Pakistan have provided "security" to Saudi in the past - IIRC there were stories of about 10,000 troops moved to the Kingdom about 10 years ago in a spell of tension.

AS for Nuclear weapons I'm sure that the fate of of Libya, Ukraine and now Iran means htat nyone who can will be going flat out to get a weapon. I'd see it as my duty if I was in any medium sized power that might cross the USA, China or Russia

True. I had heard that within the last week or so some Pakistani military folks were deployed to Saudi in response to some of the attacks from Iran...will check on details later.
Plan. There may or may not be one. {I guess from the report that they did in deed turn around}
Hmm, the blockade isn't a bluff, but I don't think the last card has been played yet. I expect an Iranian response soon...but I will bet on something asymmetric.

For those of you who think that the blockade isn't working...well, here is a bit from Newsweek.... As with any blockade, one can expect a few blockade running attempts. Ops like this are a time, manpower, and resource drain over the long term.
Might want to sit back and watch it develop...at 15 knots.

OK, I took a look at the deployment to Saudi Arabia from Pakistan: I'll need to find more info from regional experts to see if this is aimed at Iran, or at most a piece of 'signalling' to Iran.
Gut feeling: since Pakistan has tried to play honest broker in getting a cease fire agreed to between Iran and the US, I don't think that their deployment is directed at Iran.

Hangarless: if that estimate is accurate, the supply/demand case in CONUS is going to feel its impact which may do harm to such public support for the war with Iran as currently exists.

Could be bulking up for a coming Sunni Shia disagreement.

LW, "honest broker" is a stretch for the Paks.

When I worked that part of the world I was told once by my boss: "When an Indian gets up in the morning, he will lie to you. When a Pakistani gets up in the morning, he will lie to himself."

​​​​​​​ Read it as,
victory for away team* clean sheet, red card for host, and easily defendable 2 nil for possible second round.
Referee was corrrect, although VAR room may need some technical improvment.
All in all, nice Sunday matinee match.. Holiday for families and working class.
:E

-
* Vatican

Most likely money KSA and PAK announced a defence agreement last year, part of it was 3 billion loan to pak. Spokesman from from KSA said initially they were disappointed with PAK lack of response when they were attacked. Both attempting to negoiate some agreement and deployment of troops look to be a response to that

Per LW:

What does the blockading country do if a vessel refuses to stop? Do they fire on them, a shot across the bow? They're certainly not going to sink them. Do they place a ship in front of them and dare the runner to ram? That would be a big game of chicken if it were a Chinese vessel.....

I don't quite understand why this would be reported in Oz newspapers for 6 hours now, but no mention in PPR.
Has it not hit the U.S. / U.K. newsstands yet?

I know about time difference but but there are still comments (above) from long after this came out that seem oblivious to this snip.


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....688b1e9429.png

Imagine the ships would then be boarded by the US military.

Well, that's really my question. If the U.S. military stopped and boarded a Chinese vessel in international waters how would the Chinese react? Not happily I would suspect, especially if WingNut60's post above is accurate.

From The Hill about 12 hours ago https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...it-china-iran/

Consistently confusing or confusingly consistent

The fog of war seems to have permanently settled on the decision makers on the Western Atlantic side of the conflict.

Whether the blockade can be said to be "working" rather depends upon ones criterion for success.

In the trivial sense that the US Navy can turn around shipping that comes from, or is bound for, Iranian ports, of course the blockade is working, and I doubt many people expected otherwise - The US Navy is a fearsome adversary even for other navies, and certainly no lone commercial vessel is likely to challenge it.

But in the broader sense, the blockade is "working" only if the turning around of Iranian shipping is a step along a plausible path to the achievement of US strategic goals in the Gulf; And it remains unclear what those goals might be.

Regime Change seems an unlikely consequence of the blockade. Iran giving up her nuclear weapons program, and/or handing over her stocks of enriched uranium, likewise seems doubtful.

Even the re-opening of the Strait to all maritime traffic, seems to be in no obvious way made more likely by this blockade.

So, "is the blockade working?" is a tricky question, and the answer seems to be a superficial "yes", glossing over a more fundamental "no".

But again, it depends on what the strategic goals of the blockade are, and I am increasingly convinced that nobody in the Whitehouse knows. Which is something of an insult to the brave US sailors in theatre, who are doing a fine job of meeting their tactical objectives, and of carrying out their orders, despite a lack of strategic guidance from their CinC.

An Iranian academic interviewed on BBC Radio 4 last night, was asked if he thought that Iran would loose control of the Straights once an agreement was reached. He simply said "No" then went on to say that now they will definately keep control of it.

The warning shot might be followed by a disabling shot. There may be boarding parties sent over as well. Depends on the operation. I do not expect to see a filled tanker sunk as a part of this operation.
Yes, that is what has happened before.
I guess that we are about to find out. As you say, 'not happily' is a likely response.

As to evading the blockade: it appears that this is already a thing... This is similar to what happened with Iraqi oil embargo in the 1990's.

DOW Press Briefing with SecWar, Chairman JCS & Commander CENTOM - 16 Apr 26

I did see a report quoting the CentCom "press release" stating "Iranian ports" , which said it ( CentCom) was finessing Trump's words and would therefore not interdict any non-Iranian ship which left Iran and then subsequently stopped at another port before passing the blockade. It will be interesting to see if that is an accurate interpretation.

The mixed messaging does seem to be consistent, which leaves me at a loss when looking from the outside. It may make perfect sense to those who are engaged in this operation.
I'll give it a few more days and see if becomes clearer.

A really good Middle-East podcast with up to date analysis here: both free to air and subscription for a deeper dive:

https://messageheard.com/podcasts/conflicted

The latest edition looks at the blockade.

Sadly it would seem the US is reduced to binary choice, go big or go home. Cut off Iranian oil exports until the regime runs out of money to pay their internal enforcers, and they take Trumps 10 points to save their skins, or take some fig leaf deal with a Iran's "promise" not to enrich their uranium for 5 years and some BS accommodation on shared control of the Strait of Hormuz. Going big means having the strait closed for an estimated 8 to 12 months with the attendant global economic hit, going home soon means a forever diminished US.

When I went to Staff College the module on the Operational Planning Process emphasized the importance of carefully defining the aim of Campaign, as every decision after that would be influenced by the aim statement. There was also a lot of discussion over defining the enemies likely course of action as well as their most dangerous course of action. It would seem that the Gulf War 3 plan had no actual aim statement and no plan to deal with Iran's most dangerous course of action. This is an epic level of failure.

The second Gulf war was a master class in campaign planning, the third Gulf war will go down in history as a case study in how not to wage a war.

For going big there is not enough interceptors and the impact on the Gulf states' Infrastructure and thus the World Economy for several Years to come will be too big. Declare great Victory and Go home will effectively be the only viable choice.
Europe + China should then try to open the Strait in an alignment but also clear stance (no permanent toll booth) to Iran. That's the optimistic scenario.

If - as seems to be the general consensus around here - the US Navy can't keep the Strait open, what makes you think Europe and China (with a fraction of the resources) would be able to?

Salute!

Excuse me, but in a typical press exposure today , the likes of which I have not seen tolerated from ANY COUNTRY HEAD OF STATE since my folks bought a TV in 1954 or so, the POTUS clearly answered the question of "aim" - "Iran will never have a nuclear weapon". He repeated that over two dozen times, maybe, because the press kept asking the same question over two dozen times concerning the Pope's view. They are stuck on stupid. Fer Chrissakes, does anyone wonder if POTUS would be satisfied if Iran had nukes?
Beam me up!

Gums sends...

Saddam pretended to have Nukes which he didn't actually have and got killed. Iran said they didn't want nukes but by enriching to 60% they remained within reach of nukes and their leaders got killed. The only "axis of evil" country from 20 odd years ago not to lose their leadership is North Korea...because they got nukes. I wonder if the events of the last few weeks will incentivise future despots to rush towards nuclear weapons ASAP for their own self preservation.

Israel being a Nuclear power in the region combined with them being the perennial instigator of wars will need to be counterbalanced in a lot of people's minds.

Having a nuke during the Cold War was a plus, indeed survival. As both sides had them, it was the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) which, if carried out, would have literally been mad. So nukes were good, and saved us.
But we don't need more proliferation. Commonsense - I'm with Trump, we don't want Iran armed with nukes.

Salute!
Interesting scenario, Una.
The world at large does not depend upon N. Korea for food, toys, oil , uhhh, uhhhh
It also is not a theocracy government that has vowed to "eliminate" those of other religious beliefs and practice, and .....
Gums sends...

Negotiations and not being party in this war. It won't be able by force.

Every now and then Lil Phat Wun or particularly his nutty sister threatens to wipe out a neighbour or even the US. The threat all those artillery pieces in NK pose to Seoul greatly exceed anything Iran could ever do to Tel Aviv.

Gaddafi and Assad both got the boot in one way or another and Assad in particular wasn't much of a threat. If anything it could be argued in hidsight the secular Baathists were keeping a lid on far worse actors in the region. Gaddafi had form getting bold things to terrorist organisations over a number of decades.

I realize I'm not in the majority here, but I believe the Navy, Air Force and Marines are quite capable of conducting the blockade. Perhaps not 100% water tight, so to speak (I am a Dad after all), but my hope is that the blockade can be selective, eventually enabling passage for friendly traffic. Can't say whether or when ship owners will wish to take the risk, though.

I would add GWI to the list of master classes.

​​​​​​​The self inflicted catastrophes in the first two and upcoming third "victories" is ample evidence of delusional planning.

While I tend to agree with you GlobalNav, the issue is that you have 2 blockades as discussed at the link in Post #5293. So, while the US can stop Iranian traffic and let other "friendlies" pass, effectively Iran can then threaten those "friendlies" if they try to run the Strait as you allude to at the end of your statement.

So we are no nearer a solution here tbh as the race is between the Iranian economy collapsing or the world economy collapsing (OK, maybe too strong a description but you see the idea).

I suspect Iran will keep a lid on things longer than the rest of us given the way they rule and, of course, I'm sure Russia will help out - for a price - via the Caspian. So quite a game of "brinkmanship" being played out with the world as unwitting participants.

Maybe that is the WH "plan" for now......... Saying they are "helping the world" while, actually, doing the opposite!

You appear to be casting aspersions on the stable genius' plans.

Moi? As if I would! :ok:

Anyway, the latest twist in the saga.................... "Iran foreign minister says Strait of Hormuz open for remainder of ceasefire" as per the BBC at 1408 BST Of course, what this means in practice is anyone's guess as a lot of shipping companies will be wondering no doubt. And is this linked to the recently announced truce in Lebanon? However, the US blockade still is "on". Who's saying what and to whom is anyone's guess particularly with places like China having rather vested interests in how this all pans out.

In GW2 the US Military was given the mission to defeat the Iraqi armed forces and occupy Iraq. 20 Day later they had defeated the 4 th largest army in the world with record low numbers of casualties and a remarkably low level of collateral damage. The fact that the US government did not have a realistic plan for the day after isn't a fault of military planning it is a failure of US foreign policy. In any case they were warned by the military planners about the weakness of the post conflict planning process.

Capable armed forces enhance national security only when led by capable and honorable national leadership.

Rant

Forgive me but lately spokespersons for certain governments have taken to using the term “Engaged Kinetically” instead of “We dropped a big ass bomb on them!”
The term just PO’s me …much too clean and clinical for what actually took place.
Especially when you know the “talking head” will be sipping champagne and nibbling on a #1 shrimp in palatial splendour with other 01% shortly after making the statement.
I assume a term designed to shelter the viewing public from the horrors of war being perpetrated in their name.
I come from the “A spade is a Fxxxxn Shovel” school of thought.

This statement is factually inaccurate . It was the UN that tasked the Coalition led by the USA. Many other nations took part. The subsequent "failure to win the peace" was also a joint effort.