[JumpCrisscross]

> entire gulf is at risk. Iran can interdict and cause problems from almost anywhere

Sure, but its effect is far more dilute. In the Strait–in particular, around the Musandam Peninsula–it has unique geostrategic leverage.

[bluegatty]

'matsup' is correct.

Iran only needs to score 'one point' to win the whole game.

If they can threaten tankers, then the gulf will remain closed, and that's that.

It's really debatable if the US really has the capability to play 'whack a mole' and get all the moles.

[matusp]

However dilute the effect is, if they are able to hit a few gas/oil carriers with drones there, nobody is going to use that body of water.

[JumpCrisscross]

> if they are able to hit a few gas/oil carriers with drones there, nobody is going to use that body of water

It’s a lot more feasible to escort tankers after the Strait than it is before, when American warships have to come close to shore. Iran doesn’t have the resources to deny access to the entire Indian Ocean.

[ben_w]

> Iran doesn’t have the resources to deny access to the entire Indian Ocean.

I have what may be a scale issue in my imagination, so bear with me if this is silly.

There are reports of international drug transport via seaborne drones in the 0.5-5 tonne range, and of these crossing the Pacific, and the cost of the vehicles is estimated to be around 2-4 million USD each. If drug dealers can do that, surely Iran (and basically everyone with a GDP at least the size of something like Andorra's) should be able to make credible threats to disrupt approximately as much non-military shipping as they want to worldwide?

[JumpCrisscross]

> if drug dealers can do that, surely Iran (and basically everyone with a GDP at least the size of something like Andorra's) should be able to make credible threats to disrupt approximately as much non-military shipping as they want to worldwide?

Sure. Do you think that means worldwide shipping would shut down?

And the point isn't to take the risk to zero. But to a level where military escorts can feel safe.

[ben_w]

> Do you think that means worldwide shipping would shut down?

I think there's a danger of that, at least if countermeasures are not easily available for normal shipping.

Even 1-on-1 rather than 1-v-everyone, there's too many players (not all of them nations) with too many conflicting goals and interests. If Cuba tried to do it, could they credibly threaten to sink all sea-based trade involving the USA? If not Cuba, who would be the smallest nation that could?

And the same applies to Taiwan and China, in both directions, either of which would be fairly dramatic on the world stage, even though China also has land options. Or North Korea putting up an effective anti-shipping blockade against Japan.

> But to a level where military escorts can feel safe.

Are there enough military ships to do the escorting?

[JumpCrisscross]

> I think there's a danger of that, at least if countermeasures are not easily available

Note that the era of free navigation is recent and short. Countermeasures would certainly emerge. But shipping wouldn’t stop.

> Are there enough military ships to do the escorting?

For critical passage, yes. If Iran is just taking pot shots at any ships anywhere, you basically have to actually blockade it.

[randomNumber7]

The current situation is very dangerous. A global disruption in shipping would lead to an economic crisis that could start WW3 (imo).

Also the US and Europe would be pretty fucked since we depend on it much more.

China could still get resources from russia and is much more self sustained.

Also China and Russia want to break the us hegemony.

[bluegatty]

? There's really not much discussion of Iran being a problem outside the Gulf.

Iran can control the Gulf and therefore 20% of global carbons.

This is enough to put the world economy into recession.

America is not 'isolated' from the global economy.

US carbon produces don't give smack about the nation generally - they will sell to the highest bidder.

If global Oil prices skyrocket - you will pay that at the pump.

US is net carbon exporter, but there is trade - the refineries in the south are designed for heavy crude from Venezuela and Canada etc.

Yes, some national policies could alter a bit, but only in emergency, and the current Administration does not give a * about national issues, other than populist blowback. They will prefer their oil buddies by default, but with a lot of leaway for 'gas prices' causing voting problems.

US companies sell abroad, a global recession affects everything.

Just google OPEC crisis - you can see what high oil prices do, they screw everything up.

There's 100% chance of global recession if Gulf stays closed.

Given the 'leverage' in US market that can come way down. US GDP is currently held up with AI spending - if that math falters, that AI investment slows down, the US drops into recession, that causes flight from equities etc etc.

I don't think we need to speculate about anything outside of the Gulf.

It's bad, it needs to be resolved.

You see this calamity in the daily statements from WH - they are 'in out in out in out' in the same day they say 'witdhdraw' and then 'we must open the strait'.

[ncruces]

They meant the Gulf. You cross the straight into the Gulf, then what?

Iran hit an E-3's antenna in an airport in Riyadh with a precision strike. Was it not worth defending?

How many tankers inside the Gulf do they need to hit before the rest of the world decides it's a bad idea to send new tankers to the Gulf?

And if new tankers don't go into the Gulf, then it's simply not open for business. That's their leverage.

[frm88]

And then what? Find any insurance company that is willing to insure your ship while it tries to travel the Strait. Or the gulf. Twice for each cargo.