Iran
Joined: Mar 2008
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 1,811
Likes: 214
From: London
Speculating on how the US military could secure the Straights, one assumes the surface threat from any remaining naval vessels or skiffs etc would be relatively easily dealt with from the air with likes of Predator, Apache, fast air etc. Drones would be a little more problematic given their size and ease of launch; one would imagine every building in Bander Abbas and beyond could be abase to store & potentially launch them (is the US planning to level the city?). Ballistic missiles I would contend are less of a threat unless they have some form of terminal guidance, which someone here has reported that some do. Given the relatively narrowness of the passageway artillery (tube & rocket) could also pose a problem, but unless the Iranians are super-adept at shoot & scoot this could again be dealt with from the air with relative ease.
The big threat I see is anything subsea, be it mines or UUVs. Sure, the USN could send minesweepers into the sea-way to clear a passage however these would be a prime target for the Iranians.
(Sort of related question: does anyone know if any US or western warships have transited the Straights since hostilities began, also are any still present in the Persian Gulf?)
The big threat I see is anything subsea, be it mines or UUVs. Sure, the USN could send minesweepers into the sea-way to clear a passage however these would be a prime target for the Iranians.
(Sort of related question: does anyone know if any US or western warships have transited the Straights since hostilities began, also are any still present in the Persian Gulf?)
Joined: Mar 2008
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 1,811
Likes: 214
From: London
Actually if I were Xi I'd be sorely tempted to offer to escort all vessels through the straights, in exchange for the US & Israel publicly agreeing to cease all hostilities against their partner state, and for the US to withdraw their "provocative" naval forces from the Gulf.
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 494
Likes: 48
From: UK
Joined: Jul 2003
Aviation Qualifications: Military (Retired)
Posts: 2,688
Likes: 1,522
From: Near the coast
Joined: Sep 2004
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL(H)
Posts: 2,371
Likes: 877
From: Canada
Good one Bob Viking
Hilarious.
I am reminded I once read of a demented proposal made at the beginning of the Atomic Age ( when all kinds of uses for atomic power were being proposed ) to use atomic explosions as digging tools to build a replacement for the Panama Canal.
Probably that idea wouldn’t fly here either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare
Hilarious.
I am reminded I once read of a demented proposal made at the beginning of the Atomic Age ( when all kinds of uses for atomic power were being proposed ) to use atomic explosions as digging tools to build a replacement for the Panama Canal.
Probably that idea wouldn’t fly here either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare
Last edited by albatross; 11th March 2026 at 18:45. Reason: Link added
Joined: Aug 2001
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 1,829
Likes: 165
From: se england
As has been pointed out arent those dark thins mountains ,I f there is away thru why not build a canal some miles north which would about halve the cost of the route shown without getting much nearer Iran . What more interesting is the impact of iran attacking not petro chemical facilites but de salination plants . There is literally no natural water in the UAE and other Gulf states-what are you going to do then
Joined: Sep 2015
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 663
Likes: 398
From: London
Locks are another option, albeit the tankers may require larger locks than those used in Panama. Quick look at a topo map and back-of-envelope calculation suggests around 108 locks should do the job; supplying them with water might not be completely straightforward.
Joined: Aug 2009
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 9,328
Likes: 2,175
From: Texas
Are the Dutch preparing to send anyone to the PG to support tankers, or, was this a long scheduled exercise for general air defense training?
Nice article on the UK MoD + Royal Netherlands Navy doing a Sharpshooter exercise (Hebrides Range) featuring HNLMS De Zeven Provinciën is here.
They would indeed, but I think they'll let him wrestle with this a while longer.
Over the past couple of days, saw some news that half a dozen ships bound for China have passed through the Strait already.
Nice article on the UK MoD + Royal Netherlands Navy doing a Sharpshooter exercise (Hebrides Range) featuring HNLMS De Zeven Provinciën is here.
Over the past couple of days, saw some news that half a dozen ships bound for China have passed through the Strait already.
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,509
Likes: 7,254
From: Peripatetic
Joined: Jun 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 4,087
Likes: 4,426
From: 3rd Rock, #29B
If the US are not going to launch a ground invasion to remove the regime then the US and Israel should target and destroy all regime oil infrastructure. No Iranian oil should be able to leave port again. If the regime is stopping everyone else shipping oil they should certainly not be able to ship their own oil. Also a total air and sea blockade of Iran. Are Iranian ports and airports still open? How about destroying the runways all port facilities. Are the US and Israel actually in this to win or just wasting time?!
Under the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, (1977) a lawful military objective is something that:
"makes an effective contribution to military action and whose destruction offers a definite military advantage". Weapons factories; Military bases; Fuel depots supplying the armed forces; Transport systems moving troops etc.
Classic interpretation: civilian economic infrastructure is not normally targetable.
The US DOD (DOW?) interprets the rule rather more broadly....
The US DOD Law of War Manual allows attacks on object that: sustain the enemy's ability to fight economically; generate revenue that funds the war effort; being war-sustaining targets. US doctrine cites: Oil production and export facilities; commodity production funding military operations; financial assets used to pay armed forces. Under the US DOD logic, oil infrastructure funding a state's military budget can be lawful targets.
So, as the US has a particular way of looking at international law, within its ranks, it is possible to wipe out Iran's oil program. The problem is not permissive action, it is the consequences of such action, and that would be a massive response in the oil markets that would cause impressive spikes at the ballot box (gas pumps). The environmental damage would be impressive, there is not much historical evidence that Iran would not respond wherever, and however it could so it would be open season for all infrastructure in the US, and it's allies, and those allies are likely to rapidly reduce, the gulf states may not be so keep on being on the front line of the environmental, and economic disaster that would ensue.
Hormuz can bottle up 20% of the global oil supply, and circumventing that adds new bottle necks, and comes with really interesting force and facility protection issues. Take out 20% of the oil supply, and the cost to the global economy would be popcorn ready stuff.
So cash is king. The ICRC and ENMOD would come into play with a destruction of Iran's oil production systems, and Saddam would be replaced from the list of most impressive environmental vandals in history, but it is the implosion of the US economy which is still fairly dependent on oil and cheap oil at that, which would be the cause of any pause. Iran targeting one or two VLCCs and the occasional CNG/LNG boat is just as self destructive, not a great way of winning friends and influencing allies.
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 137
Likes: 142
From: Europe
“The highest altitude on the Saudi side will be 300 metres above sea level, but in Yemen or Oman, some sites will be 700 metres high,” he said.
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,509
Likes: 7,254
From: Peripatetic
Did that idea ever get funding, or traction?
The first link is dated the 3rd of March this year, for example, just a week ago.
Joined: Mar 2008
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 1,811
Likes: 214
From: London
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 478
Likes: 16
From: Out and about
As entertaining as that may be, it would come perilously close to being a war crime. If its oil supplies for their own military, that would be a legitimate target. There is a disagreement between the US and pretty much every other group as to what constitutes fair game.
Under the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, (1977) a lawful military objective is something that:
"makes an effective contribution to military action and whose destruction offers a definite military advantage". Weapons factories; Military bases; Fuel depots supplying the armed forces; Transport systems moving troops etc.
Classic interpretation: civilian economic infrastructure is not normally targetable.
The US DOD (DOW?) interprets the rule rather more broadly....
The US DOD Law of War Manual allows attacks on object that: sustain the enemy's ability to fight economically; generate revenue that funds the war effort; being war-sustaining targets. US doctrine cites: Oil production and export facilities; commodity production funding military operations; financial assets used to pay armed forces. Under the US DOD logic, oil infrastructure funding a state's military budget can be lawful targets.
So, as the US has a particular way of looking at international law, within its ranks, it is possible to wipe out Iran's oil program. The problem is not permissive action, it is the consequences of such action, and that would be a massive response in the oil markets that would cause impressive spikes at the ballot box (gas pumps). The environmental damage would be impressive, there is not much historical evidence that Iran would not respond wherever, and however it could so it would be open season for all infrastructure in the US, and it's allies, and those allies are likely to rapidly reduce, the gulf states may not be so keep on being on the front line of the environmental, and economic disaster that would ensue.
Hormuz can bottle up 20% of the global oil supply, and circumventing that adds new bottle necks, and comes with really interesting force and facility protection issues. Take out 20% of the oil supply, and the cost to the global economy would be popcorn ready stuff.
So cash is king. The ICRC and ENMOD would come into play with a destruction of Iran's oil production systems, and Saddam would be replaced from the list of most impressive environmental vandals in history, but it is the implosion of the US economy which is still fairly dependent on oil and cheap oil at that, which would be the cause of any pause. Iran targeting one or two VLCCs and the occasional CNG/LNG boat is just as self destructive, not a great way of winning friends and influencing allies.
Under the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, (1977) a lawful military objective is something that:
"makes an effective contribution to military action and whose destruction offers a definite military advantage". Weapons factories; Military bases; Fuel depots supplying the armed forces; Transport systems moving troops etc.
Classic interpretation: civilian economic infrastructure is not normally targetable.
The US DOD (DOW?) interprets the rule rather more broadly....
The US DOD Law of War Manual allows attacks on object that: sustain the enemy's ability to fight economically; generate revenue that funds the war effort; being war-sustaining targets. US doctrine cites: Oil production and export facilities; commodity production funding military operations; financial assets used to pay armed forces. Under the US DOD logic, oil infrastructure funding a state's military budget can be lawful targets.
So, as the US has a particular way of looking at international law, within its ranks, it is possible to wipe out Iran's oil program. The problem is not permissive action, it is the consequences of such action, and that would be a massive response in the oil markets that would cause impressive spikes at the ballot box (gas pumps). The environmental damage would be impressive, there is not much historical evidence that Iran would not respond wherever, and however it could so it would be open season for all infrastructure in the US, and it's allies, and those allies are likely to rapidly reduce, the gulf states may not be so keep on being on the front line of the environmental, and economic disaster that would ensue.
Hormuz can bottle up 20% of the global oil supply, and circumventing that adds new bottle necks, and comes with really interesting force and facility protection issues. Take out 20% of the oil supply, and the cost to the global economy would be popcorn ready stuff.
So cash is king. The ICRC and ENMOD would come into play with a destruction of Iran's oil production systems, and Saddam would be replaced from the list of most impressive environmental vandals in history, but it is the implosion of the US economy which is still fairly dependent on oil and cheap oil at that, which would be the cause of any pause. Iran targeting one or two VLCCs and the occasional CNG/LNG boat is just as self destructive, not a great way of winning friends and influencing allies.
Just seems mad that the regime can continue making money with oil sales while preventing anyone else from doing so. I think to win this the US and Israel need to be far more ruthless on the regime.
Joined: Jul 2003
Aviation Qualifications: Military (Retired)
Posts: 2,688
Likes: 1,522
From: Near the coast
PG canal
I can’t seriously believe anyone thinks it’s a good idea.
If Iran can block the Strait, it would only take an extra 0.01% effort to also block any canal entrance.
BV
If Iran can block the Strait, it would only take an extra 0.01% effort to also block any canal entrance.
BV
Last edited by Bob Viking; 11th March 2026 at 20:08.
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,509
Likes: 7,254
From: Peripatetic
Earlier today Iranian drones struck Oman’s largest oil storage facilities at the Port of Salalah in Oman.
Video
Video
Video
Video
View from a cargo ship at the Omani port of Salalah this evening, surrounded by burning port facilities after an Iranian drone strike
.