Opening the Strait of Hormuz Is a Priority
Part of Trump’s plan to defeat Iran is to eliminate Tehran’s capability to hold the Strait of Hormuz hostage, stopping the transit of oil tankers. The strategy is to destroy Iran’s anti-ship missile, drone, and mine inventory and the country’s means of replenishing it. That would make it safer for US warships to escort and protect oil tankers and other cargo ships making their way through the strait. On March 11, it was reported that three cargo vessels that attempted to run the Hormuz Strait without protection and were hit by Iranian weapons, most likely drones, one possibly from underwater. A US Central Command press release warned merchant vessels to avoid civilian ports since the “Iranian regime is using civilian ports along the Strait of Hormuz to conduct military operations that threaten international shipping.” The release also made clear that “civilian ports used for military purposes lose protected status and become legitimate military targets [for the United States] under international law.”
Because NATO specifically and Europe generally, as well as Asia, have a stake in the oil flowing through the Hormuz Strait, the United States has requested their assistance. “If there’s no response or if it’s a negative response, I think it will be very bad for the future of Nato [sic],” Trump told the Financial Times. “It’s only appropriate that people who are the beneficiaries of the Strait will help to make sure that nothing bad happens there,” Trump explained. He has requested assistance from France, South Korea, Japan, China, and the United Kingdom to keep the Hormuz Strait open.
The countries Trump has appealed to for help are not disinterested parties. According to a Visual Capitalist infographic published on March 3, China receives 38% of its oil imports through the Hormuz Strait, South Korea 12%, Japan 11%, and Europe 4%. Asia, taken as a whole, is most affected by the closure, importing up to 89% of its oil. In contrast, the United States receives just 2.5% of the flow. It would seem that the affected countries would be eager to assist in opening the waterway – but not so.
According to the BBC, “US President Donald Trump has renewed his criticism of the UK government over its response to the Iran conflict, after Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said the country would not be drawn into the ‘wider war.’” Trump went on to observe he was “not happy” with the British for not being “involved enthusiastically.” To put a finer point on his dissatisfaction with the UK’s response, as well as the lack of eagerness on the part of Europe to help, Trump took to Truth Social. In a March 17 posting, the president opined:
Part of Trump’s plan to defeat Iran is to eliminate Tehran’s capability to hold the Strait of Hormuz hostage, stopping the transit of oil tankers. The strategy is to destroy Iran’s anti-ship missile, drone, and mine inventory and the country’s means of replenishing it. That would make it safer for US warships to escort and protect oil tankers and other cargo ships making their way through the strait. On March 11, it was reported that three cargo vessels that attempted to run the Hormuz Strait without protection and were hit by Iranian weapons, most likely drones, one possibly from underwater. A US Central Command press release warned merchant vessels to avoid civilian ports since the “Iranian regime is using civilian ports along the Strait of Hormuz to conduct military operations that threaten international shipping.” The release also made clear that “civilian ports used for military purposes lose protected status and become legitimate military targets [for the United States] under international law.”
Because NATO specifically and Europe generally, as well as Asia, have a stake in the oil flowing through the Hormuz Strait, the United States has requested their assistance. “If there’s no response or if it’s a negative response, I think it will be very bad for the future of Nato [sic],” Trump told the Financial Times. “It’s only appropriate that people who are the beneficiaries of the Strait will help to make sure that nothing bad happens there,” Trump explained. He has requested assistance from France, South Korea, Japan, China, and the United Kingdom to keep the Hormuz Strait open.
The countries Trump has appealed to for help are not disinterested parties. According to a Visual Capitalist infographic published on March 3, China receives 38% of its oil imports through the Hormuz Strait, South Korea 12%, Japan 11%, and Europe 4%. Asia, taken as a whole, is most affected by the closure, importing up to 89% of its oil. In contrast, the United States receives just 2.5% of the flow. It would seem that the affected countries would be eager to assist in opening the waterway – but not so.
According to the BBC, “US President Donald Trump has renewed his criticism of the UK government over its response to the Iran conflict, after Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said the country would not be drawn into the ‘wider war.’” Trump went on to observe he was “not happy” with the British for not being “involved enthusiastically.” To put a finer point on his dissatisfaction with the UK’s response, as well as the lack of eagerness on the part of Europe to help, Trump took to Truth Social. In a March 17 posting, the president opined:
“The United States has been informed by most of our NATO ‘Allies’ that they don’t want to get involved with our Military Operation against the Terrorist Regime of Iran, in the Middle East, this, despite the fact that almost every Country strongly agreed with what we are doing, and that Iran cannot, in any way, shape, or form, be allowed to have a Nuclear Weapon … Because of the fact that we have had such Military Success, we no longer ‘need,’ or desire, the NATO Countries’ assistance — WE NEVER DID!”
President Trump Is Not Happy
Trump made the point in his posting that the United States has spent “Hundreds of Billions of Dollars per year protecting these same Countries, to be a one-way street — We will protect them, but they will do nothing for us … ” You get the impression the president is miffed — and rightly so. The United States and Israel are in the process of ridding the world of the number one sponsor of terrorism. Furthermore, it should not be lost on NATO countries in particular that Iran is no respecter of the alliance. “Turkey said on Monday (March 9) that NATO air defenses shot down a second Iranian ballistic missile that had entered its airspace and warned that it would move against any such threats, which increasingly pose a test for Ankara and the alliance,” Reuters reported.
What will pose more stress for NATO and European partners is a failure to provide some level of support to secure the Strait of Hormuz. Can the United States and Israel eventually reduce the threat to shipping in the Hormuz Strait? Yes. Would it be better if those who benefit from the strait being open provided a helping hand? Yes. However, if it is up to the United States and Israel alone, then so be it.
Dave is a retired U.S. Air Force Pilot with over 180 combat missions in Vietnam. He is the former Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller and has served in executive positions in the private sector aerospace and defense industry. This article was first published HERE
8 comments:
This author seems confused. Trump already said they are way ahead of schedule on the war, and has also said that he doesn’t need help from allies. He has also threatened to invade other allies, so I’m confused about what allies means for USA these days.
Six weeks ago, things were different, the strait was secure. Oil prices steady. Iran had no nukes because USA had obliterated its capability last year. Khameini was in charge of the regime.
I’d say NATO was comfortable with that landscape. What has USA done? For what? And they want NATO to fix it? Seems insane to me.
Thankfully Trump has relaxed sanctions on Russia. A true geopolitical mastermind.
All common sense seems to have gone out the window with these socialist European and British Labour governments.
Iran was given weeks to come to the table regarding enriched uranium issues. They chose not to. It is pretty obvious now, judging by their war strategy, that the regime is pretty unstable.
The fact is, despite all the hoo-ha and, disagreeably it seems for some, we cannot do without the US protection. Don't believe all you read about military strength of other countries. The US is formidable.
The US was not asking countries to go all out militarily. It was more of a support role. Step up New Zealand.
The US starts a war on a flimsy pretext (shades of Saddam's non-existent WMDs), grossly underestimates the capacity of the other wide to fight back, realises as an afterthought that that foe can close the Strait of Hormuz, and then demands that its traditional allies come and help it get out of the jam it has created for itself.
Gilbert and Sullivan would have used it for a comic opera.
I get funny vibes reminescent of Viet Nam 1975.......
Re BV March 20 - 08:37
There are likely millions of Iranian people who think the war was not started on a "flimsy pretext"
Especially after decades of brutal tyranny, murder, rape, torture, terrorism and hell in general - Do you really think that was "nonexistent" like WMDs?
I guess a smug obsession with semantics and vague historical hindsight allows one to feel so amused they can lecture others on morality.
I concur with your comments Janine. Choosing to tolerate this evil Iranian regime than suffer the inconvenience of high prices at the pump demonstrates how shallow we are as a human race. Irans second biggest export commodity is terror. Trump acted when the people of Iran, for the first time in 47 years, paid with lives to protest against this despot regime. Compare your pain at the pump with the thousands of grieving relatives that lost their loved ones that bravely gathered in the streets. We watched how those that had escaped, cheered around the world when the first bombs fell. The Starmers of this world may one day crawl out of their foxholes when safe and dip their toes into the water, once the dust has cleared.
Anyone else noted that he hasn't asked Canada for help ?
Why not ?
Anon 938, the 'flimsy pretext' I was referring to was the claim that Iran was close to having nuclear weapons that could strike the US. This is reminiscent of Saddam's supposed WMDs as the excuse for attacking Iraq. It has nothing to do with domestic actions such as the ones you list. Your question is a non sequitur, rather like the entire closing minidiatribe.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.