Strait of Hormuz now open?

[Italian Panic]

Up until now, the situation in the Strait of Hormuz is still heating up and the US and Iranian militaries have entered a dangerous phase again. Because two days ago I read news that the US military reportedly launched a limited attack on Iranian military targets on Qeshm Island, which is a strategic area near the Strait of Hormuz.

The Strait of Hormuz will still be difficult to pass if the war continues. Especially since Iran has laid mines although right now these mines will only explode if a ship passes through the strait without permission, they still pose a danger if navigated. You could say the Strait of Hormuz is the most strategic route for global energy trade. So when tensions are still high the impact can spread across various sectors, from oil prices, insurance costs, energy supply stability to every country and so on.

Basically, the Strait of Hormuz is still tense right now because the two countries are still talking about possible diplomacy, but on the ground military activity hasn’t fully stopped yet.

I find it hard to understand just how far the United States interest in controlling the Strait of Hormuz extends. Because let’s be clear: an army like the american one could conquer that area and the neighbouring regions in no time and with little effort; yet it seems to have been conquered, but then there is always the influence of the Iranians or the Yemenis. Perhaps the current state of global confusion suits the US because it allows them to sell their raw materials at a higher price?

[fruktik]

I agree that many developing nations and even great civilizations have been brought under control a statesman incapable of statecraft. Examining how other great civilizations such as Persia, India, the Ottoman Empire, and Egypt fared against China in the modern era is a truly fascinating subject. What enabled China to finally succeed in making a great leap forward compared to other civilizations ? We can answer this by looking at how China has responded to the threat of Western modernity.

The necessity of adopting Western industrial technologies and systems for survival without losing identity to avoid recurrence century of humiliation. Chinese learning for substance, Western learning for utility concept readopted, modified, and refined by modern Chinese leaders. They opening its economy wide like the West (the free market capitalist system, science, technology, corporate management, and global investment from the West, while keeping its political stability tightly locked down like China (absolute political control in the hands of the Communist Party) which bring extreme long term execution capability, matter of fact 30 years development plan with free political interruption has allowed their development to accelerate at a pace that seems implausible to Western nations.

China strictly filters what comes in. They adopt Western science and technology, but reject Western political values or westernization which actually loss of identity. China uses Western utilities to learn, once the science behind it had been studied, China built its own tech giants which in fact becomes a competitor to the West.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_with_Chinese_characteristics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Learning_as_Substance,_Western_Learning_for_Application

Hasn’t anyone ever mentioned that copying someone else’s work can have serious consequences? Why doesn’t anyone ever want to even come close to becoming the founders of a new, unique movement that will bring something truly breathtaking into our world? What kind of parasitic idea is it to copy from your neighbor? And what  will be the result? Will the concept turn out to be unworkable? What kind of recklessness and absurdity is this? Where is humanity ultimately headed? Toward a model of endless consumption?

Why are people so naive and haven’t learned the most important lesson—that they alone are responsible for their own lives? No one else has the right to decide how they should live or how they should conduct themselves in this world. All other ideologies are simply meaningless. They are a great delusion. Their value is zero. It’s all nonsense. We need to get through all of this and move on. Only in this way can humanity overcome all that vile mold that takes hold of people’s minds with each passing day.

[pooya87]

an army like the american one could conquer that area and the neighbouring regions in no time and with little effort;

US military is one of the weakest militaries in the world that has been starting war after war and losing all of them too because it is weak and corrupt. They neither have the fire power, nor the numbers nor the technology to win any wars. They are stuck in the 20th century. The only thing American terrorists are capable of is murdering civilians. Nothing else!

To face a super power like Iran on the ground, the weak US regime would require at least 1.5 to 2 million troops. Something they don't have. And that number is to just begin an invasion.
Majority of those forces would be vaporized in the first week.

As a matter of fact back in March this year the US regime tried to have boots on the ground inside Iran 2 times only.
The first time they were trying to invade from 2 fronts, first was from Kuwait's Bubiyan Island to take over the closest target in Iran which was Abadan's refinery and the second was from Emirates to take the closest and smallest Islands.
With the dominance Iran has over the entire region, the plan was found before they could even mobilize and Iran bombed them while they were preparing to launch the attack eliminating at least 600 of the Epstein Axis terrorists and sank 6 of their vessels in a blinking of an eye.

[DanWalker]

I find it hard to understand just how far the United States interest in controlling the Strait of Hormuz extends. Because let’s be clear: an army like the american one could conquer that area and the neighbouring regions in no time and with little effort; yet it seems to have been conquered, but then there is always the influence of the Iranians or the Yemenis. Perhaps the current state of global confusion suits the US because it allows them to sell their raw materials at a higher price?

No offense, but that's  an extremely  naive way of looking at geopolitic and modern warfare today. Because beating the other side in a fight and holding territory are 2 completely different things.

Iran has geographical advantage and asymmetric warfare capabilities that could make any large scale military operation extremely costly. So US may be a military superpower but that doesn't mean they can easily occupy any region without paying a price. The cost would be enormous, and there would be no guarantee of victory either.
There's nothing hard to understand here, bro.

You're also wrong to think the US is benefiting from high oil prices. That may be good for oil companies, but high oil prices hurt wider US economy and Americans.
If US were really benefiting from this, Trump and the Republicans probably would not have been crushed in the midterms. Right?

https://truthout.org/articles/while-americans-paid-148b-extra-on-gas-amid-war-big-oil-made-130b-in-profits/

[Italian Panic]

US military is one of the weakest militaries in the world that has been starting war after war and losing all of them too because it is weak and corrupt. They neither have the fire power, nor the numbers nor the technology to win any wars. They are stuck in the 20th century. The only thing American terrorists are capable of is murdering civilians. Nothing else!

To face a super power like Iran on the ground, the weak US regime would require at least 1.5 to 2 million troops. Something they don't have. And that number is to just begin an invasion.
Majority of those forces would be vaporized in the first week.

As a matter of fact back in March this year the US regime tried to have boots on the ground inside Iran 2 times only.
The first time they were trying to invade from 2 fronts, first was from Kuwait's Bubiyan Island to take over the closest target in Iran which was Abadan's refinery and the second was from Emirates to take the closest and smallest Islands.
With the dominance Iran has over the entire region, the plan was found before they could even mobilize and Iran bombed them while they were preparing to launch the attack eliminating at least 600 of the Epstein Axis terrorists and sank 6 of their vessels in a blinking of an eye.

I understand your hatred for the United States, and on many points raised in your link I largely agree, but I remain of the view that in these cases there is no such thing as the best there is only the strongest, and there are those who want to pretend to be strong without actually being so.
Ultimately, the numbers speak for themselves: the US spends 630k dollars per soldier, whilst Iran spends 23k dollars per unit, that’s a 55 time difference.
The US has an annual budget of one trillion, whilst Iran’s is around 30 billion.
If we look at aircraft, ships, submarines and everything else, the difference is colossal.

By this I do not mean to suggest that the United States is the saviour of the world; on the contrary, it bears enormous blame in countless situations, but its military strength is beyond dispute and that is another matter entirely.

You're also wrong to think the US is benefiting from high oil prices. That may be good for oil companies, but high oil prices hurt wider US economy and Americans.
If US were really benefiting from this, Trump and the Republicans probably would not have been crushed in the midterms. Right?

The oil economy is not just about America and Americans. The United States is supplying a great deal of gas and oil to Europe, low quality stuff at a high price. Europe has the worst politicians ever, who have alienated those who used to supply them with raw materials at low prices (Russia), so that they now have to buy them from the Yankee at triple the price. A true spectacle of politics, economics and incompetence.

[pooya87]

I understand your hatred for the United States,

You misunderstood me then. I do not hate United States. I hate terrorist organizations which in this case is the regime that is oppressing Americans. The U.S. regime that:
- Murders 7 year old kids in their classroom in Iran
- Gang rapes little girls in Iraq
- Bombs wedding ceremony in Afghanistan
- Murders people celebrating the Eid in Yemen
- Fully supports the genocide in Gaza
- Created various terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda and ISIS and recently received the head of al-Qaeda in the White House with open arms
- Murdered thousands of people in New York back in 2001
- Funds terrorist attacks by terrorist groups like Boko Haram in Nigeria
- and so on...

Ultimately, the numbers speak for themselves: the US spends 630k dollars per soldier, whilst Iran spends 23k dollars per unit, that’s a 55 time difference.
The US has an annual budget of one trillion, whilst Iran’s is around 30 billion.

Fair question. So lets analyze...
US military budget is actually over $1.5 trillion not 1
Iran's military budget is also around $7 billion not 30.
But numbers don't work like that.

For starters the corruption in the US regime is so severe that most of the $1.5 trillion is being embezzled before it is even used. In comparison, the corruption in Iran's military is practically non-existent so the money is spent on actual defense.
A large part of that US military budget is also being spent (or rather wasted) on the cost of just having all those thousands of military bases around the world! Unlike US that has a war budget that is used to destabilize the entire world, Iran does not have bases outside Iran to have any cost and the budget is only spent on defending the homeland.

The costs are not even close either. For example a single AN/TPY-2 radar (over the horizon radar with 5000+ km range) that the regime had in the region was worth over a billion dollars. Iran obliterated that on day one using a single loitering munition (Shahed-136 drone) that barely costs 5 grand ($5k versus $1,200,000k).
You can perform the same comparison with everything else, or you name it and I'll compare for you.
For example the regime's air-defense intercept missiles usually cost millions of dollars and they are useless (specially Patriot missiles that can't intercept anything) and their production rate is extremely low too (eg. 12 THAAD missiles per year each cost $15 million!). In comparison Iran's intercept missiles cost are in the range of thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars (not even close to millions) with much higher production rate and they are far more effective as it was proven in shooting down a large number of US launched projectiles (eg. "stealth" cruise missiles) and their so called "advanced" or "stealth" military aircrafts such as F-35 and F-15, MQ-9 and RQ-4 (costs $600 million each and the single missile that brought it down costs $1k).

BTW keep in mind that Iran does not purchase military equipment. Almost everything is domestically produced which is why the cost is so ridiculously low and most importantly it is why it is so effective.

If we look at aircraft, ships, submarines and everything else, the difference is colossal.

What good is a navy that is useless?
You see, all these years the regime only attacked countries that had nothing to defend themselves with. Like Afghanistan that didn't have anything but AK47s! Or Iraq which they disarmed first. (they lost all those wars but that's a different discussion).
Iran has everything to defend against aggressors effectively.

Now check what happened to the US Navy... on day one they pulled back and went deep into the Indian ocean hoping Iran's missiles don't reach them. But the distance also meant it became useless. The only times they got close, they got hit hard with heavy casualties (like the USS Ford that burnt for 30 hours with 200 casualties IIRC). So in other words all that money and all that number was meaningless.

That's not to mention that some stuff you said like submarines are completely useless in Persian Gulf and the Makran Sea due to the shallow nature of them and of course the fact that to enter the Persian Gulf they'll have to cross then even shallower Strait of Hormuz which Iran has completely closed off on the enemy.
That's not even to mention Iran's superior navy because it is designed for defense in exactly this region. For example the tiny stealth submarines Iran has countless numbers of (manned and unmanned) that are designed to exactly operate in shallow waters of the Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz and Oman Sea.

Technological-wise they are way behind as well. You see what might have given the regime's military its advantage at some point like in the Vietnam War (another war they lost miserably by the way) was that what they had was more advanced and more effective compared to what those who they were attacking had. For example in Vietnam the Vietnamese air-defense didn't have the range to reach the altitude at which US military bombers rained down on their people. But then see what happened in last years of that war when through ingenuity the Vietnam's air-defense force increased their "reach" and how they started crushing the regime's air-superiority.
Today the regime doesn't even have that superiority to begin with. For example what they call "stealth" is a completely visible and detectable aircraft that was easily shot down by Iranian air-defense.

From the perspective of fire-power and strategy the regime is primitive too. As I said "stuck in 20th century". Lets quickly compare.
Within first 24-48 hours of the start of aggression, the regime flew from nearby bases such as al-Udeid traveled short distance (eg. 10s of kilometers up to 200-300 km) to hit a hospital or an elementary school in Iran. Meanwhile Iran retaliated by launching its short range BMs to obliterate those bases pushing the enemy back.
After all those nearby bases were obliterated, in the second phase the regime had to fly its aircrafts from bases farther away like from deeper into Saudi usurper Arabia and Jordan. Meanwhile Iran continued using its short range BMs to now hit those bases obliterating them too.
After the second layer was obliterated too, the regime had to go farther back and fly thousands of kilometers to even reach Iran. That means multiple refueling, more degradation of the regime's air-force, more losses (eg. many of their tankers and jets were shot down over Iraq and Jordan), less number of attacks (ie. significantly lower firepower), ... Meanwhile Iran continued like before now launching medium range BMs and drones at a higher rate with same effectiveness and low cost.

In the next phase they might have rebuilt some of what Iran obliterated but it would take them 30 years to go back to what they had (Iran will not allow that). So any new aggression has to happen from 3000+ km away from for example Europe. Meanwhile Iran's reach is with missiles with same low cost and high efficiency and effectiveness that can do to those bases what Iran did to the nearby ones.

its military strength is beyond dispute and that is another matter entirely.

It really isn't.
It's not just that they lack strength, it is that they lack strategy as well. If you like I can analyze various operations for you to show how stupid they are and how they lack strategy.

In summary what you think you know of US military strength comes from Hollywood not from reality.

[coupable]

If we look at aircraft, ships, submarines and everything else, the difference is colossal.

What good is a navy that is useless?
You see, all these years the regime only attacked countries that had nothing to defend themselves with. Like Afghanistan that didn't have anything but AK47s! Or Iraq which they disarmed first. (they lost all those wars but that's a different discussion).

You have mentioned that is a different discussion. It is the answer to all those queries in the minds believing that military power is measured by how much to spend or how many soldiers in each part. If we consider those measures and imagine a power stronger than the USA trying to invade the USA in its territories, I am pretty sure it will lose the battle definitely. The problem of the USA in particular is thinking that killing as many civilians as possible is the key to victory, and terrorising people is a legitimate war weapon. Meanwhile, it didn't succeed in winning any of the war it started. While all the nations attacked by the USA are less powerful but never got defeated. See the example in Afghanistan, the Taliban didn't even have an air force or modern weapons. They only had primitive bombs and a few Kalashnikovs, but their strength lay in fighting on their own territory, which they understood better than anyone else. In the Gulf today, Iran is not in direct confrontation with USA forces because the USA mainly uses air forces and drones to attack civilian infrastructure and innocent people. American people themselves know that it is a losing war despite all the spent budget.

[Ayers]

Ultimately, the numbers speak for themselves: the US spends 630k dollars per soldier, whilst Iran spends 23k dollars per unit, that’s a 55 time difference.
The US has an annual budget of one trillion, whilst Iran’s is around 30 billion.
If we look at aircraft, ships, submarines and everything else, the difference is colossal.

By this I do not mean to suggest that the United States is the saviour of the world; on the contrary, it bears enormous blame in countless situations, but its military strength is beyond dispute and that is another matter entirely.

Spending big on defense doesnt automatically translate into military superiority. A budget only reflects the scale of the resources at its disposal, not how effectively its military can put those resources to use . There's a difference between having a lot of weapons and knowing how to use them effectively in war , mate.

If US military were really that dominant, they wouldn't have had to pull out of Vietnam in humiliation or end up in 20 year quagmire in Afghanistan...and plenty of other wars where they never got the victory they expected.

[pooya87]

The problem of the USA in particular is thinking that killing as many civilians as possible is the key to victory, and terrorising people is a legitimate war weapon.

Good points all around. And let me raise this additional question: why do terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS attack civilians causing terror amongst them?

It's the proof of their weakness. They all know they can't get their way in a conventional way because they are weak, so they seek alternative solutions. Doing what is easy... which is to murder unarmed and defenseless civilians and hope the fear or "terror" they caused creates chaos and puts pressure on the victims to force them to give the terrorists what they want.
Which in this case is for Iranians to surrender their vast natural resources and key geography that has utmost importance on a global scale to the US regime and the Epstein Class billionaires.

Decades of (ever since 1979) sanctions aka economic terrorism, medical terrorism, color revolutions, coups, espionages, assassinations, proxy war, blockade and military strikesare all done by the US regime targeting Iranians with that goal in mind.

[yixichloro2xx]

Ultimately, the numbers speak for themselves: the US spends 630k dollars per soldier, whilst Iran spends 23k dollars per unit, that’s a 55 time difference.
The US has an annual budget of one trillion, whilst Iran’s is around 30 billion.
If we look at aircraft, ships, submarines and everything else, the difference is colossal.

By this I do not mean to suggest that the United States is the saviour of the world; on the contrary, it bears enormous blame in countless situations, but its military strength is beyond dispute and that is another matter entirely.

Spending big on defense doesnt automatically translate into military superiority. A budget only reflects the scale of the resources at its disposal, not how effectively its military can put those resources to use . There's a difference between having a lot of weapons and knowing how to use them effectively in war , mate.

If US military were really that dominant, they wouldn't have had to pull out of Vietnam in humiliation or end up in 20 year quagmire in Afghanistan...and plenty of other wars where they never got the victory they expected.

A literal example of this is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. They spent alot of money in their defence by acquiring military hardwares and intelligence, so anyone who see them will think they are very powerful but that's just on paper. Their 2025 military budget was  $80 billion+ which is above some top European countries. But look how the Houthis are toying with them by bombing their important facilities like the Aramco, that they had to sign the Mecca pact with Pakistan and Turkey. They have a very weak military men but possesses sophisticated military hardwares. That's when I realised money is not everything. On the hand , the US always find themselves in situations that they can't get out from. So many conflicts and war and they don't always learn their lessons

[Churchillvv]

. The only thing American terrorists are capable of is murdering civilians. Nothing else!

You forget one more thing!! Bragging about it. They are well known for murdering civilians and bragging how they launched the attack and killed innocent civilians and how terrible their deaths were.

Least you forget, they also call themselves the best military, “A king doesn’t have to announce that he is a king”.

Oh I keep forgetting and their president calls the death of its serving military officers who obey orders, a “SMALL POTATO”

[coupable]

Decades of (ever since 1979) sanctions aka economic terrorism, medical terrorism, color revolutions, coups, espionages, assassinations, proxy war, blockade and military strikesare all done by the US regime targeting Iranians with that goal in mind.

It helped Saddam to launch the longest-running regional conflict in history by invading Iran in the 1980s. The United States provided Saddam with military assistance, including low-cost weapons and strategic intelligence, either directly or through intermediaries. At the same time, it imposed financial and military sanctions on Iran, preventing it from buying weapons to weak its capacity to resist the war. It even went so far as to ignore the Iraqis' use of chemical weapons during the conflict. Furthermore, the US Navy directly interfered in the Arab Sea and attacked Iranian warships and oil infrastructure after Iran achieved somel wins in 1987.

And by a cruel twist of fate, it later punished the Iraqi regime for defying its rule, and Iran is still there today fighting the american arrogance.

[Nokku]

Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said on Telegram that the strait “is open to everyone, except American ships and those of its allies.”

US is demanding for their ships and that of Israel's or other allies to be passed through the strait but Iran is standing on their ground. This might anger US even further and since they have threatened to further cause destruction in Iran, we might not see this war end soon. If the strait was opened, this could offer some relief for other countries not really part of this war. But will it really be successful? Can they really pass through the strait with this chaos ongoing?

Even with this statement, it still feels that we are stuck doomed and keep expecting oil prices to keep rising.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/03/15/world/iran-war-trump-oil-israel

Iran only considering those countries like china, Russian, India and some few countries who had a good relation with Iran. who helped them logistically and military support them during the US attack few month ago. but passing strait of Hormuz is not open for everyone. In my country the oil price hiked tree times at the same year. in this circumstance transport cost has been raising that's why people are suffering for hiking the price of goods. it is affecting the country's economic growth as well. I don't know when the war is going to stop permanently.

[DrBeer]

It seems that Iran's neighbors-or, more precisely, the neighbors of the terrorist regime that has taken over Iran-see no other way out than to completely cure the country of this "disease." They need stability in the region and economic ties with the rest of the world.
The countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council are openly speaking about the need to put an end to this. Instead of their previous diplomatic appeals, the Gulf states have moved to establish a new joint military command and a forward command post in Kuwait.
They are officially deploying regular army units to mount a joint, forceful response to Iranian threats. Against the backdrop of Iran's official rejection of restrictions on the range of its ballistic missiles, its regional neighbors have finally consolidated around the idea of collective military deterrence and the elimination of the threat posed by IRGC terrorists.
Similarly, China and Russia have also "turned their backs" on the IRGC, the latter even went out of its way to present Trump with a diesel-powered gift on a silver platter, forgetting the promises made to the IRGC junta

[Fortify]

It seems that the mid term defeats have really knocked the wind out of Trump, as he sees a much murkier future in his remaining two year term. He's putting a brave face on right now, trying to stabilize back to his old bullying methods but there are lots of Republicans starting to break ranks while seeing a future without Trump, who is pretty toxic according to the voters. In the last few days we've seen more consolatory moves towards the Iran debacle and Ukraine, now he's being forced to actually find a solution rather than growing the problem. Oil prices have been dropping based on that, which is great for everyone, but we've already seen it can be quickly reversed by his erratic and senile nature of politics via tweet. He's basically going to try to rally support again right now, because it has definitely fractured and many republican candidates failed at the polls.

[snowpega]

It seems that the mid term defeats have really knocked the wind out of Trump, as he sees a much murkier future in his remaining two year term. He's putting a brave face on right now, trying to stabilize back to his old bullying methods but there are lots of Republicans starting to break ranks while seeing a future without Trump, who is pretty toxic according to the voters. In the last few days we've seen more consolatory moves towards the Iran debacle and Ukraine, now he's being forced to actually find a solution rather than growing the problem. Oil prices have been dropping based on that, which is great for everyone, but we've already seen it can be quickly reversed by his erratic and senile nature of politics via tweet. He's basically going to try to rally support again right now, because it has definitely fractured and many republican candidates failed at the polls.

Mate, since Democrats won the midterm elections, a lot has changed in a short time.
Oil prices came down, which is good for economies worldwide and helps reduce inflation. Secondly, Democrats started an investigation into Trump family investments in the crypto space, which I also support at this time. Because the surprising thing is that since the day Trump became president this time again, his net worth has tripled; isn't it surprising, haha? Democrats stopped Trump military funding proposal, which could have escalated the problem further in the Middle East if it had been approved. And according to my best information, that proposal's funding was more than a trillion, which is huge. What do you think about all this?