The idea that using drones to target warships in the narrow Strait of Hormuz is like "shooting fish in a barrel" highlights a significant asymmetric warfare challenge, and this vulnerability is a primary reason why U.S. allies are reluctant to commit their own naval forces.
Why Drones Pose a Severe Threat in Hormuz
Chokepoint Geography: The Strait is a narrow chokepoint, with the navigable shipping lanes restricted to just two miles wide in each direction. This limited space drastically reduces the ability of large warships to maneuver and evade attacks.
Proximity to Iran: The Iranian coastline is extremely close to the shipping lanes, giving Iranian forces minimal reaction time to launch missiles, drones, and small boat swarms from concealed positions.
Asymmetric Advantage: Drones and explosive-laden small boats are cheap and can be produced in large numbers (Iran reportedly manufactures up to 10,000 drones per month). In contrast, the high-tech countermeasures used by U.S. and allied navies are expensive and can be overwhelmed by a coordinated swarm attack.
Logistical Nightmare: Iran only needs to damage a few ships to make the strait too hazardous for commercial insurance companies and shipping operators, effectively closing the waterway. The U.S. Navy, on the other hand, must prevent every successful attack to ensure safe passage, a near-impossible task.
Why U.S. Allies Are Not Coming to the Rescue
"Not Our War" Stance: Many allies, including Germany and France, have stated this is not their war and are unwilling to be drawn into direct military action.
Lack of Consultation: Allies were not consulted before the U.S. and Israel launched strikes against Iran and feel mistreated by the U.S. administration's approach to alliances.
Political Reluctance: U.S. allies are hesitant to risk their own naval vessels and crews in such a dangerous environment, especially given the high risk posed by asymmetric threats.
U.S. Transactional Approach: Allies view the U.S. administration's request for help as a transactional demand for repayment for NATO security, rather than a genuine coalition effort, which has further dampened enthusiasm for military support.
Limited Contribution Potential: While some countries like the UK and France have made limited commitments to escort missions, the U.S. reportedly doesn't have enough ships in the region to effectively escort a significant number of commercial vessels, making allied contributions seem insufficient to solve the overall problem.
“Trump is frustrated with countries that have declined his call to “come and help us” reopen the Strait of Hormuz. He mocked them yesterday: “We would rather not get involved, sir,” Trump said, imitating what he says he hears from world leaders — even though, he points out, Europe, Japan and others depend on oil from the Persian Gulf far more than the United States does.
But Europe, in particular, has no great wish to be drawn into America’s conflict. It’s not those countries’ fault that Iran closed this vital maritime artery, driving up prices for cargo and oil worldwide.
“This is not our war; we did not start it,” Boris Pistorius, Germany’s defense minister, said yesterday, calling for a diplomatic solution instead. Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain said that his country “will not be drawn into the wider war” with Iran. The French foreign ministry said much the same. And the Polish foreign minister said that his nation had also “ruled out” sending forces into the conflict.
They’re caught in a bind, Michael Shear reports: Do nothing as prices surge and voters struggle to make ends meet — or join the fight and invite retaliation from Iran and its proxies.
At the White House, Trump said the obstinacy of U.S. allies was exactly why he sneered at protecting other countries. “If we ever needed help,” he observed angrily, “they won’t be there for us.”
The anger presidency
That tracks. Operation Epic Fury is accurate branding for the war, Peter Baker writes. By the president’s own description, everything he does is epic — the most, the biggest, the best. And Trump is certainly driven by fury. Anger is at the heart of much of his work. He chose the name himself.
A lack of clarity
It’s easy to understand why the war has begun to grate on the president. Trump and his cabinet still have not been able to articulate the administration’s objectives, much less when the war might end, writes Zolan Kanno-Youngs.
We’ve already “won” the war, Trump has said. But the United States should not leave until it finishes the “excursion,” as he’s called it. And he doesn’t need allies for that. “We don’t need anybody,” Trump said yesterday, even as he called for other nations to help take up the task of securing the Strait of Hormuz. He’s hopping mad.
“The lack of discipline and the lack of clarity strongly suggest that the administration was simply unprepared for the messaging aspects of this conflict,” one historian told Zolan. “The likelihood is that the demands are ambiguous because the administration does not know what its goals are beyond winning.”
And you can see how that’s playing out in public opinion, with most polls showing less than half of Americans supporting the war. Zolan reminded me that when President George W. Bush sent troops to Afghanistan in 2001, 92 percent of Americans approved.
Even some of Trump’s more influential supporters are slipping. “He ran on no more wars; end these stupid, senseless wars,” the podcast host Joe Rogan said. “And then we have one that we can’t even really clearly define why we did it.”” [1]
1. America, Alone. Sifton, Sam. New York Times (Online) New York Times Company. Mar 17, 2026.
Komentarų nėra:
Rašyti komentarą