IRAN, US, THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ. HOW WILL IT END?

         On an online forum where geopolitics and military analysis are debated (Moon of Alabama), I read a comment that seemed very convincing to me. I will rephrase it slightly, but keep the essence: 'Iran does not need a nuclear weapon. It already has one: the Strait of Hormuz.' Perfectly true. Control of the strait has proven to be a powerful weapon in the hands of the Iranian leadership.

The negotiations, or rather the attempts at negotiations between the US and Iran, have been ongoing since April 11. With no result. The US is trying to negotiate from a position of strength, but it lacks the necessary tools of force. Iran is also negotiating from a position of strength, but it has the strong argument: the nuclear weapon – the Strait of Hormuz. Of course, no agreement will be reached. The US cannot afford to give in, and Iran can afford to maintain the current status quo. The situation is like a fisherman who hooked a huge carp, but does not pull it to the shore because it is very big and risks breaking the line or even the rod. The carp thrashes in the water, but cannot afford to make a sudden escape because it will tear its lip. So, the fisherman keeps it hooked in the water, preferring to tire it out.  

Let's recap the events that led to the current situation. Blinded by recent successes (the fall of the Al-Assad regime in Syria and the military intervention in Venezuela that resulted in the arrest of President Maduro) and encouraged by severe internal unrest in Iran, the US and Israel decided on a direct military intervention to overthrow the ayatollah regime. It was a carefully prepared trap by geopolitical rivals, as I presented in a previous article, into which the US fell just like a carp on an experienced fisherman's hook. Those who planned the trap correctly evaluated that US forces would not be able to take control of the Strait of Hormuz by force. This was the core of the strategy designed against the US.

What followed? The internal riots did not have the expected effect. The direct US-Israel military intervention followed. Despite the devastating bombings, the killing of a large number of leaders, and the severe impact on the economy, Iran did not give in. On the contrary, the retaliation was devastating: American military bases heavily hit, Israeli territory bombarded, a large number of American and Israeli aircraft shot down or destroyed on the ground and, worst of all, the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and the imposition of conditions for crossing it. All of this forced the US and Israel to halt operations and seek a diplomatic solution. But the Iranian fisherman has no interest in this: the carp is on the hook, it can do nothing but thrash and tire out. In the end, it will give in. Or it will tear its lip. And the US tried a last resort: imposing a naval blockade in the Gulf of Oman, aiming to weaken the Iranian economy, which was already severely affected by the bombing campaign. But it has not worked. Pakistan opened land corridors, some of the ships with Iranian oil manage to run the blockade, and the Caspian Sea became an alternative route for part of the Iranian trade. The line tightens, the rod bends, but the fisherman holds firm.

There is only one theoretically viable solution for the US: taking the Strait of Hormuz by force. This would involve identifying and striking anti-ship and anti-aircraft missile batteries in the strait and adjacent areas, air and amphibious assaults on the islands in the strait and on the coast, and special forces raids supported by air forces deep into Iranian territory to prevent the intervention of Iranian forces. Forces and assets exist: aircraft carriers, destroyers, marines, assault ships, paratroopers, transport and attack helicopters, fighter and ground-support aircraft, missiles, drones, sensors. The most sophisticated reconnaissance-strike systems in the world. And the most famous special forces in the world: Navy SEALs, Green Berets, Delta Force. Of course, such an operation would result in casualties, as the Iranians will retaliate. But the US leadership has not resorted to this military operation, nor are there any signs of it, although, at one point, certain ships with marines on board were moving toward the Persian Gulf, from which it could be deduced that they would storm the strait. But that was all, they just moved.

The US can also resort to a less convenient but, at first glance, cheap solution: withdrawing from the area. They could claim victory over Iran, as there are arguments for this: many Iranian leaders killed, the Iranian economy severely affected, many military ships sunk, and a large number of military targets neutralized. However, a withdrawal from the area would cost the US a lot in the medium and long term. The Gulf monarchies would break their partnerships with the US and, quite likely, realign with the rival political camp (a strange aspect there; these monarchies, with the immense resources at their disposal, could have formed one of the most powerful military alliances in the world, thus gaining total independence). US control over global oil prices would end, and there would even be a risk of an anti-Israeli alliance forming. No, the US cannot withdraw from there. But staying also costs: the degradation of its own economy and that of its European strategic partners through rising oil prices, benefiting the economy of the Russian Federation, the risk of ongoing military losses and, last but not least, damage to its image. Because the entire world sees how the most powerful military machine in human history is unable to unblock a strait controlled by much more poorly equipped armed forces.

The carp will either end up in the fisherman's keepnet, or it will tear its lip. The US is not ready to give in. But they will have to. The current status quo will drag on, but it cannot last forever. They will withdraw from the Gulf region and, subsequently, from the Middle East. With the corresponding losses.