[JumpCrisscross]

> is within reach of Iran's capabilities

Analysts have been playing fast and loose with this phrase. Within reach assuming no air defenses and able to be struck are separate. I believe Iran could hit this infrastructure if it were undefended. It’s not practically able to due to air defenses. (Iran already targeted the small Gulf states’ airports. Given how much food they import by air, that’s an attempted blockade strike.)

[bluegatty]

Those nations do not have the ability to defend civilian infrastructure - it's the weak point we see in Ukraine.

Nobody does.

These are large regions, AA coverage is narrow, using F16s to shoot down Shaheds wears down fast.

If Iran has stockpiles, and the wherewithal for mission planning, they can steer them around AA and hit the 'back office' at will.

Those states also have no practice coordinating the in-between methods - they have only very expensive ways to stop Shaheds, and only jet fighters outside of AA coverage.

Now - hitting a lot of things like civic buildings etc. doesn't have much effect, but it depends how the civilians react and cope.

Some very specific things like energy desalinization are acute problems.

These are authoritarian states that can keep information dispersal minimal and the civilians will just have to 'eat it' - but only for so long.

The biggest damage will be to Straight of Hormuz - of those drones can be used to hit Oil Tankers ... if there are enough muntions, it will be bad

All of that said, China and India would be super duper upset about that, and Iran may depend on China for parts. They would have 'no friends' at that point.

So it's all plausible.

But it requires Iran to have capabilities.

The entire Middle East is lit up right now - and that puts US forces on a 'clock' - this is going to be an interesting form of attrition on all sides, not a good situation.

[JumpCrisscross]

> If Iran has stockpiles

And launchers.

> of those drones can be used to hit Oil Tankers ... if there are enough muntions, it will be bad

Not really. During the Iran-Iraq war hundreds of tankers were sunk, including in the Strait [1]. Iran's supposed 'nuclear' option was mining the Strait. But for whatever reason, they weren't able to or chose not to do that.

> this is going to be an interesting form of attrition on all sides

I'm sceptical of this read. With missiles, the launchers are the weak link. With drones, the factories. In the meantime, the U.S. gets to refine the anti-drone kit it's been working on (based on lessons from Ukraine and the attacks on the Houthis).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanker_war

[bluegatty]

The factories are the weak link to all munitions.

The Iran-Iraq war was decades ago, every weapon system has changed.

Iran has anti-ship missiles they can fire with impunity at tankers - and - as I said Shaheds.

Shaheds are not yet used against moving targets, but it's plausible they are ready for that.

If they are, then they can close the straits.

The reason they would not likely close the straits is that China is the primary recipient of that Oil, and it's a bit of a client state. China paradoxically provides parts for those drones. And they are the 'last remaining frenemy ally of Iran'.

So the nuclear option is very nuclear.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Iran-Iraq war was decades ago, every weapon system has changed

Not the point. The point is when the world was even more dependent on oil, hundreds of tankers getting potted was no more than a major nuisance.

> Iran has anti-ship missiles they can fire with impunity at tankers

But limited launchers. And if by “with impunity” you mean losing launchers every time they fire, sure.

> Shaheds are not yet used against moving targets, but it's plausible they are ready for that

This would be an issue.

> then they can close the straits

As you say, this gives everyone in the Gulf, EU, China and India a motivated reason to ensure the war ends.

Also, Iran closing the Strait (note: singular) is self siege. A legitimate American strategy could be just waiting them out while potting shit from the air.

> the nuclear option is very nuclear

There are no nuclear tactics on the table at this time.