Interesting https://hormuzstraitmonitor.com/ says we're at 8% of normal traffic. Curious as to the discrepancy.
Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike
61–70 of 198 posts
Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But this may be one of the few times we have been unable to achieve a purely military objective. The U.S. has been secretly moving ships for months. And Iran no longer has any significant naval force, it's all been wiped out. What is difficult to completely stop, short of glassing the entire country, is harassment by drones or other forms of "asymmetric warfare."
[flagged]
Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike
#63Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike
#64So, 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…
Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But this may be one of the few times we have been unable to achieve a purely military objective. The U.S. has been secretly moving ships for months. And Iran no longer has any significant naval force, it's all been wiped out. What is difficult to completely stop, short of glassing the entire country, is harassment by drones or other forms of "asymmetric warfare."
[flagged]
Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You assumed wrong. Maybe listen to the interviews before responding with aggressive sarcasm.
Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But this may be one of the few times we have been unable to achieve a purely military objective. The U.S. has been secretly moving ships for months. And Iran no longer has any significant naval force, it's all been wiped out. What is difficult to completely stop, short of glassing the entire country, is harassment by drones or other forms of "asymmetric warfare."
[flagged]
We can't just change our strategy to "nvrmd: kill 'em all" and think we'll have any allies after this. Iran would once again not just attack us, but practically every country near it, causing even more causalities and infrastructure damage.
And this doesn't get into the problem that this would eventually require a land invasion, which would be impossible. We couldn't even get an actual war ship close to Iran.
There is a "Sunk Cost Fallacy" that someone in our Administration should listen to. Times up with this complete disaster.
Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike
#68It's about time to have a serious talk with the Saudis and redirect all that money that is being stupidly spent on all those vanity projects such as NEOM and The Line towards pipelines running through the Desert , end point the port of Yunbu & Jeddah and make the Strait of Hormuz irrelevant . This is the quintessential American project, the U.S. has invented and developed the oil industry in Saudi. Saudi Aramco was o…
Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike
#69Nobody 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 b…
If the US citizen think being a super power is to expensive, that's fine for the world. No empire lasts forever. The US can become an important regional power, having its destiny more influenced by the upcoming super powers that fill the vacuum.
Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But this may be one of the few times we have been unable to achieve a purely military objective. The U.S. has been secretly moving ships for months. And Iran no longer has any significant naval force, it's all been wiped out. What is difficult to completely stop, short of glassing the entire country, is harassment by drones or other forms of "asymmetric warfare."
[flagged]
> Why is attacking one's enemies suddenly controversial?
Flying half the planet away to attack someone who in no way endangers you is controversial... it took a few years of vietnam war for americans to figure it out and a few decades to forget it all again and now you're repeating it against a stronger adversary. It's no wonder most of the world hates americans.
edit: looking at his comment history, commenter above me seems to be from israel, not US, but same applies to them too, with the exception of having to ask trump (and the brits and others) for help when iran fights back.