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?)

I suspect China will, if it hasn't already, prefer to cut its own deal with Iran to get its vessels through.

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.

Anyone who thinks that the US and China have not been in regular communication with each other as the conflict has been going on is a bit naive ,I would suggest.

I agree, but I'd contend the tone of their interactions are less than cordial.

See, if they'd taken my advice in 2023 at #687, they'd be at least 2 miles in by now.....:E

Some light relief
 

Saw this and thought of your post…
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....5b8f2f6e1.jpeg

BV

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

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

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.

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.

The Salman Canal

https://www.trasportoeuropa.it/engli...d-war-in-iran/

https://gulfnews.com/world/gulf/saud...rmuz-1.1581884

ORAC, I note the date of that link being September 15, 2018 | 19:02

Did that idea ever get funding, or traction?

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.

Given that it would require locks, wouldn't disabling one lock stop operations? Disabling one laden tanker in the right place would also be a tricky problem to solve, as seen in the Suez Canal.

It rears it head every time there is a problem in the Gulf of Hormuz.

The first link is dated the 3rd of March this year, for example, just a week ago.

16 according to Sky News this evening. Over half were shadow fleet...

Thanks for the really well informed reply, greatly appreciated.

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.

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