The Strait is 33 miles / 54 kilometers wide at it's most narrow point, I'm hard pressed to imagine that the navigable part of it is narrow enough to close that way.
True, but the actual channel through which supertankers navigate is only 6 miles wide (two miles for each direction of traffic with a two mile gutter to separate). The rest of the channel at that point is either within Iranian territorial waters or too shallow for supertankers to safely transit.
I've always heard that Iran's plans would involve the usual tools like missiles, mines, small boats, etc., all of which have obvious counters. I'm not saying it would be a cakewalk, and not even considering how things would change when they go nuclear, but "easily" doesn't strike me as accurate.
Oh, I very much agree with you. I'm sure Iran would follow through on all those options before they did something as difficult to undo as scuttling tankers to block the Strait.
There's also the minor detail that they import over open water 1/2 of their petroleum distillates, a naval war in that area would bring their economy to a near halt. Drop a few bombs on their only refinery (I've read they have only one, but whatever the number, it's small enough for us and their neighbors to take out) and their country reverts to a pre-industrialized state with mass starvation.
Yeah, that would be awful for them. But given the low elasticity for gasoline consumption, cutting off 40% of daily oil flow would be an economic disaster for us. Businesses would grind to a halt as tens of millions of people would no longer be able to afford to go to work. For starters.
Iran is exquisitely vulnerable, which is certainly one of their reasons for pursuing the bomb (and one reason they might continue even after a regime change).
Absolutely. But the entire industrialized world is also vulnerable. And if we start a conflict and do take out Iran's sole refinery while blockading them to prevent them from getting refined products, they will have every incentive to block the Strait. Right?
True, but the actual channel through which supertankers navigate is only 6 miles wide (two miles for each direction of traffic with a two mile gutter to separate). The rest of the channel at that point is either within Iranian territorial waters or too shallow for supertankers to safely transit.
I've always heard that Iran's plans would involve the usual tools like missiles, mines, small boats, etc., all of which have obvious counters. I'm not saying it would be a cakewalk, and not even considering how things would change when they go nuclear, but "easily" doesn't strike me as accurate.
Oh, I very much agree with you. I'm sure Iran would follow through on all those options before they did something as difficult to undo as scuttling tankers to block the Strait.
There's also the minor detail that they import over open water 1/2 of their petroleum distillates, a naval war in that area would bring their economy to a near halt. Drop a few bombs on their only refinery (I've read they have only one, but whatever the number, it's small enough for us and their neighbors to take out) and their country reverts to a pre-industrialized state with mass starvation.
Yeah, that would be awful for them. But given the low elasticity for gasoline consumption, cutting off 40% of daily oil flow would be an economic disaster for us. Businesses would grind to a halt as tens of millions of people would no longer be able to afford to go to work. For starters.
Iran is exquisitely vulnerable, which is certainly one of their reasons for pursuing the bomb (and one reason they might continue even after a regime change).
Absolutely. But the entire industrialized world is also vulnerable. And if we start a conflict and do take out Iran's sole refinery while blockading them to prevent them from getting refined products, they will have every incentive to block the Strait. Right?