I suppose they may be grateful to have an enemy uniting their people. Though it's not like they lost control of the opposition, even if they've had to kill a few thousand at a time.
America bringing destruction and failing to bring freedom from their current tyranny has doubtfully bought us many more friends in Iran.
Assume the leadership of both Iran and the US are kleptocrats who both have motivations to have oil prices high and people dependent on them and it all makes a lot more sense.
The Iranian people, that's a different story.
Political capital + diplomatic reputation + military reputation + strategic reputation.. and cash.
The capability of the IRGC and Iranian regime to hide small to medium sized drone and missile launch equipment within civilian infrastructure (nevermind caves, bunkers, etc) within range of the strait exceeds the capability of the US forces to destroy or remove it.
As long as major shipping companies believe that the Iranians retain enough drone and missile capacity to hold the straight under threat, they're not going to sail through it.
The only possible way would be an extremely bloody and manpower intensive ground operation to hunt it down at the boots on the ground level.
America knew how to do this once. Berlin is still in a sense occupied by American troops in that we still have bases there, and through NATO subsidize their defense and way of life.
You simply can't kill your way out of political conflicts into perpetuity, unless you truly plan on annihilating everyone. That is part of what makes the alcoholic running the DoD so galling. His thesis on places like Fallujah is essentially there wasn't enough bloodshed. Americans would be vacationing in Baghdad if only there had been more violence.
Pretty much what I said in Jan/Feb of this year when the major, bloody nationwide protests of Iranians (est. 15,000 to 40,000 death toll killed by their own "government") kicked off domestically in Iran. Specifically, that the worst possible people were running the executive branch and DoD at this moment in history and that they would rush headlong into something foolish.
I recall Reza Pahlavi on Fox News engaging in the delusion that the current administration cared about the Iranian people. Where is he now?
Iran is a big country ~100 million people. Aircraft carriers can launch planes to disable specific targets. They cant take out an entire country. They could have been more useful if the US was waging total war against Iran, but it isn't/wasnt.
The world is deglobalizing, and while drones may not exert Blue water power projection, they now dominate littoral power projection.
Marine invasions may be impossible in drone combat without drone superiority, and right now, Joan superiority is not a thing that I think exists between two fully drone enabled armies
And note the US army is not a fully drone enabled army.
1. The US Navy is designed for the Cold WAr. It's often called a "deep blue" Navy because it's designed to operate in the open ocean in deep water. Also, it's designed to operate in colder climates like the North Atlantic and the North Sea. The Persian Gulf is none of those things. It's shallow, warm and narrow. The warm part also matters. It increases wear on ships, it's harder to keep them habitable, you get faster biofouling and so on;
2. Geography just isn't a friend here. The navigable part of the Strait of Hormuz at its narrowest is about 6 miles wide. You'll hear claims about it being 2 miles wide. That's incorrect. There are 2 mile wide navigation channels, one in each direction, and they're separated by a ~2 mile wide buffer; and
3. Another clue here was the continued use of so-called "stand off" weapons [1]. Rather than using gravity bombs, missiles continued to be fired from ships and planes. That's inefficient because you lose weight for the munition part to fuel. So you only ever do this if you can't safely use gravity bombs. Therefore, one can conclude that the military could protect air or water assets. Water assets can't be protected mainly from drones. There was a lot of talk about mines and that is a threat but the same drones that essentially destroyed Gulf military bases could overwhelm the defenses of an aircraft carrier battle group too. Plus there's drone boats. But the way aircraft were used also demonstrated a lack of air supremacy.
I'm no expert, but the attack range of the carrier flight wing is 4-500 miles
the only people who have grave concerns over Iran are the ones who have monetary incentive to do so, or ethnical tribalism reason
I didn't agree with "most Americans" part. This kind of rhetoric is false and is used to whitewash and launder war crimes and escape responsibility, for example for murdering 160 Iranian school girls in in Minab.
there are many ways to phrase a question and make it seem like very low stakes, while it causes actual human lives on the other end of the globe
What US ships?
2. Fujairah is within drone and missile range of a lot of remaining Iranian strike capability.
3. Fujairah is not really equipped with a large amount of high precision, reliable, expensive, slow to procure and replace air defense systems.
4. Fujairah has already been struck repeatedly since this conflict kicked off.
5. The oil pipeline capacity from the 'west' side of the UAE to Fujairah is nowhere near enough to meet demand, even if the port and oil terminal were considered totally safe by ship owners and cargo owners, which it isn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habshan%E2%80%93Fujairah_oil_p...
But it obviously wasn't designed to carry all the oil going through the Strait.
Do you think people are dumb? Obviously beneficial and easy actions that no one has taken rarely exist in the real world. You're basically suggesting the people actually there who have a better view than you are profoundly stupid.
War is unpredictable, which is why all previous US presidents with brains avoided this.
Can the system run if those above ground areas are destroyed? Of course hypothetically they can be defended. Just like hypothetically a few drones should not be able to shut the world's most powerful navy out of the strait.
In reality we know the real answer lies in an admission of your answer. The best defense is electing governments which will not wantonly engage in armed conflicts.
I wonder what happened to the Iranian buddies? So many HN accounts whose Iranian friends were all supposedly celebrating the US-Israeli bombings of their country of origin. Are they still cheering?
Before all of this, Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz was a theory that was never tested. Traffic passed freely. But a war was forced upon them by the US and Israel so if any of these countries (or anyone else for that matter) is unhappy at the outcome, you know where to point the finger.
One irony in all this is that the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea would guarantee free transit passage through territorial waters like the Strait of Hormuz. Iran isn't a signatory. The ironic part is that the United States isn't either.
Greenland, Cuba, or Canada?
Folks, this is what happens when you lose a war. You have to pay the bad guys to win the war in a more comfortable way for you.
Iran knows this is a protection racket. They don't care. What're we gonna do about it? Bomb them again?
Narrowest width:
- Strait of Hormuz (33 km)
- Bab-el-Mandeb (26 km)
- Strait of Gibraltar (13 km)
- Strait of Malacca (2.8 km)
- Bosphorus (700 m)
- Suez Canal (205 m) <- Ever Given
- Panama Canal (55 m)
War is one way of forcing political will on another. The US military executed nearly flawlessly yet US leadership doesn't want to pay the cost of defeating Iran by force.
Why even have this military if anything that affects the market makes the US cower in fear?
Did they? They
- Started the war off by (to all appearances accidentally) bombing a girls elementary school
- Had an aircraft carrier spontaneously catch fire via laundry - forcing it to go for repairs mid war
- Lost a bunch of very expensive aircraft, and some (though not very many per airframe) soldiers with them
- Proved that the F-35s stealth capabilities aren't quite what they were hyped up to be by having one hit by a guided missile
And on the strategic objectives front (where, to be fair, they were given impossible tasks)
- Killed the person they were hoping to install as the new head of state
- Didn't manage to destroy Iran's missile launch capability
- Didn't manage to secure the straight of hormuz
- Didn't manage to defend their own bases against missile attacks, instead fleeing to hotels
* USA (or Israel really) started this war on their own terms at a time of their choosing. But they werent prepared at all.
* Incredibly valuable things like THAAD radars (like $1B per unit) were taken out by $1000 drones.. We've all seen the war in Ukraine, we all know Iran makes Shahed drones. US seemed to be completely unprepared for this.
* US was using $1M pac 3 patriot missiles to shoot down $1000 drones, utterly failing the shot exchange problem. Also US has run down its stockpiles of many missiles to 50% or less. It will take 3 or 4 years to return many items to acceptable levels, and wont be able sell any either, leaving customers seeking alternatives.
* Clear miscoordination and lack of clarity between US and allies. Like no-one really knew what was happening or why, leading to stuff like the ghost of Kuwait.
Classic trump regieme action. No-one competent in the room. Just impulsively doing random shit each day with no strategy or understanding.
It has echoes of LBJ and later Nixon trying to control a massive conflict from thousands of miles a way, based mostly on vibes.
The US military exhibited numerous flaws. To cover numerous flaws not yet covered by other replies:
* Required the deployment of assets beyond their useful operational capability (which caused the aircraft carrier to catch fire).
* Demonstrated that their targeting list is not only based on outdated information, but failed to update that information when informed it was outdated (which led to the bombing of the elementary school).
* Failed to anticipate literally the one military contingency everyone expected Iran to do--close the strait. Hell, even after it was clear that was happened and everyone was screaming "what are you going to do about it?" the answer was, shockingly "absolutely nothing."
* Failed to adequately secure supply lines to ensure that military units in the area have sufficient food. This is literally logistics 101 stuff.
* Defined operational success criteria not based on results achieved but on effort spent--in other words, how many bombs you launched rather than whether or not the targets you wanted destroyed were destroyed.
* Definitely several C2 issues we're not entirely privy to, given the midair collision that cost a tanker, and the loss of an AWACS unit.
The strategic issues are even more myriad, but since strategy is supposed to be largely a civilian, not military, decision, it's not really the military's fault. Except I will note that a lot of civilians in this field do come from ex-military background, and there does seem to be a major recurring problem that CENTCOM is producing a lot of people with really bad strategic judgement that is partially responsible for this debacle in the first place. Really to the point that we should consider blackballing everyone from CENTCOM from ever having a military or civilian defense job of importance ever again.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/19/us/politics/iran-israel-u...
> Mr. Ahmadinejad was injured on the war’s first day by an Israeli strike at his home in Tehran that had been designed to free him from house arrest, the American officials and an associate of Mr. Ahmadinejad said. He survived the strike, they said, but after the near miss he became disillusioned with the regime change plan.
To summarize in rough numbers:
* 2x the population (today)
* 3x the land area (today, but also probably back then)
* 7x the relative wealth (compared to Iraq-2002, using US GDP across time as a shared baseline)
I'm sure the US military has a much better statistical analysis... and I'm also sure it was ignored by the commander-in-chief.
War is politics by other means (Clausewitz).
And how much do you think that cost would be? What are we at now? $139B to $1T in long term costs baked in so far.
First of all the chain of those cowering in fear begins with the the actors around ship transit , meaning the owners but also the seamen , they don't want to cross if there is a > 5% chance of being hit . And the seamen are actually being forced to accept such risk, they signed up for something else entirely, their risk preference would be around 0.0% because these days nobody dies at sea anymore.
Without Hormuz the world runs out of oil and that is a much bigger problem than just stock market going down
With the mines and drones and asymmetric warfare you'd need to conquer the entirety of Iran alley by alley and mountain by mountain to secure the strait for a risk tolerance in line with the aforementioned 5%
This war was lost when the U.S. wasn't ready to intervene during the week of popular uprise against the regime, had the intervention happened back then , maybe it could have been possible to overthrow the Ayatollah system and reinstall the Shah (who btw was no Saint either)
John Mearsheimer has called this right from the first day, he said that Iran 'holds all the cards' and he's been right on everything down to a T (no pun intended) [0]
It has been an acrobatic adventure in the Middle East with lots of expenses and very little human losses to follow the 'Greater Israel' ambition of Israel and Bibi. But we must not forget that we killed their Supreme Leader and Religious Leader all wrapped in one , they will not let this slide and with the asymmetric war and warfare this Administration has exposed itself to potentially another 9/11 that would at that point force a ground war with lots of victims.
2014 - Claimed Putin had no interest in annexing large parts of Ukraine, conquering it, or pursuing regime change
Feb 2022 - Putin had “no intention of invading Ukraine” in the sense of large-scale conquest (days before the invasion)
June 2022 - “There is no evidence in the public record that Putin was contemplating, much less intending to put an end to Ukraine as an independent state… Putin was not interested in making Ukraine a part of Russia… the Russians pursued a limited aims strategy”
Repeated claim (2014–2022): Putin is a rational actor who understands the costs and would not pursue maximalist territorial or imperial goals in Ukraine