> I keep hearing this line defending US intervention but it doesn't really make sense. Iran was not threatening shipping traffic in the strait regardless of how many missiles they stocked up until they were forced to do so as an asymmetric warfare response to an attack by a superior military.
Why would they threaten to do so prior to being ready? Have you ever played a strategy game where you build up your forces for an advantageous offensive or defensive position? Countries do this too. If we were playing a game where my actions would provide some advantage or victory over you in some area or a broad area, why would I announce what my intentions were to you so you could react or anticipate my actions?
Separately, you can just ask: why are they even stockpiling missiles in the first place? Why isn't Singapore stockpiling missiles, or perhaps Portugal, or Panama, or Morocco? Of course, this then introduces the circular reasoning "because of a potential US attack", but of course if Iran wasn't funding Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, and more, building up these missile stockpiles, continuing to pursue a nuclear bomb, helping Russia with its invasion of Ukraine, we wouldn't be here. At some point you just have to look at their actions and their actions suggest implementing a plan.
> The missing ingredient has never been how many missiles Iran has stockpiled, it was external military action from someone like the US that gave them the window to assert that control.
They don't have control over the Straight of Hormuz. It's a bit of semantics, but control would mean they can allow or disallow ships to pass based on their own decision making. They can disallow ships, but the US can also disallow ships. If Iran controls the Straight of Hormuz because they can fire missiles at ships, the US also controls the Straight of Hormuz because of that very same capability.