U.S. Navy could soon be escorting commercial ships through the Strait of Hormuz, where maritime traffic has effectively stopped due to the current conflict with Iran, according to President Donald Trump. Doing so would demand that American naval vessels transit through the Strait, shifting them away from other duties. More importantly, it would also mean putting them right in a super weapons engagement zone full of Iranian threats that could include cruise and ballistic missiles, one-way-attack drones, explosive-laden kamikaze boats, and naval mines.

“If necessary, the United States Navy will begin escorting tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, as soon as possible,” President Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social social media network.

“Effective IMMEDIATELY, I have ordered the United States Development Finance Corporation (DFC) to provide, at a very reasonable price, political risk insurance and guarantees for the Financial Security of ALL Maritime Trade, especially Energy, traveling through the Gulf,” he also wrote. “This will be available to all Shipping Lines.”

“No matter what, the United States will ensure the FREE FLOW of ENERGY to the WORLD. The United States’ ECONOMIC and MILITARY MIGHT is the GREATEST ON EARTH,” he added. “More actions to come.”

U.S. Central Command declined to comment when reached for more details. TWZ has also reached out to the White House.

This is not the first time that the United States has been faced with this predicament or decided to start escorting commercial vessels through the region as a result. The U.S. Navy did just this in the late 1980s during the Tanker War sideshow to the Iran-Iraq War. At the same time, that experience underscores the immense amount of resources such a campaign could require, as well as the risks.

At the peak of those operations, there were some 30 American warships escorting commercial vessels to and from the Persian Gulf. Aircraft, special operations forces, and other assets were also deployed in support. The risks to American service members, as well as the ships they were tasked to safeguard, were very real.

  • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 hour ago

    Its also just obviously stupid.

    It can’t possibly reliably work.

    We don’t have enough interceptors to do that.

    Our THAAD radar arrays that would track incoming high altitude missiles … already got taken out by Iran.

    https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/irgc-destroys-second-us-thaad-system-uae-radar-qatar-early-warning-iran-missile-dominance/

    We’d have to do convoy escort formation kinda like fucking WW2, (or the more modern parellel would be the Tanker War of the 80s) and use our naval defense systems… to intercept anything incoming… which would run us out of that kind of ammo even faster…

    … and also potentially just still would not work against very high altititude, very fast missiles…

    … meaning that then after maybe a month or three of that, oops, we lost a fucking aircraft carrier.

    Thats why nearly none of the ships have moved, despite this ‘guarantee’.

    See all those clusters of red and green dots?

    That’s everybody just parked in a holding pattern.

    https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:56.8/centery:25.6/zoom:8

  • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Article fails to highlight complete impotence towards Iran’s impositions on Straits of Hormuz. Even if Iran could not see the traffic flowing, it can already reach with cheap drones, it is rumored to hold in the tens of thousands, targets that are farther than the ports the ships would load/unload from. While strikes on Israel are censored, they and ones in Gulf are still penetrating daily.

  • Krauerking@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Makes the area dangerous, asks the people doing business there to pay for protection because it is now dangerous…

    Man this sounds so familiar for some reason.

  • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Sounds like an AI strategy.

    Great Idea! Would you like me to write up a quick invasion plan for you?

    • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      But it’s a very reasonable fee! And a beautiful plan. The most beautiful, some people say.

      Remember that if you don’t pay I’ll increase the tariffs on your no good, very bad countries that are acting un-americanly!

  • flandish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    that is the plan. it’s straight “manufacturing consent” while he tries to make a gulf of tonkin lie

    • parsizzle@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I’m getting the feeling he saw Roosevelt was elected for a third term during WWII and one of his yes men said he could totally replicate that third term…given the right circumstances

  • CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Narrow water passage controlled by opposing faction, hmm? Ask the British about Dardanelles and see how it worked out for them. It doesn’t t need to be a complete closure; an occasional artillery barrage or rocket would suffice.

      • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Mines is something they used decades ago. Drones are just as effective, plus let friendly ships through.

      • CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        Not sure if relevant but it’s deep through there - 60-100m.

        I’m not a marine engineer but I think mines would need to be anchored. Might be cheaper to have drone boats hidden in every bend in the coastline.

        • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Yeah but the navigable channels are 60 or less. 40-60 meters doesn’t seem ridiculous to me… But I am also not a marine engineer.

    • Kirp123@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 day ago

      Yeah. Iran can just shoot at anything passing by with minimal risk. The only way to stop them would be to land troops as push them out, but even then you would have to push them back quite a bit to stop missiles from hitting the straight. And of course, landing troops is going to be bloody, very very bloody. Can the US afford it?

      But don’t worry, all those ships sunk by the Iranians can just be replaced by the shiny new Trump class battleships.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 hours ago

        Trump class battleships

        Fat, with blingy fake guns and engines installed the wrong way around so that they go faster backwards than forwards?

      • frongt@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        They don’t need to land troops. They can strike the launchers from the air.

        • Kirp123@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 day ago

          Like they did with the Houthi? Didn’t they bankrupt the only Israeli port on the Red Sea? And they weren’t nearly as organized or prepared as the Iranians.

  • TheWeirdestCunt@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 day ago

    Why wouldn’t the US navy be in the crosshairs anyway? If you start a war you don’t get to pick which branch of your military gets attacked.