> entire gulf is at risk. Iran can interdict and cause problems from almost anywhere

Sure, but its effect is far more dilute. In the Strait–in particular, around the Musandam Peninsula–it has unique geostrategic leverage.

▲

bluegatty 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

'matsup' is correct.

Iran only needs to score 'one point' to win the whole game.

If they can threaten tankers, then the gulf will remain closed, and that's that.

It's really debatable if the US really has the capability to play 'whack a mole' and get all the moles.

▲

matusp 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

However dilute the effect is, if they are able to hit a few gas/oil carriers with drones there, nobody is going to use that body of water.

▲

JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> if they are able to hit a few gas/oil carriers with drones there, nobody is going to use that body of water

It’s a lot more feasible to escort tankers after the Strait than it is before, when American warships have to come close to shore. Iran doesn’t have the resources to deny access to the entire Indian Ocean.

▲

ncruces 7 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

They meant the Gulf. You cross the straight into the Gulf, then what?

Iran hit an E-3's antenna in an airport in Riyadh with a precision strike. Was it not worth defending?

How many tankers inside the Gulf do they need to hit before the rest of the world decides it's a bad idea to send new tankers to the Gulf?

And if new tankers don't go into the Gulf, then it's simply not open for business. That's their leverage.

▲

ben_w 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Iran doesn’t have the resources to deny access to the entire Indian Ocean.

I have what may be a scale issue in my imagination, so bear with me if this is silly.

There are reports of international drug transport via seaborne drones in the 0.5-5 tonne range, and of these crossing the Pacific, and the cost of the vehicles is estimated to be around 2-4 million USD each. If drug dealers can do that, surely Iran (and basically everyone with a GDP at least the size of something like Andorra's) should be able to make credible threats to disrupt approximately as much non-military shipping as they want to worldwide?

▲

JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> if drug dealers can do that, surely Iran (and basically everyone with a GDP at least the size of something like Andorra's) should be able to make credible threats to disrupt approximately as much non-military shipping as they want to worldwide?

Sure. Do you think that means worldwide shipping would shut down?

And the point isn't to take the risk to zero. But to a level where military escorts can feel safe.

	▲	ben_w an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> Do you think that means worldwide shipping would shut down? I think there's a danger of that, at least if countermeasures are not easily available for normal shipping. Even 1-on-1 rather than 1-v-everyone, there's too many players (not all of them nations) with too many conflicting goals and interests. If Cuba tried to do it, could they credibly threaten to sink all sea-based trade involving the USA? If not Cuba, who would be the smallest nation that could? And the same applies to Taiwan and China, in both directions, either of which would be fairly dramatic on the world stage, even though China also has land options. Or North Korea putting up an effective anti-shipping blockade against Japan. > But to a level where military escorts can feel safe. Are there enough military ships to do the escorting?