Yves here. I have yet to see any independent media commentators assess this development. But I can’t see Iran backing down. Perhaps they intensify a neutral-looking way to establish more passive facts on the ground (or more accurately in the water) to block the Strait of Hormuz, as in mining, so that Iran does not have to shoot at Pakistan escort ships. Max Blumenthal discusses the possibility of mining the Strait of Hormuz starting at 10:00 which was apparently first publicized by the very-much Israel-captured CBS News. He sees this as a last-ditch move since clearing the mines Iran uses would be hard and Iran can keep insurers and shippers from taking changes by torching the occasional ship. See in the headline below with detail at
Note I am not at all keen about Mario Nawfal. I am impressed with how Blumenthal does not bat an eye in debunking his epic stoopid.
By Andrew Korybko, a Moscow-based American political analyst who specializes in the global systemic transition to multipolarity in the New Cold War. He has a PhD from MGIMO, which is under the umbrella of the Russian Foreign Ministry. Originally published at his website
Letting this unilateral escort mission continue unimpeded could lead to Pakistan forming the core of a multilateral mission for neutralizing Iran’s ace of closing the Strait of Hormuz, but stopping it risks expanding the war, so it’s unclear exactly what the IRGC will decide to do since neither option is ideal.
Pakistan announced the launch of Operation Muhafiz-ul-Bahr (“Protector of the Seas”) “to counter multidimensional threats to national shipping and maritime trade. The initiative has been undertaken to ensure the uninterrupted flow of national energy supplies and the security of Sea Lines of Communication (SLOCs). PN Escort operations are being conducted in close coordination with Pakistan National Shipping Corporation (PNSC)” The New York Times contextualized this mission in their report.
They reminded readers that “Pakistan imports most of its natural gas from Qatar and crude oil from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates”, which is no longer reliably exported due to the Third Gulf War. Nevertheless, “It was unclear if the deployment of Pakistani warships would be enough to prevent an oil supply crunch. Pakistan has less than two weeks left of crude oil reserves, and enough liquefied natural gas to last until the end of the month, according to the oil ministry.”
The Pakistan Navy’s regional escort mission puts Iran in a dilemma, however, since it considers Pakistan to be a friendly nation due to its reluctance to join the war in solidarity with its Saudi ally per September’s mutual defense pact but it’s also the US’ “Major Non-NATO Ally” too. Therefore, letting this unilateral escort mission continue unimpeded could lead to Pakistan forming the core of a multilateral mission for neutralizing Iran’s ace of closing the Strait of Hormuz, but stopping it risks expanding the war.
Pakistan has played its cards right up till now by having President Asif Ali Zardari describe Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as a “martyr” and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif congratulate new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, his son, but this was arguably more intended to placate Pakistani Shiites than to please Iran. In any case, it was still a goodwill gesture, but the rivalry between Iran’s powerful IRGC and Pakistan’s equally powerful Establishment – referring to its military and intelligence services – still remains.
Casual observers might have forgotten, but Iran bombed Tehran-designated Baloch terrorists-separatists in Pakistan in January 2024, which prompted the retaliatory bombing of Iran by Pakistan against another Baloch organization that Islamabad designated as terrorists-separatists. Readers can refresh their memory about these tit-for-tat strikes here. Although Iran and Pakistan have since reconciled and ties are now officially cordial, the abovementioned rivalry will arguably shape the IRGC’s calculations.
Iran has taunted the US to begin its Hormuz escort mission and began mining the Strait, to which Trump responded by warning Iran against “try[ing] anything cute” and authorizing attacks against mine-laying boats. CNN elaborated on the US’ resultant dilemma in their piece about “The grim choice facing the Trump administration: Economic or naval collapse?” Pakistan’s escort mission might therefore be the US’ way of cleverly flipping the tables to throw Iran into a dilemma instead as was explained in this analysis.
To be clear, Pakistan has its own reasons to launch Operation Muhafiz ul-Bahr, not least to restore part of its maritime energy supply chain so as to avert the major fuel crisis that The Establishment fears that Afghanistan, India, and/or domestic terroristscould exploit. Even so, its escort mission veritably advances the US’ interests vis-à-vis Iran, but few realize this since viral Pakistani AI-assisted fake videos have manipulated the masses into thinking that India is the one that’s actually advancing them.
67 comments
Comments are closed.
I am convinced Mario Nawfal is a Mossad psyop. He is heavily promoted on Xitter and Youtube and was rejoicing gleefully when violent protests erupted in Iran back in January, celebrating the imminent fall of the ‘regime’. But Max is the best.
Nawful seems like a cut-price Lex Friedman, right down to the cut of his shirt. Tries to sound serious but is clearly an idiot with idiot assumptions.
Often boosted by Musk on X.
History of “dubious” business stuff, and crypto/NFT crap.
Had never heard of him until the start of the Ramadan war.
That i was thinking too. He start to put on left wing people, so he can try to brainwash left wing viewers with Israel talking points. He came out of nowhere and reach such high viewership fast. This mean that he is intelligence asset
I am too. Despite being a heavy consumer of geopolitical podcasts I never saw him or heard of him before the last couple of months, and he is promoted everywhere now. The fact that he is showing up everywhere at the current time and just happens to provide support to imperial policy is very suggestive, to say the least. It would be interesting to see when he gained his large number of followers. One thing is for sure, someone fiddled with the algo to make it “recommend” him. I do not believe for a minute that his popularity is organic, especially given that he is following a clear agenda attempting to run cover for the empire’s foreign policy. Watched several of his shows until he spouted what I consider to be whoppers, and then closed the podcast. He is far more sophisticated and subtle in his manipulation of facts/perception than big media outlets, so either he is gifted or has some help (and I believe many likely have suspicions in this regard).
I’ve only heard of him in the last few weeks myself, and he seems suspect given all the comments I’ve seen about him. He’s just starting to show up in the YT recommends for me in the last few days. What I can’t figure out is how he is getting all the anti-globalists on his show as guests. The YT algo has tried to shove at me other geopolitical commentators who I don’t really agree with before (Heather Cox Richardson being the most recent), but they haven’t had these anti-globalists as guests like Awful Nawfal does.
Arkady Bogdanov and lyman alpha blob:
He’s a creation of crypto and grifting. It’s fraudulent froothies all the way down.
NBC (!!!) was on Li’l Mario’s case two-and-a-half years ago.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/mario-nawfal-twitter-elon-musk-rise-allegations-rcna92132
Too many lawsuits for somebody who is only about 36. And he seems to be a Musk DOGE-boy.
I’d steer clear. He’s no Ryan Grim.
Wowsers, thanks a ton!
Indeed, you have to wonder how these channels suddenly sprout up. Same with “Professor” Jiang – the dude has a BA in literature and (no disrespect, but come on) is a middle and high school teacher/administrator – who has been conferred prophet status with his “game theory” take on things. While I personally find Jiang’s insights more simpatico than Nawfal’s (who is unwatchable), his pronouncements are still rife with errors and false premises.
Fog of war and all that, but the signal-to-noise ratio on YouTube is depressingly low.
I saw Jiang popping up and did a quick scan of videos he posted previously. The titles of some of them were enough for a face palm.
He’s like a guy that saw how people fell for stuff like “The Secret” or will tell you he’s talking about astronomy then it drifts off into astrology.
And other channels that try to call him on the BS will get attcked by bot farms.
I laughed my ass off when channels introduce him as “the guy that called Trump’s win” as President.
I don’t watch when he’s a guess.
People want a “mystical” scrolling experience. Ie, XYZ-account has secret knolwedge of world,and you get to see the secret.
Jiang totally feeds into that psyche. He even has a freshman college-level lecture on mysticism
Random person getting cult status by delivering lectures equivalent to a 101 class-level taught by a TA? Welcome to the internet. it is what it is, lmao
Good call on Prof. Jiang, although it seems more that he is being overpromoted by ‘resistance’ shows on youtube like Nima, Jimmy Dore, Kim Iverson, Rachel Blevins, and I think even Glenn Diesen, Katie Halper, and Dimitri Lascaris have had him on or featured him. I usually ignore him, although he is definitely more insightful than Western “thinkers”. There is just no way, with the climate situation worsening the way it is, that Israel can become the imperial HQ with all the AI data centres.
Yes, and his promotion on “resistance” shows is depressing, though to be honest, most of what they provide is high calorie/low nutrient fare… a lot of wishful thinking and capture by one’s own propaganda, with the same people making the same points. It’s indicative of the sterility of real resistance to what’s overcoming us.
There will always be a market for a stoopid person’s idea of a genius.
Thanks to Michael and Mikel for saying this. I suffered from the Emperor’s New Clothes syndrome after watching Nima interview Jiang. I thought Jiang was a fool but was too afraid to say it, thinking I should keep my criticisms to myself. I doubt it is worth anybody’s time to explain why I didn’t care for his opinions.
Nevertheless, I saw the Jiang video because Nima interviewed him on the same day as the video with Colonel Wilkerson and Larry Johnson, which Yves previously linked to. Those two have great chemistry, have good sources for what is actually happening in the Persian Gulf, have good insight, and speak so well that I seldom have to rewind what I just heard. I’ll tune in for Wilkerson, Johnson, Postol, and Michael Hudson, of course. Otherwise, it’s just much easier for me to deduce who is knowledgeable from written material. And, of course, the most knowledgeable writer is our esteemed hostess.
I actually don’t think that he’s an op. An op wouldn’t even entertain voices like Max. Israelis hate him with a fiery passion.
Nawfal has western media brain, but he does seems to concede points and learn. It often makes for a more interesting discussion when guests have to counter his assumptions.
If he starts dropping guests like the duran guys, max, marandi, macgregor, and the like…well, then maybe they got to him.
Oooh. “Western Media Brain”.
I’m going to start using that term.
It’s like he’s in training as controlled opposition.
Me, too. Awful Nawful is almost certainly in the pay of one of the western agencies. He’s remarkably ignorant for an ‘independent’, he’s a terrible interviewer and he’s clearly very biased.
Yet, somehow he manages to interview some excellent commentators and analysts.
A fundamental fact is that, for Iran, Hormuz is a sword with too many sides: it’s too important to too many countries, including those friendly to Iran, or, at least those whom it can’t afford to antagonize–Pakistan being too obvious an example. I don’t think this makes the blockade impractical necessarily, but it would have to become complicated, with many “exemptions” granted. Each of these exemptions becomes a hole through the blockade, which can be exploited by Iran’s enemies via paying those who are granted exemptions.
I don’t think, if Iran wins, it will be by inflicting economic pain, at least not on too many of its adversaries. Like the sanctioned Russian oil, most of the Persian Gulf oil, too, will find its way to the consumers one way or another, albeit while generating windfall profits for someone. Only the sword, ie applications of military power, can win the war for either side.
HUH? Production is being shut down. You don’t get what is happening. First LNG, now more and more oil production. These are compounding losses of output.
Well, production is shutting down–for now, but there are ships already at sea and a fair amount of stored petroleum. There will be diplomatic maneuverings to see if somebody can get dibs on them–with the permission of the Iranians. I wondered if created a situation where putative “friends of Iran” (e.g. China and Pakistan) might sail through the Hormuz and get what oil they can (or, possibly, convince the ships currently stuck in the Gulf to sail to Karachi instead of wherever they were supposed to be going originally–not sure if that’s even legally doable). But once ships get to Karachi (especially if the latter holds), can Pakistanis commit to hold the oil just for themselves, for instance?
But I’m probably overthinking this.
Please do not handwave. Use a search engine and get some actual information.
This sort of “oh everything will sort itself out” thinking deeply angers me. I hate to come down on you, since your comments are generally good but this one demonstrates the PMC complacency which has produced no one being any good at managing anything difficult or complicated.
We looked at this during the 2008 oil price runup. Oil storage is limited. Oil does not store well. It takes more fuss and care of the storage tanks than you would think, such as limiting air exposure, making sure no water gets in, and (in areas with big temperature swings) even some control of temperature to prevent extremes.. Electricity and refined products are much more amenable. The best place to store oil is in the ground. There is a reason the Gulf states are running out of storage in what looks like very little time.
Estimates in 2008 was that the US ex the Strategic Petroleum Reserve had only 53 to 55 days of storage. If I have time, I might be able to find it in the archives but this was from oil professionals and we discussed it as length then.
China was able to effectively store more (it was stockpiling before the Olympics) because it refined it mainly into diesel and that stores way better.
Oil at sea hit a level of 1.2 billion barrels last fall. However, from what I can tell, a lot of the oil at sea is bound for China and so not available to help the West. What you need is the delta, not the total, as in how much higher this 1.2 billion is than a more typical level. You are acting as if all stocks can be drained, which is not operationally possible.
And you are ignoring the loss of output. You are acting as if it can be recovered. The newly higher costs are hurting confidence and activity. And then the impact of loss of supply will start to bite. If you read the Johnson piece (you can click through from his link), many countries, particularly Japan, will face a crisis. Thailand is not as badly situated as many yet we have only 50 days of oil.
Thanks for the detailed explanation!
I suspect Iran will face a lot of pressure from friendly nations very soon. China may have a large reserve but they will not want to go too far into that. Iran provides 11% of their daily oil. But Saudi arabia, the UAE, Oman and Iraq provide about 37% conbined.
Add thise two values together and that is roughly 50% of China’s daily supply. Now they have a large oil reserve. But if they need to replace 50% each day it runs out in 200. Better than most countries, but they will not run that right down. As such, as soon as America backs off China will in my view tell Iran to take the win. Now Iran might ignore that pressure and keep firing drones and missiles. But can Iran make the components for these weapons or do they need China to provide them?
As I mentioned in my comment under Iran War: Administration Succeeds in Talking Down Oil Price… as situation becomes untenable for other countries, more pressure will come to bear on Iran, not the United States. Pakistan is nearly out of oil and next in line is India. LNG shortages have resulted in widespread restaurant shutdowns which will hit livelihoods like a bomb. Today a urea factory has shut due to gas shortages and this will begin to put great pressure on India’s food supplies. India will do nothing to pressure the US though as Indian oil billionaires have already made agreements investments agreements in the US to increase refining capacity.
One point about Iran’s nuclear option to destroy the desalination plants and oil-fields in the gulf. Like other nuclear options, its value likes exclusively in the threat, not execution. What happens once Iran does blow these up? They lose their leverage immediately. It’s not clear to me the US cares about that threat as much as other countries do. Which means Iran’s interest lies in not following up on the threat. Presumably, US planners understand this.
This sounds like “The Great Game” all over again.
I am not certain as to the international status of the Strait of Hormuz, but is it anything like the Straits of Dardanelles in Turkey, with ‘special’ arrangements, or just another garden variety sea lane?
The internal politics of Pakistan are complex enough already. The domestic effects of energy shortages upon that nation’s regime could be destabilizing. Who wants civil strife in a nuclear equipped Middle Eastern nation? Perhaps this is a case where Iran can afford to make an exception, similar to the case of China. But then again, any exceptions could be fatal to Iranian power projection vis a vis energy flows.
Tis a puzzlement.
If relations with Pakistan are cordial and Chinese ships are allowed to pass through the strait, then why not Pakistani ships?
Because Pakistan is not sending merchant ships that need to pass but Navy frigates to escort merchant ships that want to pass. It seems more like a gambit to help their close allies Saudi.
I’m curious about the seemingly widespread assumption that Iran will be able to open the Strait selectively. My intuition, unsupported by any evidence, is that the USA will ensure that if the Strait is blocked for some, it will be blocked for all.
The US can’t get its warships much closer than 1000 km to Iran. Iran has taken out most of its radars so it can’t make precision strikes at distance. So please tell me how this happens. Now it might be so cheeky as to engage in piracy and seize a China-bound tanker in international waters.
Submarines and aircraft?
The US is now operating out of Diego Garcia and having to use standoff firing. Larry Wilkerson has explained this normally comes with less accuracy and even more so with the loss of radars to help with targeting.
Admittedly it is hard to see subs in the Strait (Wilkerson has elaborated on that too) but are they going to risk sending one in with the Strait being so narrow and a Chinese spy ship that is designed to find subs, among other things?
A US submarine recently torpedoed an unarmed Iranian frigate in the Indian Ocean. Aside from being a war crime, it was a demonstration of what US submarines can do.
I would imagine any US threat to sink vessels crossing the Strait without American approval would be taken extremely seriously by shipowners and insurers.
US navy torpedoes have an estimated range of 38 miles.
https://theworlddata.com/us-navy-torpedo-statistics-and-facts/
Would the Chinese spy ship be able to attack the submarine?
What exactly is an “unarmed frigate”?
https://newrepublic.com/post/207429/us-attack-iran-naval-ship
It’s a frigate on it’s way to or from an international expedition (and parade?) in which the participants are forbidden to have live ammunition onboard.
Spy ships are generally unarmed. A spy ship can observe and maybe (the key word is maybe) detect submarines if it has the right kit. But submarines are very hard to find. After that though all it can do is send the information to someone, say Iran. They may do that. But Iran can’t do much with that info. It has little or no ability to attack submarines. Much more likely they are sitting gathering as much information on American equipment performance so they can fight it better if need be in the future. Now if China sent some warships they could do something. But at thos stage at least there is close to zero chance that will happen.
I’d be surprised if America would send subs into the strait. Much easier to make a cordon outside the strait to interdict any traffic they want.
Iran does operate midget submarines that can fire torpedoes.
They also reportedly have submarine drones (Azhdar) which can strike ships and submarines. Shaheed and other Iranian drones have been pretty effective so I have no reason to believe their underwater drones wouldn’t work just as well.
https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/iran-azhdar-stealth-underwater-drone-strait-of-hormuz-us-navy-threat-global-shipping
The midget submarines have two torpedoes and are much slower. They would have to be very lucky to win against Los Angeles class subs. Also the reason they built midget subs is that it is Iran’s first attempt at building subs. Generally a countries first attempt at things like that has a lot of flaws. It is a steep learning curve.
Because one drone type works well doesn’t mean another will. And it is kuch harder to test anti ship weapons than aerial weapons. They may be effective but until they are used it is impossible to say.
I doubt a Los Angeles class submarine can safely navigate the strait due to its size. They might be able to pick off ships exiting the strait.
Yes, we can’t completely correlate success of aerial drones with underwater ones. That being said even the US Navy is being careful which tells us a lot. Simplicus’s latest article talks more about Iranian underwater drones which appear to be based on Soviet technology.
I’m not sure if US submarines can safely navigate the strait due to it being quite shallow.
https://www.strausscenter.org/strait-of-hormuz-submarines/
Torpedoes cannot discriminate between targets and have a fairly limited range, even if they are programmed to run at low speed for a considerable distance after launch. Any increase in speed drastically reduces range. Torpedoes have some issues many people are unaware of. When a submarine fills torpedo tubes with water, ships in the area that have military sonar can hear that. They are then alerted to the fact that a submarine is preparing to fire, and anti-submarine warfare weapons begin to be brought online. Given there is a state of war, I would assume any enemy nearby would immediately fire a torpedo or missile/torpedo along the compass bearing toward the sound of those tubes being flooded (this is doctrine-such weapons are likely to miss, but you have the same issue as with air defense- these weapons have to be taken seriously, so the idea is that the submarine after firing its torpedo, would have to immediately cut the control wires for the torpedo and run to get away, greatly reducing the ability of the torpedo it just fired ever hitting anything). Then when a submarine fires a torpedo, the torpedo is ejected from the launch tube with compressed air- this is noisy, unmistakable on sonar, and can be heard at a great distance. It would make the launching submarine an immediate target for any enemy in the area that can bring weapons to bear on it. Now this is where the sub captain makes serious judgement calls. The sub will try to guide its torpedo as close to the target as possible using the control wires spooled out behind the torpedo. A torpedo running at low speed is pretty much undetectable, and can run for many miles. However, after firing, the sub captain knows he was likely heard by someone. The enemy won’t know where the slow torpedo is or what it was fired at, but they now know the location it was fired from. The sub is maneuvering, trying to watch other ships on its own sonar to see if they are reacting to the launch, but these days most reactions are in the air, and aerial activity is not something the sub can detect. If the sub captain believes they are detected, they immediately command the torpedo to go to full speed, turn on the torpedo’s active homing sonar, cut the control wires, and run (again, this is doctrine). Everyone will hear the torpedo at this point, even civilian ships- active sonar can actually be heard through ships hulls. At that point the torpedo will home on the closest and brightest target it sees with no other target discernment. These weapons are not meant to be used in areas like the crowded Persian Gulf for that reason. I don’t know this for a fact, but I would not rule out Iran having permanent underwater sonar facilities for offshore ISR (US/NATO has quite a bit of this, as do Russia and China). If Iran has this capability, they could launch rocket-carried torpedoes from land that would essentially drop on top of the submarine. Nuclear powered submarines are the apex predator in the deep, open ocean, but near shore there are a lot of countermeasures for them. I also think that US submarines are probably terrified of the Hoot supercavitating torpedoes that Iran has in inventory. Iran has several submarines, which are all diesel-electric. When these subs are running on their batteries, they are far quieter than nuclear submarines (when patrolling near shore these subs are better than nuclear subs). These plus the Hoots I would imagine are a powerful deterrent to US subs.
Given that, I would assume the US would prefer to target surface ships in the gulf with Harpoon anti-ship missiles. These can be fired from surface ships or aircraft (which is the delivery method the US would use), but there is a problem with them. They have some ability to discriminate targets, but that level of discrimination is meant to be able to do something like choose between an aircraft carrier and a destroyer out on the open ocean- and the waters of the Persian Gulf are certainly not the open ocean, and it is crowded with ships. I strongly suspect that the US would have little control over which ship was hit with a Harpoon missile, given the number of targets the missile would have to choose from.
As to ISR in the area, as Yves mentioned- Aerial targets are much more difficult to track over Iran and especially deep in the Iranian interior, but for the surface waters of the gulf the US still has several Rivet Joint aircraft, which are mainly meant to track vehicle traffic on the Earth’s surface as small as the average car. I have no doubt that these are tracking every ship in the Gulf, and most of the small boats, so they likely do know where every ship of consequence is at all times, but the US does not have a weapon that can easily/safely hit a specified individual ship (as far as I know, unless there is something new in the inventory).
Sorry that got a little long, but figured people might be interested.
Mining the straight would seem to clash with this IRGC statement issued two days ago:
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has announced that European and Arab nations will be granted unhindered access to the Strait of Hormuz solely on the condition that they expel diplomats representing the United States and Israel.
Mining would also put a dead-stop to the rumored free passage of Chinese ships through the straight.
I am not sure why Iran would be compelled to mine the straight when artillery, missiles or drones are available and could just as easily compel its closure.
I agree, yet, I wouldn’t underestimate how much of Trump’s strategic mind is still living in WW2 and the 3-decades after. This was a world where convoys effectively protected merchant ships and the US mined the harbors of Vietnam and Korea.
Without mines the Houthis were very capable of identifying ships that were destined for Israel and their missiles impacted Red Sea traffic.
I assume they are studying the tanker war and 1987-1988 Operation Earnest Will.
Interestingly, the four Avenger-class mine sweeps that had been stationed in Bahrain were placed aboard heavy lift ship MV Seaway Hawk in January and just arrived in Philly. Replaced by three LCS class Independence-variant ships with mine countermeasure modules.
I assume that “mining the strait” does not mean that Iran is closing it completely. Rather, they would be using mines to create a narrow channel through which a few ships can pass safely, and they, i.e., Iran, both will have the chart of this passage and have it in their gunsights, such that any unauthorized ships trying to follow others through the safe passage can be easily bombed.
Hopefully, somebody who really understands this in depth (I do not) will weigh in.
I’m trying to figure out what news story came first: mining or blowing up mining ships?
Mines are a deterrent, in the sense that ships won’t risk passage. Artillery, missiles or drones have to damage vessels to be a deterrent, which opens a different worm of cans.
So far this seem to be something in the Gulf of Oman, details are lacking but although Pakistan is in a desperate situation so is Iran and they hit 3 ships in the area today that they think were trying to supply one of their attackers. I don’t think they would hesitate if Pakistan tries anything cute. They are probably going to pay the new toll and arrange something with Iran to get desperately needed fossil fuels.
Israeli air defences showed signs of strain last night, they are concentrating on Lebanon and the US is increasingly using strategic bombers from the UK and the US using stand off weapons.
Markets are right to be sanguine in the short term, Mr Putin has agreed to supply enough resources to prevent immediate economic collapse but the long term is still ominous. Everyone is going to burn up their reserves to buy time but only China really has strategic reserves…….see the paper at Colonel Cassad about the structure of their strategic resource and mobilisation potential, they have been building Iran type defences since 2014. Mr Trump has already lost the main war, the one to control energy flows, he had to go crawling to Mr Putin at the first sign of real trouble.
I do not mean to come down on you, but I do not understand how readers tell themselves such happy stories.
Russia cannot make up for the loss of Gulf supply, which is 20 million barrels a day. Russia exports 4.5 million barrels now. The most they have EVER exported is 5.2 million barrels a day, in 2016.
An oil producer cannot dial up and down production much. Attempting a marked increase risk permanent damage to oil fields.
If I were an Iranian I might well see this as the equivalent of May 1940 for Britain or June 1941 for the USSR. Neither country backed down then so why would they? We in Britain destroyed the fleet and killed sailors of our erstwhile ally, bombed Berlin and, of course blockaded the Straits of Dover. Iran’s behaviour in carrying out similar operations is rational from their perspective. Their leader was murdered, a strike was launched in the middle of negotiations and the civilian population has suffered.
The US has never fought a conflict that was a true war of national survival except possibly the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. Hardly anyone else in the West has done so either in living memory, and no current leaders have. Probably makes it very easy to overlook how countries behave in such situations. .
Supposedly, Richard Nixon once said the president doesn’t threaten anyone, he doesn’t have to. In the same way, Iran doesn’t have to make threats. With a thousand miles of shoreline along the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, most of it hills and mountains, plenty of places to hide missiles and drones, and it’s in an existential war, it can restrain commercial shipping in the Strait long enough to panic markets and damage its enemies economies. Like Max, I don’t think Iran has placed mines just yet.
Pakistan has a problem. It’s friendly with the US but not at all friendly with Israel because it strongly supports the Palestinians. And as John Mearsheimer says repeatedly, Israel is driving this train. If Pakistan and the US are such bffs, it should demand the US provide Pakistan with oil and gas since the US has it available for export and the US let Israel start the war.
On the other hand, Pakistan is a huge country with 250 million people, nuclear weapons, long range missiles that possibly can reach Israel, and one of the largest militaries in the world. If it enters the war in any formal way, the unintended consequences could be dramatic.
Per various stories posted at the WSJ today, Pakistan has about 2 weeks of crude oil left. 4 weeks on gas (but that is shut in if Qatari). Also some story claimed some Iranian oil was still leaving the gulf.
The Pakistanis perhaps could (or did) make a deal with the three waring participants and accept a delivery or pickup of Iranian oil? It seems like a bit of a stretch. Maybe the escort is as much for us/is fighters as for Iranian missiles.
It is an interesting development, thank you Yves.
Btw, also noted while pursuing WSJ today that still have not seen any mention of the usa radar systems demise in mainstream press though i certainly may have missed.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/oil-consumption-by-country
Interesting brief article. Estimated daily demand and use: 102 Million barrels per day.
US uses 20 million per day.
US produces 12-14 Million per day. Net importer, although exports have increased.
Next closest is Japan at 3.1 million per day
I am not hopeful.
As far as I can tell, Iran is allowing China affiliated ships to pass through the strait. Very obviously this is occurring due to their close ties and China’s support for Iran.
This issue with Pakistani cargo escorts could be handled a number of ways. If I were Iran, which obviously I am not, nor am I privy to all of their intelligence or concerns, but I would at least consider using this as a form of leverage to secure the cooperation and loyalty of my neighbor, and perhaps even secure some concessions. So this could potentially become an opportunity for Iran to show it’s other neighbors that regional/national sovereignty, cooperation and mutual defense is the better strategy. “You scratch my back, and I will scratch yours” should, in theory, be an easy concept to grasp.
I am interested to see how Iran handles this as well.
I had a similar thought. Pakistan has already threatened to nuke the Zionist entity if it nukes Iran, and Iran apparently never had a big navy and doesn’t have much of one left. Perhaps there could be a partnership here. Are we sure this escort is to protect Pakistan from Iran? Or is it to protect Pakistan from the Western pirates who have already shown a willingness to snatch ships and may be running low on oil themselves?
Isn’t Pakistan somewhat allied with China? Maybe they could work out a three-way deal (Iran, China, Pakistan) to keep routing enough oil to Pakistan via Chinese shipping to leave the basic character of the blockade intact.
Larry Johnson at his website Son of the New American Revolution today posts an interview with Mario Nawfal with this comment: “Mario, who I met a year ago when we interviewed Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, grabbed me late today to discuss the reported mining of the Strait of Hormuz:” He is referring to the interview Johnson and Nawfal and Andrew Napolitano had with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov. That is my first memory of the appearance of Nawfal on the podcaast scene.
https://sonar21.com/choke-point-the-global-economic-consequences-of-the-persian-gulf-shutdown/
An article in Quwa (claims to be Pakistan’s leading defence publication) has some details.
Remarkably it doesn’t mention even once Pakistan’s navy planning to run the gauntlet of Strait of Hormuz – it only refers to the “contested waters in the vicinity”.
There’s a way to read that this operation is a) way to prove that Pakistan’s navy has a purpose b) possibly protect Pakistani tankers loading oil at Oman’s Ras Markaz terminal (against Iranian strikes) b) possibly protect Pakistani tankers loading oil at Iran’s Jask terminal (against US strikes).
Both terminals are on the Gulf of Oman, so no need to try pass the strait.
Can’t Iran just concentrate attacks on the tankers anyway, even if they have escorts? You don’t necessarily have to attack the Pakistani navy, presumably…not sure how accurate or smart these Iranian anti-ship missiles and drones are? You only need a few hits on tankers to incapacitate them, these things are completely un-armored.
Hitting naval targets is far harder than hitting landbased radar sites or runways. Just by the fact they are moving. Generally anti ship missiles fly low to avoid radar and therefore being shot down. But that also means their radar is not much use until very close to the target. Problem is, by the time the missile gets close to where the target was when it was fired, the target has moved on. And differentiating between merchant ships and escorting warships would be very hard.
Pakistan, hmm, I would point at last June 25 when Trump hosted Pakistani PM Shehbaz Sharif and and Field Marshall Asim Munir at the White House, a meeting of which few details were shared with the public.
This five minute video covers the subject pretty well, Inside Trump’s Secretive Oval Office Meeting With Pakistan PM Shehbaz Sharif & Army Chief Asim Munir, the Financial Express on YouTube.
The IRGC has just posted on Twitter, in Farsi, something along the lines of: “any ship wishing to transit the Strait of Hormuz must obtain Iran’s permission.” [Reported in https://t.me/parstodayrussian/196824#%5D
Now, the Chinese, apparently, have already so done. And other nations can also, one would think, come to terms with Iran to ensure safe passage. Recall that last year, Pakistan was offering Iran a nuclear guarantee (i.e. if Israel nukes Iran, Pakistan nukes Israel), though whether this was serious or mere posturing remains somewhat in question. Also recall that Pakistan has been a heavy client of China, at least on the defense and infrastructure investments side.
So hypothetically – if you’re Pakistani, and you’ve worked out a deal with the Iranians to let your ships pass – and then you also throw in a Pakistani naval vessel for prestige-raising reasons – well, fine. Though that won’t change the overall calculus for the Strait.
Also, too, all these US-centric discussions of mines seem very much a red herring. To explain why blowing away 16 speedboats in the Gulf is a major victory of some kind. You do not need mines in the age of Shahed drones. And if the USN were so worried about mines, they’d be rushing their, what, four (?!!!) remaining Avengers from Japan over to the Persian Gulf, which I don’t think is happening? Someone check the transponders…
BBC has something much more fierce in its live feed from about 2 hours ago:
Iran says it won’t allow ‘a single litre of oil’ to pass through Strait of Hormuz
published at 20:17
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cd70wzw9vqlt
On my way to physical therapy this morning I had the pleasure of listening to a “panel of experts” on NPR (WAMC) grasping the reality of what the closure of the Strait means, and the intention and ability of Iran to leverage this to their favor.
I think it’s fair to say that WAMC and NPR in general have a track record for being apologists for Israel. I go to PT twice a week and have ben listening to the show regularly since the end of last October. So it was with great interest that today, for the first time, there was a hint of questioning of this loyalty and without pushback, and also for the first time, the tone, somber and frazzled at times, reflecting that they have become aware this war will have consequences.
Sorry for the run-on sentence, I plead fly-over education.
https://quwa.org/pakistan-navy-news/pakistan-navy-launches-operation-muhafiz-ul-bahr-to-escort-merchant-vessels-amid-strait-of-hormuz-crisis-03-09-2026/
This article gives a nice overview of the naval vessels involved. And right now it seems the mission is restricted to escorting PNSC (state carrier) ships only and the PN haven’t indicated yet that they’d enter the Strait of Hormuz.
I also wonder as others have opined if this is more of a counter to any potential false flag operations from the US or Israel against Pakistani vessels.
The thing about Hormuz is that it’s not clear that it ever needs to be militarily shut down. It currently isn’t. The reality is that ocean trade doesn’t run on ships and bunker fuel, it runs on insurance. It you can raise the risk profile, insurance becomes prohibitive and profit-making becomes problematic. You can only escort ships that are willing to make the trip, and only fully insured ships and cargos will do that.
Iran doesn’t have to mine the strait or engage the Pakistani Navy, they just have to make insurers and reinsurers nervous about the potential of losing a ship. That’s a much lower bar
Moreover, Pakistan almost certainly doesn’t have unlimited anti-air capabilities. Plentiful drones can overwhelm those defenses without actually engaging the escorts, but focusing on the cargo ships. What’s the over/under on the number of such attacks it would take to make insurers pull their insurance or raise war risk premiums beyond the profitability level for shippers? 0.5? Yes, having escorts in the vicinity makes such an attack more complicated, but far from impossible.
Again, the key here is the parties involved who are meaningful. Those are the Iranians, the insurers, and the shippers. Everybody else is really more of a spectator and it just depends how close to the stage they choose to sit.