ListNook

HydrostaticTrans Apr 2, 2026 +86

[Here's a former admiral explaining how to militarily secure the Strait](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgVQzVro-vE) It would cost a ridiculous amount of money to militarily secure the Strait of Hormuz. And even then it's horrible optics because you are essentially spending billions of dollars on military operations and putting servicemen at risk in order to protect private oil interests. The military protecting the Strait has to be 100% perfect whereas the Iranians just need to get through a single drone or missile. Oil shipping companies and insurance aren't willing to take a 1/100 risk. It's a fools gambit.

86

ResortClear730 Apr 2, 2026 +37

I forgot which former general I was listing speak yesterday but they made similar points as you did about how Iran only needs to be successful a small percentage of the time to keep the straight closed. He also pointed out that to secure the straight would also include taking and occupying the Iranian coast, which I don’t think any country has the stomach for right now. Edit: I missed the link you provided, it may have been the same person.

37

JaVelin-X- Apr 2, 2026 +26

you can't occupy just the coast. you'd need to pacify the whole country WW2 style, sticking a gun in every hole, and even then it's diferent because you're fighting religious fanatics where even civilians are combatants. it'd soon look like genocide and thats what they are afraid of .. except for israel, they apparently don't care what it looks like but even they hired the US to do this and won't be willing to do it themselves.

26

ResortClear730 Apr 2, 2026 +14

True, Israel has reportedly refused to send ground troops to Iran. Honestly, I don’t know if they really could even if they wanted.

14

Ian_W Apr 2, 2026 +5

> Honestly, I don’t know if they really could even if they wanted. Israel could do it really, really easily. You put them on a plane to Diego Garcia, or whatever the US staging base is, and they integrate with US forces from there. Sure, they dont want to. They'd prefer to be using them to occupy Lebannon, Gaza and the West Bank. But the US has been integrating allied forces for decades. It's not that hard.

5

keepitfriend Apr 2, 2026 +3

They're gonna have to now. They've kicked up a hornets nest Well they're probably hoping some bright blue eyed americans go in first tho

3

GotEggs Apr 2, 2026 +6

That’s exactly what they’ll do, I mean hell why not if you’re Israel? You’ve got americas president on a leash why not have him ‘foot the bill’ so to speak. (With ground troops, munitions, air support etc.) Bibi doesn’t have to give up anything in this war, excursion, exercise, strategic military operation? Idk what we’re calling it now.

6

lkc159 Apr 2, 2026 +4

"We'll start a war with Iran and make America pay for it!" - Israel, probably

4

keepitfriend Apr 2, 2026 +1

Special Military Operation. Might as well go with what everyone is calling them these days

1

FreshCords Apr 2, 2026 +3

The combatants would also have behind the scenes help from other nuclear-power nations. It’s a no-win situation.

3

InvalidDescription Apr 2, 2026 +3

>use you're fighting **religious fanatics** where even civilians are combatants. Interesting use of words to explain someone who would be fighting for their home. 🤔

3

Tickles-The-Octopus Apr 2, 2026 +2

Funny how the USA doesn't see THEMSELVES as "religious fanatics"

2

JaVelin-X- Apr 2, 2026 -1

Please. They are run by nut jobs with lots of true believers throughout, otherwise they'd already be gone

-1

Tickles-The-Octopus Apr 2, 2026 +2

> run by nut jobs with lots of true believers throughout. Sounds like the USA.....

2

LovelieLuna Apr 3, 2026 +1

You know, maybe when you're talking about occupying a coast and "sticking a gun in every hole" you should take a step back before calling others fanatics? If any f****** country did that to my home I'd use every single ounce of engineering knowledge I have to make them regret it. But sure, religious fanatics.

1

JaVelin-X- Apr 3, 2026 +1

Iran has been fighting a proxy war against the world for years. If they wanted to "defend" their homes they'd have hung these bums that run it from lamp posts. they didn't and now another crazy b****** has brought them destruction.

1

Morridon04 Apr 2, 2026 -5

Why should the IRGC be allowed to hold Asia and the EU hostage?

-5

HydrostaticTrans Apr 2, 2026 +5

Because this is the result of throwing out the rules based world order and instead reverting to might makes right. Iran has the power to subvert trade in the Strait therefore under this new world order they are allowed to. Realistically we are beginning to see individual countries negotiate with Iran directly and I expect Asia and the EU to do the same. They've all made it clear that militarily unblocking the Strait is unrealistic and that diplomatic solutions must be found.

5

Morridon04 Apr 2, 2026 -2

Iran doesn’t seem to actually care about the rules based order only exploiting it continually either via their proxies of hamas, hezzbollah and the houthis or outright lying about their previous agreements I.e. they shot long range ballistic missiles they were supposed to have not developed under the agreement with the Biden admin.

-2

N3bu89 Apr 2, 2026 +3

Allowed? Lol. There is no "allowed" it's just incredibly efficient for them to do so, and incredibly inefficient for everyone else to try and stop them. This is why everyone else (except the US) should be looking for ways to negotiate with Iran to normalize relations.

3

mapletree23 Apr 2, 2026 +20

i did see a video that made it seem pretty reasonable of why it's such a hard thing to do even if you take kharg, if you set up on there you become easy targets, so you basically have to take iran's coastline, and that's when iran's ground forces can actually get involved and that's when you really run the risk of losing a lot of soldiers and in the case of america, even losing one soldier is going to have a huge backlash nationally because the war is becoming less and less supported you'd need to capture and hold such a vast area and then iran can basically pick and choose where to attack, and your forces on kharg would still be very vulnerable and all the while, iran just needs to hit one or two ships to stal things it was something like for one tanker, you need a US warship to cover it, so for even 10 tankers they just don't have the presence over there to really even e***** safely they also don't even have the means to attempt to really take kharg or the coastline unless they send substantial armor/ground forces so not only would th eUS have to really commit which would draw backlash back at home, but that's when you start losing a lot of troops and each troop is like a nail in the coffin for republicans and with how much trump has been pissing on nato and doing things like dismissing nato allies help in the middle east previously, it'd be a bad look for most ocuntries themselves to even show support in the war at this point not to mention, because the US isn't sending in tons of troops, the bulk of the weight would seemingly be on the rest of NATO in a war they didn't start or weren't talked about, and to compound that, israel is flat out saying they're not going to do anything in iran via ground forces so trump is basically complaining that nato doesn't do the dangerous heavy lifting with ground forces

20

Upper_Possession6275 Apr 2, 2026 +15

One big thing I don’t see mentioned is geography. Iran is 75% mountains and a lot of the rest is desert. Invading Iran is geographically set up for failure based on US experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. Otherwise right on the nose.

15

tecton1 Apr 2, 2026 +6

Yeah that's it. The actually competant people in the US admin have quit, been fired or isolated. Anyone who worked in defense knew why this was a bad idea from the beginning.

6

Vernknight50 Apr 2, 2026 +1

Additionally, Iran can launch drones from any corner of it's territory that can threaten shipping. So it's a titanic task that goes beyond even holding the shores.

1

RenideoS Apr 3, 2026 +1

The essence of asymmetrical warfare. Not just that one side is more powerful than the other, but that one side is more exposed and the other side has unique advantages that flow from being less powerful and more irregular. When you are the weaker party you can take big risks, you can break more rules, because you have less to lose. The larger power is the one that needs to exercise control, in doing so it concentrates and is highly visible, it is usually the occupying power and has less local knowledge and support among civilians. una salus victis nullam sperare salutem. The weaker power has options the stronger does not, because the downside risk is reduced and the upside is often increased. Indeed what you say about only a small amount of success in hitting shipping is the classic logic of terrorism, you need huge amounts of intrusion into privacy and freedom, huge amounts of cost to try to prevent all terrorism, but a small amount of successful terrorism achieves its goal, which is to create the fear of future successes and thus influence outcomes. In shipping this is manifested as a combination of insurance and risk aversion (the crews simply won't be deployed if their lives are at risk, it isn't their job to act like they're part of a military). There is no escape from that basic logic, of course. To occupy and control against asymmetrical warfare takes huge resources and there is no end-point, the threat never disappears. Even if you actually overthrew the government elements of the former military would remain as guerrillas, almost certainly. And they would know how to exert power cheaply, exactly as Iran is doing right now.

1

Expert_Cheesecake695 Apr 2, 2026 +4

It is. This was a conversation that intelligence and military officials have been having with the White House for about 50 years.

4

omfgeometry Apr 2, 2026 +22

Trump shits himself and tells Europe to clean his underwear.

22

planetarybum Apr 2, 2026 +6

Unrealistic is a polite way of saying batshit crazy.

6

OddThoughts88 Apr 2, 2026 +8

The rest of the world's normal countries will negotiate with Iran in good faith, pay the toll, and accept it. The US will continue to lash out on behalf of Israel and scare off its allies en masse I don't make the rules

8

Best-Yak2590 Apr 2, 2026 -3

Yes but I am sure oil companies are slowly staring bypass the straight of hormuz by pipeline directly to gulf of oman. It a unprecedented logistical project but if gulf countries like saudi and UAE manage to do it they can almost end the IRAN bargaining power. Yes it take years but it's only way to take away IRAN advantage.

-3

BioboerGiel Apr 2, 2026 +7

Those pipelines are just as vulnerable as ships in the strait. It's a static, miles long target well within range of a lot of Iranian weaponry.

7

Best-Yak2590 Apr 2, 2026 -6

Yes but not really, currently only way to help USA is send warships which are cost billions. Since other countries don't have a trillion dollar military budget so losing a warship could be big loss and irreplaceable for UK. So if instead to risking their billion dollar ships they could just maintain their oil supple with few billion dollar worth of air defence I am sure they are agree for it. Like if somehow they convince Nato to contribute their air defences for it, it could form a 3-4 layer of world's best air defence, which won't be perfect but to success iran has to use 2-3 times more missiles. Yes the chances of hitting the pipes is there but you can repair it almost instantly comparatively to a billion dollar ships.

-6

Tickles-The-Octopus Apr 2, 2026 +3

There is an such an increable amount of stupid in this reply it is almost unbelievable. Good job.....

3

HydrostaticTrans Apr 2, 2026 +4

Pretty easy to hit a pipeline with a drone or missile. Iran has infinite bargaining power because the gulf states are so vulnerable. Between the desalination plants, pipelines, refineries, oil fields, gas fields. There are so many juicy and nearly indefensible or even flammable targets.

4

OddThoughts88 Apr 2, 2026

Lol true, US blew up Nordstream and now look at the situation Europe is in

0

Best-Yak2590 Apr 2, 2026 -3

Hormuz strait is very narrow with only one way of entry and exit. That's why enter it is risk of stuck in there. But having a pipeline through middle of saudi and UAE means USA and allied nations don't have to risk their ships and personal for maintaining global supply they can put all their focus on defence. Yes missile still reach that but it is less resky way so the other Nato country can also help in it by creating a multi layer defence system. Once that happens IRAN have to go for their long range balistic missiles which can cause damage but every time they launch you get the location of the launcher and eliminate it. Since there should be 3-4 layer of defences the most of the missile could be stop but even if some cross the damage wouldn't be catastrophic. And then it's matter of endurance, who iran+ china +Russia against GCC+Nato

-3

HydrostaticTrans Apr 2, 2026 +8

NATO isn't going to get involved. Numerous NATO and G7 countries have already come out and said plainly this is not their war. There is zero political will in any NATO country to pull Trump's ass out of the fire and anybody that does stick their neck out will likely get thrown under the bus by Trump. It would be political suicide to help in America's war of aggression.

8

Ian_W Apr 2, 2026 +3

> Yes but I am sure oil companies are slowly staring bypass the straight of hormuz by pipeline directly to gulf of oman. Note both ends of that pipeline are within easy Iranian drone range. As is every ship in the Persian Gulf. You'll need to e***** the whole Gulf, or control the Iranian hinterland to a depth of at least 100km.

3

sionnach_fi Apr 2, 2026 +2

Yeah Europe is kinda pre-occupied with a nuclear power invading a European country.

2

dark_gear Apr 2, 2026 +3

The only reasonable way to make the Strait more stable is to blockade the US. The remaining countries can thus resume good faith negotiations. Sadly, I can't see this happening as this would require sanity to return to the US.

3

CommunalJellyRoll Apr 2, 2026 +1

Give Iran Trump and co to open it?

1

Over-Willingness-933 Apr 3, 2026 +3

An Iranian once said the IRGC are only supported by 10% of Iranians. The vast majority want them gone. The problem is the IRGC are religious fanatics who will die rather than surrender and 10% is still 9 million people.

3

Ultra_Metal Apr 2, 2026 -6

Of course France surrendered before even trying.

-6

SPQR-Tightanus Apr 3, 2026 -1

Trump surrendered to Putin before he was even elected.

-1

Ultra_Metal Apr 3, 2026 +2

I don't support Trump so that's not the gotcha you think it is.

2

OtheDreamer Apr 2, 2026 -26

Ah, so it's just like France's expectations of the Russia/Ukraine war then.

-26

Phylanara Apr 2, 2026 +21

Oh, there are many similarities between Russia/Ukraine and US/Iran. Are you sure you want to draw attention to them?

21

OtheDreamer Apr 2, 2026 -31

EU wanted Ukraine to join NATO so they can trigger Article 5, which would only bring the US in. EU could always have / still can form a **coalition of the willing** to fight with Ukraine if NATO involvement is what they wanted. Since NATO is a defensive agreement and all. Here Trump has actually asked for a coalition of the willing and there are literally none. So none of our EU allies should ever be surprised when Americans are unwilling to fight their future wars. Especially France. So France has unrealistic expectations of Russia/Ukraine war, says the US has unrealistic expectations for this one, and is generally a lousy smug ally.

-31

NotoriousEMB Apr 2, 2026 +18

I'm struggling to think of a more unreliable ally than the U.S. right now...

18

_SpaceLord_ Apr 2, 2026 +10

> So none of our EU allies should ever be surprised when Americans are unwilling to fight their future wars. I can’t think of any EU powers who are planning on illegally and unilaterally attacking a foreign nation, nor would they expect America’s help if they were. Since they can read, unlike Dear President, they understand how (and *why*) NATO works.

10

OtheDreamer Apr 2, 2026 -3

Umm, apparently not though because they wanted NATO (the defensive pact) to be used as a cudgel for Russia by bringing Ukraine in. So that you can do it "legally" by dragging US in. Nothing has stopped the EU from ending the Russia war 3-4 years ago, or from buying Russia energy.

-3

_SpaceLord_ Apr 2, 2026 +11

Yes, they wanted Ukraine to join a defensive pact. In order to **defend them** from foreign aggression. The United States, on the other hand, *is* the aggressor. NATO has zero obligation to participate in this war in the slightest, Trump’s (and listnookors) little tantrums not withstanding.

11

OtheDreamer Apr 2, 2026 +1

Same logic you just tried to use...the US is under zero obligation nor has it ever have been for Ukraine. EU tries to guilt trip us every week while buying Russian energy that supplies Russian soldiers to kill Ukrainians. Who needs enemies when you have allies like that??

1

Different_Syrup_6944 Apr 2, 2026 +6

Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees from Russia and the US. Both of those countries violated those guarantees when the war started in 2014, so Ukraine tried to go to NATO and the EU to get more concrete guarantees. I agree though that Europe needs to relieve its dependence on Russian energy. It was caught flat footed. The war on Iran is strengthening Russia even more, making it even harder for Europe and Ukraine. As you said, who needs enemies with allies like that.

6

_SpaceLord_ Apr 2, 2026 +3

Keep whining bro.

3

jkoci Apr 2, 2026 +13

Iran was never a threat for US/EU. Comparing Russian invasion of Ukraine and the very probable continuation of Russian invasion in direction Baltic and Poland, is not comparable with US/EU invading Iran.

13

OtheDreamer Apr 2, 2026 -20

What are you talking about guy. Iran has always been a threat. This strait thing is literally their whole gameplan anytime they want to threaten others or bully their region or the world energy economy, and everyone is supposed to accept their terrorist state. They are Russia's ally, so their gameplan IS the long-game BRICS wants to go for regardless you goober. Means BRICS (Iran) would have always shut the strait down if not this year, a few years from now for some other reason.

-20

JY0950 Apr 2, 2026 +5

There's a reason why Iran only closed the Straits now when it has said death to America death to Irsael for 47 years.. It's because America and Irsael wanted regime change. It's like Kim Jong Un or any dictator would do if they're threatened.

5

OtheDreamer Apr 2, 2026 -1

Yeah, and Iran wants to punish others for it. if they want death to America they can fight us for it. If the rest of the world doesn’t like Iran attacking them because they are not joining them in this….eventually the rest of the world will HAVE to do something when the US sends the boys home. Trump wasn’t lying….the strait is not required to be open for the US. It is tor the world, and if they don’t want to fight for it….oooohkay you guys can deal with the oil

-1

JY0950 Apr 2, 2026 +6

The US hits a bee's nest and expects NATO to clean up his mess?

6

jkoci Apr 2, 2026 +4

Before this shitshow with trump, they only threatened Israel, not the whole region. Aha, you know that for some reason in a few years BRICS would close the strait anyway..so no more business at all between Europe and Asia? Did you read that somewhere? Anyway Trump is an ally of Russia from the beginning of his presidency.

4

jkoci Apr 2, 2026 +2

Before this shitshow of trump when did they threaten to close the straight? send us some links about it.

2

br0k3nh410 Apr 2, 2026 +2

"Here Trump has actually asked for a coalition of the willing and there are literally none." Another problem that we wouldn't need to discuss if he wasn't threatening the sovereignty of any ally withing arms reach. All of this was preventable. All of it.

2

planetarybum Apr 2, 2026 +9

Except France didnt start a war and then leave.

9

OtheDreamer Apr 2, 2026

No it’s just trying to play both sides in Russia/Ukraine and get others to fight, while undermining the US every chance it can. France didn’t just start their bs because of Trump either.

0

Pierre_Francois_III Apr 3, 2026 +1

You just understood it upside down : US is constantly undermining Europe & France, even act explicitly hostile, and then complain like a cry baby that we don't follow tem in their epstein covering up war

1

mrappbrain Apr 2, 2026 -1

'Liberate' mate it's their territory

-1

SPQR-Tightanus Apr 3, 2026 +2

The Strait is not their territory.

2

Unlucky_Accountant71 Apr 3, 2026 +2

The Islamic Republic guard corps don't own the ocean mate.

2

froopecind89 Apr 2, 2026 -19

His wife will slap him

-19

Macron says military operation to liberate Strait of Hormuz 'unrealistic'

💬 Send a Message

70 Comments