a bloodbath in the Strait of Hormuz or let the world economy sink

Thirteen days after Operation ‘Epic Fury’ beheaded the Iranian regime, the interruption of merchant traffic in the Persian Gulf it has meant the counterblow that neither the US nor its allies anticipated. It affects between 20 and 25% of the world flow of hydrocarbonswhile Iran continues to use the route to export crude oil with a “ghost fleet.”

Half a dozen freighters have been attacked by “disobey instructions” of Iran when trying to cross the strait since last March 10. The United States and Israel claim to have reduced Iran’s capacity to ballistic attackand more than 80% that of drones. His navy was “basically destroyed,” Trump boasted.

However, neither air nor naval supremacy prevents the Islamic Republic from threatening merchant ships and oil tankers with short-range naval projectiles and sea mines. In a marine strip of barely 33 kilometerswith bases on the Iranian coast heavily fortifiedthe escort mission proposed by the White House seems unlikely.

The agency Reuters has revealed that the US fleet in the Arabian Sea receives “daily” requestsbut has refused to enter Hormuz, citing the “extreme danger” it poses. Iranian propaganda has threatened to turn the Persian Gulf into a “sea ​​of ​​blood“while predicting that they will manage to bring the price of a barrel of crude oil to 200 dollars.

And the closure of Hormuz is the real weapon of mass destruction of Iran against the rest of the world, causing the biggest swing in the stock market since the oil crisis in the 70s. Mojtada Jameneiinvested as supreme leader after the death of his father Ali on the first day of the war, confirmed in his first statement that they would maintain the pressure.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) is trying to contain rising prices by releasing 400 million barrels of oil, the largest expenditure of reserves in its history. But this flow will barely cover for 20 more days the crude oil that has stopped being supplied. And the Devil poses his dilemma: prolong the crisis or open the strait with blood and fire?

Close-in missiles, drones and mines

2,500 years ago, the Persian king Xerxes I lost his fleet when pursuing the Greek ships in indefinitely. The Hellenes took advantage of the narrow passages between tongues of land in the Saronic Gulf to nullify the invader’s numerical advantage. Today it is the Persians who defend in Hormuzand technology is not enough to solve a historical difficulty.

“President Trump will have to choose between accept de facto the blockade of Hormuz —with the impact that this would have on the price of gasoline and on global inflation, especially for North Americans— or promoting a negotiated exit“, says Juan Rodríguez Garat, retired admiral.

General Miguel Ángel Ballesteros, former director of the Department of Homeland Security, is even more categorical. “Trump is losing the war“, he says. And the longer the confrontation continues, “the worse it will be: for him, for the world economy and for the US economy.”

The combination of naval mines, anti-ship missiles and drones It makes any ship that crosses the strait a vulnerable target, experts summarize. “You cannot put oil tankers in Hormuz if you are not absolutely convinced that missiles are not going to be launched at them from the Iranian coast. And that certainty is not possible“, Garat resumes.

Although Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and Army have lost much of their arsenal, they are by no means unarmed. The missiles short range, small and mobilecan easily be hidden “in a civilian building, in the infirmary of a hospital, in the anteroom of a mosque…”, points out the admiral.

Furthermore, in at least one of the attacks the participation of one of the feared terrorists has been confirmed. drones Shahed. “As the strait is small, they can be used cheap and even almost commercial drones to saturate the ships’ defense.” Frigates would have to expend their countermeasures with no guarantee of eliminating the threat.

However, as a sailor with more than 47 years of experience, Garat identifies the real nightmare: the naval mineswhich are just a few meters from the surface and can sink or disable a ship with relative ease. “A mine can be laid by anyone: a fishing boat o even another tanker“.

“Mines are an extremely dangerous enemy at sea,” he insists, and the United States knows it. In 1988, the American frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts came close to sinking when one detonated, and in 1991, the USS Tripoli and the USS Princeton They were severely damaged by mines during the Gulf War.

Is there a military solution?

Faced with this triangle of threats, neither the convoys nor the naval escorts They offer a definitive solution, Ballesteros values. “Another possibility would be to organize convoys of ships… but the problem is devilish because there is a risk. No shipowner wants to take risks“.

Neither insurers They are willing to cover high-value vessels in high-risk environments, which contributes to paralyzing maritime traffic. “This is what happened in Bab el-Mandeb with the Houthis and what is already beginning to be seen around Hormuz, with ships diverted, anchored or awaiting instructions,” summarizes the general.

Eliminating the threat would force “militarily seize the Iranian coast“says Garat. But this would require “a mass of resources and troops that are not deployed todayin addition to assuming an incalculable political cost” for the land invasion, ditch. “It does not occur to me that this could be done militarily in the current circumstances.”

Retired Army General Jesús Argumosa also influences this. “You cannot enter Hormuz with ground forces now. The Americans do not want to send ground troops; They hope that other allies will do it. But no one wants to do it.”

“Iran has about 92 million inhabitants and an area equivalent to three times Spain.. It is a very complicated territory to control, because the domain is not limited only to the strait, but to the entire area, where there are still harassment operations,” says Argumosa.

As a land general, he emphasizes that “A decisive result will never be achieved with the air force alone. It is necessary to deploy ground forces. “In the current situation, the only realistic option is a negotiation.”

For General Argumosa, “the Iranians are resisting by applying what we used to call in the annals of military doctrine ‘defense at all costs’. They are not going to give up. “Trump’s statement calling for unconditional surrender is absurd.”

He also remembers that in the military field “unconditional surrender does not exist. You must always offer the enemy a way out. If not, the Numancia thing happensand today no one can afford another Numancia. “There are no means, and there are also the Chinese and the Russians involved.”

What’s going through Trump’s head?

Although he has maintained contradictory rhetoric since ‘Epic Fury’ began, Trump is the president who promised his followers “not to involve the US in any new war“. Although his followers still condone bombing operations, a ground invasion and prolonged occupation would harm his already diminished popularity.

The dilemma is devilish. Iran is not going to offer Trump any reason to declare victory and leave victorious. The Gulf countries, greatly affected, ask that the US not abandon them in the face of a Tehran emboldenedwith his fist clenched on Hormuz and thirst for revenge against those who allowed American bases on his soil.

But at the same time, Washington acknowledged that it was not “prepared” for a deployment that would involve tens of thousands of troops in hostile territory. Trump could opt for a limited tactical operation: conquer Kharg Islandfor example, through which 90% of Iranian oil passes. But it is a scenario as risky as Hormuz, and it does not guarantee that Iran will loosen its grip on the world economy.

“Given the size, population and characteristics of Iran, any operation that requires boots on the groundso it is almost impossible to provoke a regime change in Iran with air and missile attacks alone,” concludes General Ballesteros.