[rayiner]

> No, his point is that being unable to do that was (or at least should have been) a forgone conclusion.

No, not at all. As I said, controlling straits and keeping them open for shipping is a fundamental function of a navy going back to Roman times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_navy (“By far, the navy's most vital task was to ensure Roman grain imports were shipped and delivered to the capital unimpeded across the Mediterranean.”).

The inability to keep the strait clear shouldn’t have been expected. It’s a purely military objective that’s squarely within what our ridiculously overspecced Navy should be able to do.

[fc417fc802]

It is a fundamental function in the general sense, yes. But I don't think anyone was expecting that the US could do so in hormuz in this instance (at least without committing far more assets of a non-naval variety). I also think there are plenty of examples that take the form (strong navy, narrow body of water) where failure would be expected but that doesn't mean the navy in question isn't capable or that it fails to fulfill its role.

Similarly it is a fundamental function of the infantry to maintain ground control over a region but it is easy to come up with hypotheticals where any given power including the US would fail to do so.

> It’s a purely military objective that’s squarely within what our ridiculously overspecced Navy should be able to do.

I'm sure they could if cost was of no consequence but depending on the size of iran's drone stockpiles the interceptor costs might well bankrupt us. And even then they would only manage because (I assume) iran either can't or won't employ hypersonic missiles against tankers.

[rayiner]

> But I don't think anyone was expecting that the US could do so in hormuz in this instance (at least without committing far more assets of a non-naval variety).

I think that’s exactly what they thought. I think this was supposed to be a quick and dirty campaign like Venezuela.

> I'm sure they could if cost was of no consequence but depending on the size of iran's drone stockpiles the interceptor costs might well bankrupt us. And even then they would only manage because (I assume) iran either can't or won't employ hypersonic missiles against tankers.

I think this is the part they overlooked. The military has been planning to attack Iran for 50 years. I can totally believe that they underestimated Iran’s drone capabilities and hypersonic missiles.

Either way, there’s a real military lesson here. Iran has enormous leverage over the world through its control of the strait of hormuz. Even the most powerful navy in the world can’t protect the world’s oil shipments without a land war against Iran (which I expect would be a trillion dollar effort). The Iranians are much more powerful than we thought.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> I think that (the US could keep Hormuz open) was exactly what they thought. I think this was supposed to be a quick and dirty campaign like Venezuela.

It depends on who "they" is. The accounts seem to be that Mrs Trump and Hegseth and co thought like this.

But everyone else (including the professional strategists let go in the DOGE purges, and the remaining ones in the room) thought that this was an incredibly stupid idea that was bound to fail for obvious reasons.

They were overruled. Another case of "they said it couldn't be done. But we tried anyway, and what do you know, they were right." Hubris, incompetence and idiocy.

> The military has been planning to attack Iran for 50 years.

And Iran has been preparing for attack for a long time too. Hence the drone stockpiles.

The Iranian regime might be deeply unpleasant, but they do not appear to be stupid or incompetent at this.

> there’s a real military lesson here

Agreed, but I think the lesson is more about listening to the professional strategists who are stating the obvious.

[rayiner]

> But everyone else (including the professional strategists let go in the DOGE purges, and the remaining ones in the room) thought that this was an incredibly stupid idea that was bound to fail for obvious reasons.

What’s your source for this?

[SideburnsOfDoom]

You made the claim that they thought it was a great idea. What's your research for that?

it is widely known that Mr Netanyahu has suggested this same plan to every US administration from Bush onwards (1), and was rejected by them all until now.

It is widely known that the military analysts all made the obvious prediction that Iran would seize Hormuz (2)

I might be a bit off the mark with "professional strategists let go in the DOGE purges" but not by much (3) DOGE Cuts have affected the Pentagon as well (4), so it's less clear. What's your source that it had no effect?

Recent reporting on the decision to attack in 2026 includes (5)

Trump attacked based on "a feeling" (6) not advice.

1) https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ED_096-xmEk

2) https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/02/us/politics/trump-iran-st...

3) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...

4) https://defensescoop.com/2026/06/23/pentagon-workforce-cuts-...

5)

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/politics/trump-iran-wa...

https://www.poynter.org/commentary/2026/nyt-haberman-swan-le...

and also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48708072

6) https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/vibes-over-intel-white-house...

[rayiner]

Thank you for the sources. The NYT article citing the Maggie Haberman book is reporting that Trump was warned protecting the strait would be difficult. I will have to read her book on this, because it’s unclear who was part of this “inner circle” who delivered this warning. Was it the military? Or was it the known Iran skeptics like Vance?