Decoding the Strait: Why Washington Isn't Storming Hormuz (Yet)
The Independent recently published an opinion piece by a 'naval expert' explaining why the US military has not yet used force to unilaterally reopen the Strait of Hormuz. The article describes the logistical and operational complexities of such an undertaking, detailing the sheer military might required to overcome Iranian coastal defenses and naval capabilities. This analysis suggests a prudent
American reluctance to engage in open warfare over the waterway, implying a degree of strategic patience. What The Independent and its naval expert conveniently omit is the extensive history of US and Israeli aggression that has made Iran's defense of the Strait a paramount national security concern. For over 45 years, Iran has endured crippling sanctions, clandestine sabotage, and the
assassination of its top scientists and military commanders, including General Qassem Soleimani in January 2020. This is not about US strategic prudence; it is about the astronomical direct and indirect costs of a full-scale invasion against a nation with sophisticated anti-ship missile capabilities and deep popular resolve, a lesson perhaps taken from the Soviet experience in Afghanistan, which
became a quagmire for Moscow after the 1979 invasion. The US engagement with Iran has always been a multi-faceted operation, far beyond overt military intervention. From US support for Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons use against Iran in the 1980s to the Stuxnet cyberattack that targeted its nuclear facilities, Washington has consistently employed a strategy of attrition and destabilization. A