By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Two U.S. Navy destroyers successfully transited the Strait of Hormuz and entered the Persian Gulf, navigating a sustained barrage of threats including small boats, missiles, and drones launched by Iran. Despite the intensity of these coordinated attacks, defensive measures and air support successfully intercepted or deterred all incoming threats, preventing any projectiles from reaching the vessels. This passage occurs as part of a U.S. initiative to “guide” ships through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint where Iran has sought control, impacting global oil prices due to stalled traffic. In response to the Iranian aggression, U.S. forces destroyed six Iranian small boats involved in the attacks.
Read the original article here
The recent transit of the Strait of Hormuz by two U.S. Navy destroyers, the USS Truxtun and USS Mason, following what has been described as an Iranian onslaught, brings a complex picture into focus, one that immediately raises questions about the broader implications for maritime security. These Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, reportedly supported by Apache helicopters and other aircraft, encountered a series of coordinated threats, including small boats, missiles, and drones, according to defense officials. While the destroyers themselves managed to navigate into the Persian Gulf without damage, the success of these heavily armed warships raises a significant concern: how does this pave the way for civilian vessels, particularly oil tankers, to safely traverse this crucial waterway?
The stark reality is that while the destroyers’ passage may be a display of military capability, it doesn’t necessarily translate to safe passage for commercial shipping. The narrative suggests that Iran’s actions are designed not to overwhelm the U.S. Navy directly, but rather to create a level of risk that makes it economically unviable for companies to send their valuable cargo through. The prospect of losing half a billion dollars worth of product and hardware is a powerful deterrent, and it appears that Iran’s strategy might be to make the strait too dangerous for civilian vessels to risk, effectively allowing them to retain a form of control.
This situation presents a potentially unsustainable and incredibly expensive shift from a time, seemingly only a couple of months ago, when any ship could have made this passage with relative ease. The fact that it now requires the intervention of warships with significant air support signifies a substantial foreign policy challenge. The term “onslaught” itself seems to spark debate, with some questioning the severity of the threat against modern warships. However, even if the Iranian actions were not a direct existential threat to the destroyers, the act of launching missiles, drones, and fast boats is enough to cause insurance companies to balk, creating a significant hurdle for commercial traffic.
The cost of such an operation is also a point of contention. The idea of a billion dollars of military equipment successfully navigating a series of threats that cost mere tens of thousands to initiate seems almost comically disproportionate. The question then becomes, what is the long-term sustainability of this approach? Some express a grim outlook, anticipating a significant escalation of tensions in the very near future. The core purpose of this entire endeavor appears to be the safe passage of oil tankers, carrying highly flammable liquids, and the current situation seems to put that objective further out of reach.
The success of the two destroyers, while a tactical achievement, is viewed by some as a symptom of a larger strategic misstep. The notion of “onslaught” and “ceasefire” are brought into question, especially if the broader conflict is indeed over, as some interpretations suggest. If the war is concluded, why the need for such a forceful display and evasion of threats? The current predicament feels like a highly costly way to accomplish something that was once a routine and cost-free operation, raising doubts about the effectiveness of recent policy decisions.
There’s also a significant layer of confusion and misinformation surrounding the events. Reports from different sources, including Iran’s own claims of hitting a U.S. ship and forcing a retreat, contribute to a murky information landscape. This makes it challenging to discern the reality of the situation and the true extent of the dangers faced. The effectiveness of the U.S. Navy’s countermeasures, such as Close-In Weapon Systems (CIWS), against a barrage of missiles is acknowledged, but questions remain about the sheer number of missiles that could be engaged and whether the U.S. possesses sufficient ammunition for sustained operations.
The very definition of an “Iranian onslaught” in the current context is questioned, with some sarcastically suggesting it might involve little more than slingshots. The reliability of reporting from certain news outlets is also called into question, adding another layer of skepticism. Despite the challenges, the U.S. military has indicated efforts to encourage traffic flow, with Central Command stating they have reached out to dozens of shippers to promote passage. Moreover, two U.S.-flagged commercial ships did successfully transit the strait, and a Maersk subsidiary’s vessel exited the Gulf under U.S. military protection, suggesting some level of success in facilitating commercial movement.
However, the underlying dynamic appears to be a strategic framing by the U.S. where civilian tankers are, in effect, acting as escorts for military ships. This unconventional approach highlights the difficulties in ensuring free passage. The news of former President Trump’s intent to guide commercial vessels through the strait, now coupled with this incident, raises questions about potential future strategies, including the possibility of paid escorts or the reclassification of such efforts as “humanitarian” to secure funding, potentially diverting resources from domestic programs. The lack of congressional approval for such unilateral actions is also noted.
The overarching sentiment is that this situation has inadvertently generated significant public relations for Iran, highlighting the dangers of the strait rather than showcasing the U.S.’s ability to guarantee safe passage. The focus on military assets navigating a perilous zone, while civilian ships remain vulnerable, underscores the core problem. The absence of mines is also a pertinent question, alongside inquiries about which specific ships are being escorted and the broader context of geopolitical events, such as the release of Epstein files, which appear unrelated but are brought up in the context of a perceived lack of transparency. The success of two ships getting through is contrasted with the larger question of how many are willing to attempt the passage into the strait, rather than just exiting. The idea of Iran using artillery, which cannot be shot down, is also raised as a potential escalation. Ultimately, the core concern remains: civilian ships are unlikely to transit through the Strait of Hormuz under the current circumstances. The reporting itself is deemed by some as overly dramatic, especially when juxtaposed with past declarations of victory and the apparent need for warships to evade an “onslaught.” The central question lingers: what has truly been accomplished with the considerable expenditure of life, destruction, and financial resources?