Just seems like baseless speculation, another attempt to rationalize what occam's razor can much more easily explain with long-established egomania or senility.
Mmh yes and no. There are two arms in this hypothesis and you can summarize the second one (the main one) as basically wanting to piss off / punish the Europeans. This is perfectly on point and fits the character.
Occam's razor might well describe actions of a cold calculating leader. But of Trump..?
The theory is completely debunked, as ships are passing through now but not because the US allows it, but because Iran selectively allows it. Theory is moot.
This fact is mentioned in the text. I don't believe in 4D chess theories and I think what's happening is just a usual chaos. But technically as long as European ships are not passing the theory is not moot since it's main idea is that market fracturing gives Trump adminstration some potential leverages.
If this argument is true, who will pay the toll? Europe or the Gulf states or both? Oil is a global market, but the suppliers have to get to market. And the Gulf states sit behind a gate via a vis the straits.
Not sure what the plan could ever thought to be?
Anyone dare to explain this layman?
Make Europe jump to another more solid economic and defense ally? Increasing even further the difficulties to do a preemptive attack?
The whole thing is a whole mess. Why didn't they seized the strait first? Why didn't they secure pathways to their own control first?
I see that not telling any of the allies first was a strategic decision with consequences for decades to come.
If not attacking European and Asian economies was not the main goal I can't comprehend what was even the plan.
Or would the plan be creating the scenario for another world war? That is even stupid as it only made the other economies attack to want to retaliate hard. And on the other side would be everyone else with nuclear weapons. The only outcome would be the end of the world.
(To be fair, all mega rich have built super bunkers)
> Not sure what the plan could ever thought to be? Anyone dare to explain this layman?
IMO, they watched too many movies and simply assumed their own victory.
> Make Europe jump to another more solid economic and defense ally? Increasing even further the difficulties to do a preemptive attack?
While they do seem to want Europe to spend more on defence, I think it's genuinely not occurred to them that threatening to seize Greenland and Canada (and Iceland even if by accident) and dishonouring all the allies who lost servicepersons while assisting the US on previous missions, and putting tariffs on everyone, and interfering with everyone else's domestic politics, might make us all unwilling to assist in their adventures.
Basically, yes, they want Europe to be a solid economic and defence ally (and culture-war ally), but in the NPC sense, not as actual sovereign nations with our own interests* who aren't just simple computer programs that exist solely to make their lives more interesting.
> The whole thing is a whole mess. Why didn't they seized the strait first? Why didn't they secure pathways to their own control first?
If "they" is "the US armed forces", the answer is: they can't.
The geography massively favours the defender; and even if the geography didn't, developments in drone warfare since current US materiel was developed has shifted hard enough to render it similar utility to the Russian materiel vs. Ukraine.
> (To be fair, all mega rich have built super bunkers)
I don't see this helping them, but like that one with the carbon fibre submarine, I don't think you get them to understand why it's the wrong kind of strength.
* even though we also broadly agree that Iranian leadership and nuclear ambitions are a threat, for most of us they're quite a long way down the list, for the average person in the UK I think Iran was somewhere between bus timetables and the price of organic cocoa before this second concurrent "3 day special military operation" started
It makes no sense to me. Trump is clearly desperate for the strait to be opened again (see his last tweet); the US navy is not able to escort anyone through it without taking huge risks; the insurance backstop is useless- almost no ships passed through the strait, period- the ones that do have an agreement with Iran, not the US. Increased oil prices hurt US citizens almost as much as they hurt everyone else. It all sounds like an attempt to make a quagmire look like 4d chess.
What is happening instead is that Iran is making agreements with various countries to let their ships through. These countries stand to lose it all again in case of a US attack, so they have an interest in trying to stop it.
I heard a similar analysis by an episode of Predictive History[0]. Only watched the first 15 minutes so far where it gets to where the US country/those in power (not population) benefits.
A big factor the author ignored, is this potential “strategy” he speculates no longer works in a multi-polar world, especially when there is a thing called China. It is not exactly true if reopening Hormuz is simply a will of US or not.
The damage of loosing even 1 carrier is much much higher than 20 years ago because of this. But US force itself to play this unfavorable game that its enemies can not even dream about.
Just seems like baseless speculation, another attempt to rationalize what occam's razor can much more easily explain with long-established egomania or senility.
> another attempt to rationalize what occam's razor
Occam's razor... senility? I'm tired of fixing this.
> can much more easily explain with [something]
An "easy explanation" is very different from a truthful and proper one. I mean, different as night and day.
Or “hey stop talking about certain files and look over here instead!”
Mmh yes and no. There are two arms in this hypothesis and you can summarize the second one (the main one) as basically wanting to piss off / punish the Europeans. This is perfectly on point and fits the character.
Occam's razor might well describe actions of a cold calculating leader. But of Trump..?
The theory is completely debunked, as ships are passing through now but not because the US allows it, but because Iran selectively allows it. Theory is moot.
https://gcaptain.com/controlled-passage-first-ships-edge-thr...
This fact is mentioned in the text. I don't believe in 4D chess theories and I think what's happening is just a usual chaos. But technically as long as European ships are not passing the theory is not moot since it's main idea is that market fracturing gives Trump adminstration some potential leverages.
The 4d chessmaster who screams he is going to 'reign' fire on his opponent after claiming he has checkmate already.
It quacks way more like a duck.
If this argument is true, who will pay the toll? Europe or the Gulf states or both? Oil is a global market, but the suppliers have to get to market. And the Gulf states sit behind a gate via a vis the straits.
Not sure what the plan could ever thought to be? Anyone dare to explain this layman?
Make Europe jump to another more solid economic and defense ally? Increasing even further the difficulties to do a preemptive attack?
The whole thing is a whole mess. Why didn't they seized the strait first? Why didn't they secure pathways to their own control first?
I see that not telling any of the allies first was a strategic decision with consequences for decades to come. If not attacking European and Asian economies was not the main goal I can't comprehend what was even the plan.
Or would the plan be creating the scenario for another world war? That is even stupid as it only made the other economies attack to want to retaliate hard. And on the other side would be everyone else with nuclear weapons. The only outcome would be the end of the world.
(To be fair, all mega rich have built super bunkers)
> Not sure what the plan could ever thought to be? Anyone dare to explain this layman?
IMO, they watched too many movies and simply assumed their own victory.
> Make Europe jump to another more solid economic and defense ally? Increasing even further the difficulties to do a preemptive attack?
While they do seem to want Europe to spend more on defence, I think it's genuinely not occurred to them that threatening to seize Greenland and Canada (and Iceland even if by accident) and dishonouring all the allies who lost servicepersons while assisting the US on previous missions, and putting tariffs on everyone, and interfering with everyone else's domestic politics, might make us all unwilling to assist in their adventures.
Basically, yes, they want Europe to be a solid economic and defence ally (and culture-war ally), but in the NPC sense, not as actual sovereign nations with our own interests* who aren't just simple computer programs that exist solely to make their lives more interesting.
> The whole thing is a whole mess. Why didn't they seized the strait first? Why didn't they secure pathways to their own control first?
If "they" is "the US armed forces", the answer is: they can't.
The geography massively favours the defender; and even if the geography didn't, developments in drone warfare since current US materiel was developed has shifted hard enough to render it similar utility to the Russian materiel vs. Ukraine.
> (To be fair, all mega rich have built super bunkers)
I don't see this helping them, but like that one with the carbon fibre submarine, I don't think you get them to understand why it's the wrong kind of strength.
* even though we also broadly agree that Iranian leadership and nuclear ambitions are a threat, for most of us they're quite a long way down the list, for the average person in the UK I think Iran was somewhere between bus timetables and the price of organic cocoa before this second concurrent "3 day special military operation" started
It makes no sense to me. Trump is clearly desperate for the strait to be opened again (see his last tweet); the US navy is not able to escort anyone through it without taking huge risks; the insurance backstop is useless- almost no ships passed through the strait, period- the ones that do have an agreement with Iran, not the US. Increased oil prices hurt US citizens almost as much as they hurt everyone else. It all sounds like an attempt to make a quagmire look like 4d chess.
What is happening instead is that Iran is making agreements with various countries to let their ships through. These countries stand to lose it all again in case of a US attack, so they have an interest in trying to stop it.
A two-week old perspective looking more like a 2-year old perspective.
Correction: "... a 2-year-old's ..."
I heard a similar analysis by an episode of Predictive History[0]. Only watched the first 15 minutes so far where it gets to where the US country/those in power (not population) benefits.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrmERlHUqBk
An unironic 4D chess claim! You don't see them much anymore.
“The bottleneck is not political. It is geological and hydrographic.”
… and then …
“The binding constraint on Hormuz was never a minefield or insurance. It is the US Navy’s willingness and ability to reopen it.”
A big factor the author ignored, is this potential “strategy” he speculates no longer works in a multi-polar world, especially when there is a thing called China. It is not exactly true if reopening Hormuz is simply a will of US or not.
The damage of loosing even 1 carrier is much much higher than 20 years ago because of this. But US force itself to play this unfavorable game that its enemies can not even dream about.
original title was too long:
The Hormuz Hypothesis – What If the U.S. Navy Isn’t in a Hurry to Reopen the Strait?
The article's age (and complete inapplicability by now) is the bigger problem...
This is just a MAGA True Believer doing hermeneutics. It's little better than Qanona "baking" Q drops.
[dead]