpoklum » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 8:13 PM UTC

echelon wrote: post #16

rayiner wrote: post #2

Nobody is talking about how big of a failure this has been on the part of the U.S. Navy. Controlling and securing shipping routes has been a fundamental function of a navy since Roman times. The U.S. Navy was unable to achieve that objective in this war. Ill-advised American wars often end up as losses because we fail to achieve our political objectives. But this may be one of the few times we have been unable to ach…

Drone warfare is new. Now you can use a drone that costs a few thousand dollars to take out a hundred million dollar ship. It's a pricing issue. Whereas before, you had to use expensive guided missiles or your own naval or air force assets, now you can send a bunch of cheap drones. Everything we know about war is going to change.

Drone warfare may be new, but small-boat operations; Surface-to-Sea missiles; aquatic mines; and long-distance cannons - those are not new. And those are probably enough to effectively close down the straights. To do so, Iran does not need to defeat and sink the US Navy force; it needs to occasionally hit some ships running the blockade. We saw this with the Bab Al-Mandab blockade, beginning in 2024; Yemen's military is not nearly as powerful as Iran's, and still, ships started avoiding the Bab Al-Mandab, because a, what, 20%? chance of being hit and taken over or sunk, with some of the crew possibly taken prisoner, is not something one does if one can avoid it, for the price of a longer journey.