Tuesday, March 3, 2026

This Is Why You Don’t Depend On Allies

ComNavOps has repeatedly criticized our cross training efforts with allies as being pointless and because allies cannot be counted on when need arises.  Why train with someone you can’t count on?  Here’s the latest examples from the US strikes against Iran.
 
First up is Spain.  You’ll recall that it was Spain that abandoned the US by pulling an escort ship from the USS Lincoln carrier task force in 2019 during a threat from Iran (see, “This Is Why You Don’t Train WithAllies”).  This followed several months of training so that the Spanish ship would be qualified to join the task force for a deployment.
 
Spanish authorities have confirmed that they are not allowing U.S. forces to use bases in the country to support continuing strikes on Iran.[1]
 
Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares said Spain would not allow its military bases, which are jointly operated by the U.S. and Spain but under Spanish sovereignty, to be used for attacks on Iran, which Spain has condemned.[1]
 
What started as possible move of around half a dozen [Air Force] tankers from Spain to Ramstein Airbase in Germany, now appears to be a full-on withdrawal of the entire tanker fleet from Moron Airbase (LEMO) and Naval Air Station Rota (LERT) … [1]

Hey, Spain, I assume the refund for the US’ portion of the joint operating costs is in the mail?
 
 
Even America’s stalwart ally, the UK, got in on the ‘abandon your allies’ act by denying the US operating rights from bases.
 
The United Kingdom has reportedly refused U.S. requests to utilize key military facilities—RAF Fairford in England and the joint U.S.-U.K. base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean—for any potential strikes against Iran.[2]
 
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has withheld permission for American forces to operate from these bases in support of preemptive or offensive actions against Iran.[2]

I wonder what other countries denied us assistance?
 
Don’t get me wrong.  I fully acknowledge that every country has their own agendas and the right to independently pursue those agendas but this emphatically emphasizes why you don’t waste time cross training with supposed allies and you damn sure don’t contribute money to their bases or assets.  If some country wants to cross train with us or wants us to base forces in their country then they can pay the entire cost.
 
To paraphrase … With Allies like these, who needs enemies?
 
 
 
_______________________________
 
[1]The War Zone website, “War With Iran Now In Its Third Day”, Joseph Trevithick, Thomas Newdick, Howard Altman, 2-Mar-2026,
https://www.twz.com/news-features/war-with-iran-now-in-its-third-day
 
[2]Armed Forces Press website, “UK Denies American Use Of Diego Garcia And RAF Fairford For Iran Attacks”, L Todd Wood, 20-Feb-2026,
https://armedforces.press/foreign-policy/2026/02/20/uk-denies-american-use-of-diego-garcia-and-raf-fairford-for-iran-attacks/ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by at
Labels: , , ,

49 comments:

  1. AnonymousMarch 3, 2026 at 12:31 PM

    Maybe it's because the allies don't agree with attacking Iran when you have no idea what the outcome will be! The whole idea of training with NATO allies is for joint defence as per charter. Training with non NATO allies such as Australia is because of mutual interest in countering Chinese aggression.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsMarch 3, 2026 at 12:54 PM

      "no idea what the outcome will be!"

      Surely you can't be serious to suggest that there was even the slightest doubt about the immediate tactical outcome? No one would be foolish enough to suggest that, would they? Certainly you wouldn't.

      "NATO"

      There is no purpose for NATO, any longer, therefore there is no point to training with NATO partners other than "mutual interest" and, since even that can't be counted on, there is simply no point to cross training.

      Delete
    2. ComNavOpsMarch 3, 2026 at 1:03 PM

      "Maybe it's because the allies don't agree with attacking Iran"

      And that might explain why a supposed ally would refrain from actively contributing offensive assets but denying us the ability to simply operate from a base is extreme. You bend over backward to help an ally and allowing an ally to take off from a base is hardly bending over backward.

      Spain seems to be particularly unreliable. We should terminate any involvement with them.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousMarch 3, 2026 at 1:57 PM

      "There is no purpose for NATO, any longer,"

      Wait a second.....are you implying that 450 million Europeans shouldn't need 330 million Americans to protect them from 150 million Russians?

      Lutefisk

      Delete
    4. AnonymousMarch 4, 2026 at 9:00 AM

      450 million 'wealthy' Europeans at that. Moreover, 450 million Europeans that run a ~$260 Billion USD annual trade deficit with the USA. We need to withdraw our troops from continental Europe ASAP.

      GAB

      Delete
    5. AnonymousMarch 4, 2026 at 9:06 AM

      On Australia: they have consistently reduced their the size of their armed forces, while expecting the USA to defend them - not such great 'allies' after all. At least they are wonderful people. I would argue that the Japanese are currently the best and most reliable ally that the USA has.

      GAB

      Delete
    6. AnonymousMarch 8, 2026 at 8:23 AM

      "Wait a second.....are you implying that 450 million Europeans shouldn't need 330 million Americans to protect them from 150 million Russians?"

      Lutefisk ask yourself, who is going to lead the military of 450 million Europeans as commander in chief of all forces ? Brits ? French ? Germans ?

      Without US, Europe will turn into pockets of war-zone like it had been for last 500 years

      Delete
    7. ComNavOpsMarch 8, 2026 at 10:15 AM

      "Without US, Europe will turn into pockets of war-zone"

      That's absurd but if it were true and Europe is so infantile that they can't cooperate for mutual defense then they deserve their fate. And, if Europe is so infantile that they absolutely require the US to change their diapers and take care of them then we should impose a mandatory protection fee to pay for our services.

      The reality is that Europe has demonstrated that they are capable of cooperative actions (not always wise ones!) and do not need the US to hold their hands. Your view ignores post-WWII history and reality.

      Delete
    8. AnonymousMarch 9, 2026 at 5:10 PM

      "450 million 'wealthy' Europeans at that. Moreover, 450 million Europeans that run a ~$260 Billion USD annual trade deficit with the USA. We need to withdraw our troops from continental Europe ASAP.

      GAB"
      This is the way the victorious countries LED by the US set things up after WW2. US has the undisputed military leadership in the Democratic world while Europe pumps money into the US through US Bonds and other means - creating a trade deficit if you will but also a strong Currency allowing you to buy at a permanent discount to all other countries.

      Now, should the US wish to pursue a different strategy because circumstances have changed, that is perfectly doable, perhaps even desirable, but complaining about how things are shows a fundamental lack of understanding for postwar international relations.
      (Not directed at you per se, GAB)

      Delete
    9. AnonymousMarch 11, 2026 at 4:09 PM

      @anon: There is no misunderstanding. Europeans, particularly Germany and the UK, shouldered a huge part of NATO defense during the cold war. Europe made a conscious decision de-militarize at the end of the cold-war; later to de-industrialize. Every U.S. administration, starting with Bill Clinton, has complained loudly and publicly about this, and Europeans have at best paid lip service. The wheel has turned; Europe now reaps the harvest of indifferent policy.

      Second, there are many, many advantages to having the world's reserve currency: there are also many disadvantages that are almost never considered.

      GAB

      Delete
    10. AnonymousMarch 13, 2026 at 10:19 PM

      The de-industrialization is certainly an effect of US policy with implicit military security guarantees given to those who buy American. Just look at the number of countries buying F35 in miniscule numbers. Only France and (to some degree) Sweden has managed to keep a military industry worth its salt.

      Did the European Nato countries spend too little on defense post cold war? Yes. I will not argue the opposite. But I will say that this is largely because the US has kept the command structure within NATO away from its allies rendering their forces largely useless unless under US command. The result being that European military forces had no real value for their own sake and the sensible policy would be to spend as little as possible on the military. This is - I believe - regrettable but in no way surprising or unpredictable.

      What happened in the past happened because of active policy. We might not like the result and we might want to change things for the future but blaming someone else is ignorant and unproductive. And that goes for both European and Americans.

      With regards to Currency discussion, I'm afraid we might be moving out of scope for this blog but essentially you are right. Obviously, the biggest challenge moving away from a strong dollar is that all the Bonds held by foreign entities will loose their value and it will be unattractive to finance US debt. Given the state of the Federal budget, this will be a challenge.

      Delete
    11. ComNavOpsMarch 14, 2026 at 7:05 AM

      "result being that European military forces had no real value for their own sake"

      This view demonstrates a complete failure to grasp what NATO was. NATO WAS THE VALUE for each country's military force and NATO existed FOR THE SAKE OF EACH COUNTRY. So, your premise is wrong. The value of each country's military force was supremely high because it ensured each country's survival through NATO.

      Setting NATO aside, each country's military had inherent value for more domestic concerns such as border security, surveillance, territorial waters protection, EEZ enforcement, doctrine/tactics development (which should be a constantly ongoing and evolving task!), etc.

      The decline in European military industry and force was lazy shortsightedness. The US fostered and propagated that laziness by remaining in NATO and Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union.

      Delete
    12. AnonymousMarch 14, 2026 at 7:56 AM

      "The decline in European military industry and force was lazy shortsightedness. The US fostered and propagated that laziness by remaining in NATO and Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union."

      Precisely, a military alliance based on common 'military interests' is a great thing, as was NATO, but the collapse of the USSR eliminated that 'common military interest' and NATO should have died with the considerable respect it deserved. Arguably, NATO should have ended as soon as the German economy revived, but that is beyond this discussion.

      GAB

      Delete
    13. AnonymousMarch 14, 2026 at 4:45 PM

      "The US fostered and propagated that laziness..."

      My point exactly. Although I don't believe it depended on the binary issue of US NATO Membership alone.
      Ä

      Delete
  2. ComNavOpsMarch 3, 2026 at 3:09 PM

    "While you rush"

    Comment deleted. As I said - and you ignored - we're not going to discuss the politics of the Iran attacks, only the military aspects.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousMarch 4, 2026 at 4:55 AM

    This is why we need to take Greenland. Greenland is a strategic chokepoint, the control of which is necessary to secure our nation's safety. We can't just leave it to Denmark and hope for the best.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsMarch 4, 2026 at 8:45 AM

      As I understand it, we already have pretty much unlimited rights to military basing in Greenland via the 1951 mutual defense treaty with Denmark. That would seem to eliminate any need to "take" Greenland. During the Cold War, we had a dozen or more bases in Greenland and tens of thousands of troops. We can reinstitute that at any time.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMarch 4, 2026 at 9:02 AM

      Legitimising China to take Taiwan seems extremely unwise (they have a far stronger claim if you're justifying such outrageous actions on the grounds of security).

      Reality indicates there is no threat: American personnel numbers in Greenland have been consistently low during the past decade. 40 times lower than in the past, despite having full permission to base as many as they like there. Threatening good allies like Denmark puts these US-advantageous arrangements at risk and only serves to weaken alliances and everyone's security.

      China is not going to invade Article 5-protected land, and they couldn't hope to hold any of it with a 4000-5000 mile logistics trail.

      Delete
    3. ComNavOpsMarch 4, 2026 at 11:14 AM

      "China is not going to invade Article 5-protected land"

      Of course they would, if they saw an advantage. That aside, no one has suggested that China has even remotely considered Greenland so I have no idea where that thought comes from, assuming that's what you mean.

      Delete
  4. AnonymousMarch 4, 2026 at 9:23 AM

    I don't think there's a reason to go to extremes either way here. The choices are not "never work with our allies" or "always work with allies." There are times when the benefits of allied coordination and agreements (e.g., smoother operating relationships when we DO operate together, forward basing that allows us to be on scene quicker to an unforeseen event) might outweigh any potential limitations. I think the US has always understood that and has accepted the tradeoffs. It's not like it's ever stopped us from doing anything - it's not now - we work around it when we need to. I can't identify any instance we weren't prepared and able to go it alone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsMarch 4, 2026 at 11:26 AM

      You didn't read the post carefully, did you? I am not advocating not cooperating with allies or working with them. I'm advocating not wasting time, money, resources, and technology access on CROSS TRAINING with allies. Basing has nothing to do with training. Treaties and agreements have nothing to do with cross training.

      You failed to carefully read the post and, instead, immediately jumped into your own unrelated tirade.

      Read carefully.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMarch 4, 2026 at 6:05 PM

      I read your post and the replies to it.

      I was not attempting to rebut your point (and neither said nor implied that), but was offering an independent take on the topic.

      If unwelcome or unhelpful, feel free to delete it.

      Delete
    3. ComNavOpsMarch 5, 2026 at 6:29 AM

      "I can't identify any instance we weren't prepared and able to go it alone."

      ABLE to go it alone is not the point. The point is that our supposed allies' refusal to help puts us in a weaker position, increases mission and personal risk, and expends more resources and money. With that as the basis of reality, there is no logical point to investing in cross training especially when history shows very few instances of cross operations and, as best I can recall, no significant examples. Why train/spend for something that is unlikely and insignificant?

      Do you understand the difference between cross training and other forms of interaction which I have no particular objection to?

      Delete
  5. ComNavOpsMarch 4, 2026 at 11:24 AM

    "Why therefore have you written this particular article?"

    Comment deleted.

    I am now going to "lecture and berate" you for failing to read the post. The post does NOT address the politics of any current or former action. It merely notes the unreliability of allies as a reason to not waste time, money, and resources on cross training with allies. No more, no less. You failed read and grasp the post and instead jumped into your own political rant against the US. Hence, I deleted your comment for being a political commentary. Next time, read the post carefully.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousMarch 4, 2026 at 6:18 PM

    Fire and police departments from different jurisdictions in a region often will cross-train. They may never end up working together, but if they ever do, they benefit from having spent time working on their interoperability. I see cross-training with our naval allies similarly. We might not all end up working together in every instance. Fine. But the times we do, we will be more capable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsMarch 5, 2026 at 6:34 AM

      Your analogy is invalid. Cross training (whatever you mean by that) between neighboring municipalities involves the same people (not different countries) using the same methods for the exact same goals. In other words, potentially useful training. Cross training, as I've described it, between countries with different goals, different cultures, different peoples, different priorities, different equipment, different doctrine, different tactics, and near zero chance of ever "cross fighting" is a pointless waste of resources, time, and money.

      Consider how few actual training opportunities our military actually provides these days. It is totally illogical to waste it on cross training for something we'll never do.

      Delete
  7. AnonymousMarch 4, 2026 at 6:43 PM

    If you follow Commander Sal you’ll know he made a similar post today. Frankly, I’m mystified by all the hand wringing over this issue. To expect every country we’ve ever (trained with/provided mil assistance to/have base sharing/etc) to ride alongside us every time in every situation is wholly unrealistic and reflects an astonishing level of naivety. In the real world, governments (ours included) see the gains of such arrangements, over the long term, outweighing any drawbacks. I happen to agree. Clearly not all do, but I’m mystified by the underlying current of anger and betrayal that I sense in both this post and Sals. Did we really expect something else?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsMarch 5, 2026 at 6:43 AM

      " I’m mystified by all the hand wringing over this issue."

      Perhaps you should be asking why you've come to a conclusion opposite from experts?

      " ride alongside us"

      This indicates to me that you've failed to read the post and the linked post. "Alongside" is NOT the same as cross training. Alongside means fighting near each other but as separate, largely independent units. Cross training means fighting as integrated units. In our history, we've almost never done that and never to any significant degree, as best I can recall. For example, at Normandy, we had US, Canadian, and British units fighting alongside us but completely separate, independent units. Nothing wrong with that but it doesn't require cross training such as sending US Marine units to a UK carrier to train. That's pointless.

      Go back and re-read the post and linked post.

      "Did we really expect something else?"

      And, if we should have expected to be abandoned, as you imply, then it is utterly illogical to waste time, money, and resources cross training knowing there's a good chance we'll be abandoned. So, you're making my case for me.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMarch 5, 2026 at 7:22 AM

      "a conclusion opposite from experts?"

      Given that navies across the globe, after considering all the pro and cons of doing so, have actively sought out such cross-training for decades, I'd say the experts have spoken. It's the angst from the sidelines I don't understand.

      Delete
    3. ComNavOpsMarch 5, 2026 at 7:41 AM

      "navies across the globe, after considering all the pro and cons of doing so, have actively sought out such cross-training for decades,"

      You still don't grasp what cross training is, do you? Conducting joint training exercises is not cross training. That's just a PR exercise masquerading as training.
      Training another country's force is not cross training. Dissimilar training is not cross training.

      Cross training is sending US Marines to a UK carrier. Cross training is spending months integrating a Spanish frigate into a US carrier battle group. Cross training is sending US naval sailors/officers to UK ships. And so on.

      There is nothing wrong with fighting side by side, by independently. That's great! We did exactly that at Normandy. There's nothing wrong with exercising against another country's diesel sub. That's great.

      When we invest time, money, and resources into building, maintaining, and operating foreign bases and then are denied permission to use them in a time of need, that's insanity on our part. When we send personnel to another country to integrate with their forces and learn their ways when we are woefully incompetent with our own ways, that's insane. When we waste the precious few training hours we have budgeted on learning some other country's doctrine and tactics, that's irresponsible.

      Delete
  8. AnonymousMarch 5, 2026 at 3:37 AM

    As above, I believe training with others can be a good thing. In the same way training ONLY with others is a bad thing as they may be covering some skill or ability you don’t have and may need. The primary ability of the USN is to be able to do any task that is their responsibility on their own. (ie not defence tasks that either they USAF or Army have been given)
    BUT, for example working / training with the swedes / Germans with their conventional submarines on exercises trying to sink each other can only be beneficial. Also, I believe the UK sends some Jets to Red flag each year to compete. No one knows everything.
    As the author has stated having a carrier strike group who has a non US escort that goes “awol” when it gets tough is stupid. The carrier strike group should be 100% US self-sufficient. But that does not stop, for example a foreign navy replenishing a US navy ship with fuel at sea. Both will learn, there may be a language gap that needs to be got over etc…. But as it is peace time that doesn’t matter, if there is a US back up, it is all extra knowledge which may be useful in the future.
    Hopefully my ramblings make sense. Training with foreign militaries is NOT a replacement for training with your own, it is extra knowledge / abilities.
    Clive F

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsMarch 5, 2026 at 6:56 AM

      "for example working / training with the swedes / Germans with their conventional submarines"

      Training against other countries to gain dissimilar training is an excellent use of time, money, and resources and I've not only never spoken against it, I've called for more of it! Did you carefully read the post and the linked post? What I'm against is cross training where we mix units. Throughout our history, we've almost never fought with mixed units and not to any significant degree so why train for it?

      " it is all extra knowledge which may be useful in the future."

      And if we were masters of our own knowledge, I might be slightly swayed but that argument. However, given our demonstrably woeful lack of competence with our own weapons, doctrine (we don't have any), and tactics, how can we possibly justify spending time learning someone else's? That's insane!

      Delete
  9. ComNavOpsMarch 5, 2026 at 11:42 AM

    "My argument is not political but historical"

    Comment deleted. Your comment was purely political using current (Greenland, for example, which makes your own statement incorrect) and historical political criticisms and complaints. It was political whining and this is not a political blog. WE'RE NOT GOING TO DISCUSS POLITICS. This is a military/naval blog. Stick to the topics or don't comment.

    ReplyDelete
  10. AnonymousMarch 5, 2026 at 6:05 PM

    I post a comment (and you deleted it) based on your “ With Allies like these, who needs enemies?”, that we need China to talk some sense into Iran- not to close off strait of Hormuz and not blowing up Persian Gulf oil facilities, because we can’t stop Iran from doing both without massive boots on the ground. Furthermore, our E.Asian allies ( Japan/S.Korea/Taiwan) are 80-90% dependent on ME oil ( China is 45% ), this threat is existential. Without stable economies, there can’t be defense co-commitments from them in E. Asia, and this can happen in as soon as 3 months- when Taiwan runs out of its strategic oil reserve.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsMarch 5, 2026 at 7:05 PM

      I deleted your previous comment because it dipped into politics. This comment can stand ... barely. This is not a political blog. Politics are discussed only as they directly impact military matters. Tread cautiously.

      Iran will shortly have no ability to close anything or blow up anything. Their mine laying capability appears to have been completely neutralized and their drone/missile capability is rapidly being reduced.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMarch 6, 2026 at 7:05 AM

      "Iran will shortly have no ability to close anything or blow up anything. Their mine laying capability appears to have been completely neutralized and their drone/missile capability is rapidly being reduced."

      Would you be kind enough to pop up some references supporting this, because everything I'm seeing from serious sources suggests exactly the opposite. The sames to be some serious discussion about whether the US is successfully attriting the Iranian launcher capability, but no discussion at all about the Iranians running out of drones/missiles. Give me a few crews of skilled welders and fabricators and we can build launchers out the wazoo. Iran has those people in abundance.

      Delete
    3. ComNavOpsMarch 6, 2026 at 7:45 AM

      "Would you be kind enough to pop up some references supporting this"

      Since you can't see any of the overwhelming number of reports that suggest degradation of 90% of Iran's various capabilities (and more to come), I'll provide a couple references to get you started.

      https://www.foxnews.com/politics/operation-epic-fury-destroys-irans-navy-cuts-missile-attacks-90-ongoing-campaign?msockid=345224192a6e69750b8e33102b7a68ff

      https://asiatimes.com/2026/03/irans-missile-capability-is-significantly-degraded/

      As far as I know, there are no reports of even a single mine having been laid. I've only read about a single, aborted attack attempt on a merchant ship so the strait is open and will likely resume normal operations shortly.

      The US and Israel, in particular, have been targeting launchers with great success. And no, you and your buddy cannot build a launcher in an hour in the midst of a war, with no supplies, and command organization.

      Now, you and I both know that you didn't ask for references because you sincerely wanted to learn something. Instead, you're being an argumentative jackass who wants to deny reality to try to win a point. If you cannot, or will not, accept reality, please do not comment again unless you're willing to offer something constructive. Thank you. Have a good day.

      Delete
  11. AnonymousMarch 5, 2026 at 9:35 PM

    I just read that the Australian crewmen on the Minnesota ‘sat out’ the sinking of the Iranian frigate off Sri Lanka.
    Kinda weird imo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMarch 6, 2026 at 4:35 AM

      Do you have a reference link?

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMarch 6, 2026 at 7:13 AM

      "The prime minister has confirmed three Royal Australian Navy personnel were on board a US submarine that sank an Iranian warship earlier this week.

      But Anthony Albanese insisted they sat out the operation to sink the IRIS Dena, saying Australian military personnel did not "participate in any offensive action" against Iran.

      Iran war live updates: For the latest news on the Middle East crisis read our blog.

      The US fast-attack submarine sank the Iranian frigate off the coast of Sri Lanka, and as of yesterday Sri Lankan authorities said 87 bodies had so far been recovered, along with 32 survivors.

      The US has not identified the submarine, but some US military websites say it was the USS Minnesota, a Virginia-class submarine that rotated through HMAS Stirling near Perth last year.

      Dozens of Australian personnel have been rotating through placements on US fast-attack submarines based out of Pearl Harbour in preparation for Australia acquiring its own nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS agreement.

      Australian authorities had been unwilling to confirm reports that Australians were on board the submarine involved in the attack.

      The US military has released footage of a torpedo strike on an Iranian warship.

      But this morning, Mr Albanese told Sky News three Australians were on board.

      "We wouldn't normally confirm such an issue, but given our [National Security Committee] meetings and the public interest, I can confirm that there were three Australian personnel on board that vessel," he said.

      "I can confirm also, though, that no Australian personnel have participated in any offensive action against Iran."

      Mr Albanese said there were frameworks in place to ensure Australian personnel did not take part.

      "These are long-standing third-country arrangements that have been in place for a long period of time, and what they do is ensure that Australian Defence Force personnel, where they are embedded in third countries' defence assets, they act in accordance with Australian law, Australian policy, and that is, of course, taking place across the board.""

      Seems pretty definite. There was a bunch of Grrr-Grrr about Canadian Naval Officers being involved in planning the attack along with their US colleagues. That was shut down hard and fast by the Canadian Ministry of Defense. That would have been government-ending if it was found to be true.

      Delete
    3. ComNavOpsMarch 6, 2026 at 7:46 AM

      "Anthony Albanese"

      Well, that's disappointing and illustrates, yet again, why it's a waste of time, money, and resources to cross train with allies.

      Delete
  12. AnonymousMarch 6, 2026 at 9:53 AM

    The issues with Gulf oil and gas production are not just the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian attacks on Ras Tanura, the huge Saudi GOSP (Gas Oil Separation Plant), storage and shipping terminal on the coast in the Eastern Province have shut down operations there. Ras Laffan in Qatar is also down after drone attacks there. That is the enormous gas liquification plant that handles a large percentage of world LNG production. So even if the Strait is open, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsMarch 6, 2026 at 10:26 AM

      Good reminder. Thankfully, Iran's attack capability is diminishing by the minute.

      Delete
    2. TimMarch 6, 2026 at 1:08 PM

      I see at least 3 escalation tiers in Iran’s response,
      1. Self-transit stoppage: so far Iran hasn’t explicitly blocked the strait. Instead, through sample tanker attacks with its implicit warnings, insurance companies have refused war coverage. This is where we at now.
      2. General attacks on tankers but not on-shore oil production facilities. Though there are sample attacks on on-shore facilities, their purpose seems to be to: “ I can get you” and to empty GCC’s missile interceptors. The world economies can still recover from this.
      3. General attacks on the oil production facilities which will result in Iran’s own oil facilities destruction. The world economies will crash, more so with E. Asia economies, and Taiwan’s in particular. Our goal, directly or indirectly, maybe to isolate China’s from its so-called “allies”, but instead we’re subjecting our allies (Japan/Korea/ Taiwan) to economic ruination. China will get hurt, but it’ll be in a position to take an economic ruined Taiwan without warfare.
      ComNavOps inferred “we’ll degrade Irans capabilities in due time”. True, but Iran will escalate before it can’t anymore. There are only finite amounts of tankers, and only one chance of (saving) oil production facilities, and there are a lot more of Iranian missiles/drones and whatnot to go.
      Of course, to speed up Iran’s armament destruction and saved Persian gulf oil facilities, we can ( or Israel can if they’re willing to take the heat) always go massive nukes.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousMarch 6, 2026 at 3:47 PM

      I understand what you're saying, but I'm not 100% sure I agree. Onshore facilities, particularly those involved in processing for shipment, and the actual shipping facilities are getting hammered. To the point a large number, as in 80% are offline.

      https://www.youtube.com/live/0eEFS75Z6pY?si=54icZh4dmXX84pnl

      https://www.youtube.com/live/y_jALjcNodU?si=kXwcePs5jPl0HIrL

      These are a couple of very good links that are largely self explanatory. I'm not going to dig deeply into them, they are largely self explanatory.

      If you want to dig deeper into this, take a look at Danny Davis Deep Dives and Dialogue Matters. The best guests are Col Wilkerson, Scott Ritter, Larry Johnson from the CIA and just about anyone else they have on those two channels.

      Enjoy!!

      Delete
    4. TimMarch 6, 2026 at 9:28 PM

      Yeah..just saw the piece Daniel Davis w/ Scott Ritter. 450kg of 60% uranium unaccounted for (if enriched to 90%, enough for 10 Hiroshima bombs). Boots-on-the ground or many mushrooms, What’ll it be? Not enjoy this !

      Delete
    5. ComNavOpsMarch 7, 2026 at 10:10 AM

      @Tim, your predictions have not materialized to any significant extent. I'm only aware of a few reported attacks on tankers and those happened in the first day or two. There have been none, that I'm aware of in the last 48 hrs. There has been no general attack on regional oil production facilities. There was an initial wave of Iranian missile attacks against a variety of targets but those have sharply tapered off and Iran has now stated that it will not attack neighboring countries that do not directly attack Iran.

      Iran is being quickly and systematically beaten down and rendered impotent.

      Delete
    6. TimMarch 7, 2026 at 12:39 PM

      “ Iran has now stated that it will not attack neighboring countries that do not directly attack Iran. “
      That means: no attacks originating from GCC including their bases for our military. That will be a long term strategic disaster- if we can’t effect regime change and eventually Iran reconstitutes, GCC will re-consider the purpose of hosting our military.
      This war is still young, I’m afraid we’re already starting the diminishing return phase with conventional air attacks, and it doesn’t look like anytime soon the Hormuz strait will reopen, that’s the bottom line.

      Delete
    7. ComNavOpsMarch 7, 2026 at 5:28 PM

      "no attacks originating from GCC including their bases for our military."

      My goodness, you need to take a deep breath and steady your nerves! What Iran has stated is not a binding agreement. It does not restrict the US or GCC from taking action. Frankly, at this point, the statement does not even appear to be official or binding within Iran!

      "if we can’t effect regime change and eventually Iran reconstitutes"

      Yes, that would be a significant failure but I see that as extremely unlikely unless we lose our determination.

      "I’m afraid we’re already starting the diminishing return phase"

      Yes, we're seeing a diminishing number of worthwhile targets, perhaps but not a diminishing effectiveness of our attacks.

      "doesn’t look like anytime soon the Hormuz strait will reopen"

      First, the strait has not been closed. Yes, shippers have wisely opted to re-route for the time being but that's just temporary and shipping can resume as soon as the perceived risk lessens (the real risk is already near zero).

      Second, you seem to have some sort of panicky sense of time. If it takes, say, a month or two for normal shipping to resume ... who cares? That's insignificant in the long term. A year from now, no one will remember or care how long it took normal shipping to resume.

      You should try to calm yourself.

      Delete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)