Blockade

I’ve posted only one thing since the Iran war started. On March 31st, I wrote here on Substack and X, quoting Richard Haass:

“If, however, Iran demands full control over the Strait and continues to deny select others the ability to use it, there remains the option ‘Open for All or Closed to All’ of blockading the waterway to deny Iran its benefits.

Under such a policy, the United States and its partners would announce that no tanker from Iran would be permitted to reach its destination in another country until Iran backed off its threats to and attacks on commercial vessels transiting the Strait. In other words, Iran cannot pick and choose who gets the region’s oil and who does not.

Accomplishing this aim would require setting up an effective defensive line across the 200-mile-wide Gulf of Oman. Doing so would require ships, aircraft, and drones patrolling well outside the Strait. An aircraft carrier and access to local bases would also be required. Commercial vessels that refused to stop at the line would be disabled. Governments that have title to the vessels or are expecting a delivery would receive advance notice of the new policy.

The ‘Open for All or Closed to All’ policy could rally the world as it reflects a commitment to keeping an international waterway open to nearly everyone’s benefit. It would not increase the damage and destruction of the war. To the contrary, it would be operationally far less demanding and dangerous to undertake than either the through-the-Strait tanker-protection option or Kharg Island occupation alternatives. Countries currently receiving energy from Iran – China, India, Pakistan, and Turkey – might well pressure Iran to desist from threatening the use of the Strait by others lest they be worse off. Iran would be further isolated if it refused. The policy would deny Iran its primary source of revenue, adding to domestic pressures to accept a ceasefire or face a larger challenge to the regime.

The risk of this approach is that it would increase oil prices further. That said, the increase should be modest as it would only remove the already relatively small amounts of Iranian exports from the global market. It could well complicate U.S. relations with China, but this is something that could be managed through diplomacy. Denying Iran the ability to sell its oil might cause Iran to rethink its stance as well as lead China (the largest importer of Iranian oil) to play a more constructive role in opening the Strait.”

As far as I am aware, this option was not widely suggested in the media.

President Trump has just announced:

🎯

In a dire situation, I think it is the least-bad way forward, and it’s the only favorable way I could see to proceed (that would increase US leverage) 12 days ago.

I do not condone the President’s language over the past two weeks. But can this curtail the need for more violent escalation? Let’s see how it plays out…