In my ongoing theme about the extremely questionable
usefulness of training with, and depending on, allies, we get this:
Any country that complains about increased oil prices has to explain why it won’t send military forces to ensure the uninterrupted flow of oil.
Any commentator who criticizes the US military for not
keeping the strait open and shipping moving has to explain why they aren’t also
asking why the affected countries aren’t providing military forces to ensure
the uninterrupted flow of oil.
Each country has their own agenda but when those agendas
frequently conflict with US interests, one has to wonder why we waste time,
money, and resources training with countries that we can’t rely on. Devoting resources to unreliable allies is
illogical in the extreme..
The US is once again shouldering the burden of protecting
the Middle East from terrorism, nuclear threats, and evil regimes with only
Israel to aid us. The rest of the world
is content to stand off and reap the benefits without offering any support.
Japan is bracing for potential gas shortages and increased
prices. Yeah? Where are their military forces ensuring the
safe passage of shipping through the strait?
Don’t complain if you’re not willing to do something about it.
This is entering into political commentary so I’ll leave it
at that.
_____________________________
President Donald Trump said Sunday that he has demanded about seven countries send warships to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, but his appeals have brought no commitments as oil prices soar during the Iran war.[1]
Any country that complains about increased oil prices has to explain why it won’t send military forces to ensure the uninterrupted flow of oil.
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-military/2026/03/16/trump-asks-about-7-countries-for-help-to-open-the-strait-of-hormuz/
No amount of money and funding will ever overcome an absence of strategy or preparation. Lack of allies is also a result of failing strategy and preparation.
ReplyDelete"Lack of allies is also a result of failing strategy and preparation."
DeleteNo. It's a result of differing agendas.
Do you have anything useful you'd like to contribute?
"the burden of protecting the Middle East from terrorism", "evil regimes" are political opinions. The US started the war and is responsible for all repercussions.
ReplyDeleteYour comment is childish and sophomoric in the extreme.
Delete"The US started the war"
That's a matter of definition. One could very well make the argument that Iran started the war by exporting terrorism, attacking shipping, pursuing nuclear weapons in defiance of agreements, pursing genocide of the Israelis, etc.
"responsible for all repercussions"
Iran is responsible for any negative consequences to itself because of its previous actions.
This is the end of this discussion as this is not a political or philosophical blog so don't even bother to respond. I'll delete it. You had your one say and I offered my one response. You've been warned.
The Strait of Hormuz has been a choke point for decades. This type of problem has occurred in the past. The current situation is just the most extreme example…..thus far. There is no solution to ensuring the continued flow of oil shipments through the Strait. The solution lies in not having to use the Strait at all for oil shipping. An oil pipeline system linking the oil production facilities of the gulf kingdoms through Oman to the Indian Ocean would circumvent the hold Iran holds on oil shipping. Saudi Arabia constructed an oil pipeline to the Red Sea to avoid oil shipments through the Straits. It can be done again through Oman to the Indian Ocean. Costly it would certainly be but arguably cheaper than permitting Irans continued blackmail. Thereafter, the Straits of Hormuz becomes Irans problem as it transports huge amounts of its oil to India and China through that area and as we know mines are an ever present threat in the tight passage.
ReplyDeleteUntil then we must pull together to solve the current issue and work to prevent Iran using this weak point in western commerce as a threat to peace in the region and wider. How naval vessels or aircraft can achieve a safe passage for vessels poses a particularly difficult problem as western forces have been designed to defeat high end sophisticated threats. The current most prevalent threat comes from much more crude weapons. Maybe a return to older, cruder weapons is the answer. Apache helicopters or small planes such as trainer type aircraft fitted with cannon to utilise gunfire to down drones. Ground based cannon around high value targets for sustained high volume fire. A radar direction system forming kill boxes in which attack helicopters are directed within their box onto targets. A system used in WW2 to great effect by the luftwaffe. Use drones over the straits to monitor and use to attack any and all small attack craft which could be used against shipping. We must use asymmetric methods to outmanoeuvre the Iranians wherever possible. We must utilise methods of protection and offense which are cheaper than the weapons being used by Iran. Make this hurt them financially and militarily. Bomb their oil pumping stations to cut their oil exports. Leave the vast majority of their production facilities intact but take out these vital components only. Do so step by step explaining how this will continue while they continue their actions and will continue until they stop. As it
You're describing steps that could have been taken in the past. At the moment, Iran has lost the ability to threaten the strait to any great extent. If the US follows through, Iran may permanently lose the ability to threaten and/or lose the political desire to do so (regime change). If the US fails to follow through then your suggestions become viable options once again.
DeleteRegarding a pipeline, recognize that it represents a significant vulnerability that could be easily blow up by a couple of saboteurs similar to the vulnerability of the pumping stations you identify but even more so.
All in all, a good comment. You analyzed the problem and offered solutions. Well done!
ComNavOps - do you think it would be possible to force the Strait of Hormuz and keep it open without first committing ground troops to seize and hold the North bank?
ReplyDeleteI’m referencing the Anglo-French attempt to force their way through the Dardanelles in WW1, and how difficult that was. (Not a very precise analogy I realize).
" possible to force the Strait of Hormuz and keep it open"
DeleteCertainly! It's open now. There is nothing preventing shipping from moving other than insurance fears. There are no confirmed reports of mines. Only a handful of ships have been hit and the damage has been quite minor. Reports today say that shipping is slowly resuming.
Returning to the more theoretical realm, yes, it's possible to keep a strait, any strait, open with the right application of force. Use extensive UAV and fixed wing assets to look for weapons and launchers and use ships to provide quick on-call gun support. Depending on the length of the strait, this could require a lot of assets but it's certainly possible.
Anything is possible with the right amount of force.
" you might want to read this opinion piece at gCaptain."
ReplyDeleteComment deleted. I don't mind links to articles as long as you add some value in the form of your own analysis or opinion or point out some particular aspect that is especially pertinent. If you'd like to add some value and repost, feel free.
Sounds like US allies are potentially 'hedging' their bets on playing by the rules set from the Axis of Resistance in the Middle East in case they have to even if it's not their "preferred outcome" whatever that is ...
ReplyDeleteAs an European, I think we have two interleaving themes here: political and military.
ReplyDeletePolitically, the current US admin has behaved in ways that could be depicted as adversarial, if not outright hostile, towards Europe, e.g. tariffs, Ukrainian conflict deprioritization and the Greenland diplomatic clash, just to mention a few.
Then, the military dimension i.e. the European NATO block kinda forgot how to do high intensity warfare.
Even after 4 years of horrific war in Ukraine, they are still addressing big military industrial manufacturing problems, like dealing with the big drone/missile threat that Russia poses and still slowly sip long range munitions to the single state that is basically enduring 100% of the pain.
So, we have trouble with a relatively weakened Russian Federation basically at our door, what do you think we can do in a far more distant geopolitical area? We did something against the Houtis, with Aspides, but I doubt the number of ship deployed was anything to be impressed.
On paper, we could probably muster a decent fleet and even air power, but for the munitions… yeah, big problem… I doubt how long a purely european naval force could operate in such a scenario… long past is the age of huge european navies able to project power across the entire seven seas.
Then, there again the political them again, i.e. NATO is a defensive focused entity and this current persian adventure was seen from day 1 as an aggression war act from US and Israel and is hard to sell with another one at our doorstep, plus the current and soon to be worse economic problems and we still remember the Iraq and Afghanistan disasters.
To sum it up, you are indeed right, your armed forces should train alone and who knows with this admin it might even happen, I guess we will see.
And yes, those that critique without acting are indeed to call out, but such is the intrinsic nature of politics.
"Politically, the current US admin has behaved"
DeleteThis is not a political blog but you have implied the (very real) connection between politics and military which is okay. Since you made your comment, I'll offer a rebuttal and that will be the end of the political discussion.
What you see as adversarial/hostile, we see as simply correcting years of built up inequities that have left us carrying European defense and trade burdens on our backs. There is a popular belief (by no means unanimous) that we should abandon the Strait of Hormuz since we don't depend on Middle East oil to any great extent (we are nearly energy independent, were not too long ago, and could be again with little effort) and leave the rest of the world to escort/protect their own shipping, if they care to. If not, tough luck. There are arguments for and against this approach. The prevailing sentiment in this approach is, if Europe doesn't want to help us ... screw 'em. Such is the intrinsic nature of politics.
"NATO"
This is emphatically not a NATO issue and neither Trump nor anyone else has suggested it is. That makes this purely a "help the person who helps you" issue. Nothing to do with NATO.
"military"
The sad state of European military forces gives rise to resentment in the US which again sees itself as being left holding the bag for Europe's defense while Europe does nothing to help itself let alone the US.
Alright, we've both had our say regarding the political aspect and that will be the end of that. Feel free to continue to comment on the military aspects.