Iran Unable to Find Mines in Strait of Hormuz, U.S. Says

Murdah? What murdahh?

Charter boat? What charter boat?

Just call them minors and they'll be sniffed out in minutes.

The ds9 defense 

They lost the keys remember?

We don’t need no stinking mines

If Iran just put even a few mines in the Oman side, it only takes one ship hitting them for them to get a permanent toll on the strait.

this. ships won’t traverse without insurance. insurance won’t cover ships if Iran threatens to attack. no mines or attacks necessary. providing a military e***** wouldn’t even help. the only thing the military could do to allow ships through, is to insure them against losses. cant wait for my tax dollars to go toward paying foreign country’s shipping losses.

>How many mines does it take to make a minefield? The world may never know

That’s a very specific and narrow passage along the coast

Ships normally pass through the Strait closer to Oman, but they shifted to being in Iranian territorial waters.

Insurance companies won't accept that.

Yes, the US tankers will find the mines

Maybe this is what they meant when they said they would love to open the strait but they’ve lost the keys.

"Aw geez, America buddy, I sure would love to reopen that strait like you want, but gosh dang it I just can't remember where we left those mines! We musta forgot to write down the locations, boy what a klutz move huh. Hmm? Could we take our mining ships back out along the same route and search/remove, you ask? No, uh... Their grandmas died so they're out of town. My hands are completely tied here 😔"

I swear to fukin God if this was a TV show people would be roasting it and memeing "They Forgor..." 

Well to hear the finance bros describe it the moment a ceasefire is declared oil prices go back to normal. There's none of this "mines need to be cleared", "oil facilities need to be repaired", or "tankers only move at 8-12 knots and the ocean is really big". They don't need to know that stuff, that's why they make millions gambling with other people's money.

I think our guy that knows where we put the mines is in Lebanon. Guess we're stuck until things settle down over there. 

Wait. I thought we sank all their ships.

Well, if you sink the ships laying the mines, it'd be pretty hard to ask the crew where they put the mines, lmao.

I think someone stole the mines

Nah I’m laughing my ass off. This is hilarious

Beijing, in a couple of hours?

THAT would be great television. Would watch

I mean, if you sink the ships laying the mines, it's pretty hard to ask them exactly there they put them...

I’m sure that’s why they’re not opening it lol.

Weird how the NY Times forgot to include the source for this information. I wonder if Jared Kushner planted this story.

This is like the Iranians using a tomahawk to bomb their own kids school.

>Iran has been unable to open the Strait of Hormuz to more shipping traffic because it cannot locate all of the mines it laid in the waterway and lacks the capability to remove them, according to U.S. officials. Well. Who sank Irans minesweepers?

Nyt=obvious lie

Come on, he’s the POTUS for god’s sake. At least give him a golden speed boat, the USS TACO, with a giant Trump logo on the side.

Yeah, I literally cannot believe anything between these two countries right now (I guess 3 if you count Israel). It might be true, but Trump might also be looking to save face after backing down last week and the straight still being closed. Who knows.

Iran wants to capitulate, you see, they are trying very hard to surrender to Trump, if only they could find the mines...

We should wait for confirmation from a more credible source like the IRGC. I wish I were joking.

My dog does that too.

Its pretty likely this is true

They do, they tow them from a helicopter 

The admin is playing Wallstreatbets style before major announcements so probably needed more confusion to hide there bets on oil prices made earlier in the week.

[](https://www.nytimes.com/article/why-new-york-times-anonymous-sources.html)*“Speaking on the condition of anonymity …”* *“Discussed the incident on the condition that they not be named …”* *“According to people familiar with …”* You’ve undoubtedly seen these phrases in Times articles, but what exactly do they mean? Our reporting is based on sources. They can be officials, witnesses, records — essentially anyone or anything that can offer information on a particular topic. When we don’t disclose a human source by name, that person is considered an anonymous source. Under our guidelines, these sources should be used only for information that we believe is newsworthy and credible, and that we are not able to report any other way. But why does The Times shield the identity of some sources? We recognize that the use of anonymous sources is sometimes crucial to our journalistic mission. It can give readers genuine insight into the uses and abuses of power — in Washington, on Wall Street and beyond. In sensitive areas like national security reporting, it can be unavoidable. Sources sometimes risk their careers, their freedom and even their lives by talking to us. # What we consider before using anonymous sources: * How do they know the information? * What’s their motivation for telling us? * Have they proved reliable in the past? * Can we corroborate the information they provide? Because using anonymous sources puts great strain on our most valuable asset: our readers’ trust, the reporter and at least one editor is required to know the identity of the source. A senior newsroom editor must also approve the use of the information the source provides.

Considering past history and how chaotic this was? Not that surprising. If they even bothered to keep maps of specific locations vs a small safe path the maps may have gotten blown up by either side.

They all drowned inside the invisible box.