It seems to me that for Iran to use the Straits to squeeze the rest of the world into acquiescing into its brutality is a ploy that brings diminishing returns. Given that oil can be piped as well as shipped via a tanker, construction of more pipelines to take the stuff – and gas – over land rather than via sea seems screamingly obvious. Sure, pipelines can be attacked and that creates issues around security. Even so, the key is to have options. I have heard it said that one reason behind the Hamas Oct 7 attacks was that Iran wanted to stymie a pact between Israel and Saudi Arabia that would, as part of it, include a cross-region pipeline or set of pipelines (maybe with the oil reaching the Mediterranean coast in Israel).
As conflict between U.S.-Israeli forces and Iran effectively shutters the Strait of Hormuz, Saudi Arabia has activated a 45-year-old contingency plan to bypass the blockaded waterway and keep global crude markets afloat. The centerpiece of this strategy is the East-West pipeline, a 1,200-kilometer artery that transports crude from the kingdom’s eastern fields to the Red Sea port of Yanbu. Long considered a redundant relic of the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, the line is now the primary exit point for Saudi exports.
State-owned oil giant Saudi Aramco has rapidly reoriented its logistical center of gravity toward the west due to the lingering threat of Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz.
Even if the Straits retain some value, that is going to erode and fast in the next few years, is my guess.
And this whole saga also highlights the truth of a quote attributed to an American fracker business executive, who is supposed to have said that these folk are not just extracting more oil and gas, but are helping to save Western civilisation. Whoever that was, he or she wasn’t exaggerating.
As of the time of going to press, President Trump has announced a two-week ceasefire. I worry that this gives Iran breathing space – I don’t think the region will be sorted out until or unless the regime in Tehran is overthrown, although this needs, ultimately, to come from Iranians themselves.
That said, it is worth taking stock of what has happened in terms of the loss of military power in Iran, including its ability to make nukes. That’s not a trivial achievement. And the world – including China – has had a good look at the impressiveness of the US and Israeli air forces and special forces. It has, to be fair, also had a good look at the parlous state of the UK’s military, particularly its pitiful navy.
We will have to see if the straits are really reopened – with no “tolls” or other such from the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The international media are celebrating the “victory” of the Islamic Republic of Iran tyranny (which has slaughtered vast numbers of Iranian civilians – and killed many other innocent people, around the world) – the coverage of the BBC, “France 24” and so so, has shocked even me – and I did not think my opinion of the “liberal” (they are not really liberals at all – not in the sense that say President Grover Cleveland or President Calvin Coolidge would have accepted) could fall any lower – but it has.
To side with the IRI tyranny, out of hatred of “Trump”, shows what utter scum the international establishment (not just the “liberal” media – the general establishment) are.
I don’t think China needs to worry about Britain’s naval strength. Why sail all the way from Hainan to Blighty when a few million spent on bribes and blackmail will get you everything you could want from Britain?
I remember reading decades ago that UAE was trying to drum up support for a trans-Omani-Penisula pipeline. Direct access to the Indian Ocean, bypassing the nutters.
If Copenhagan blocks The Baltic, just build the Kiel Canal.
Why sail all the way from Hainan to Blighty when a few million spent on bribes and blackmail will get you everything you could want from Britain?
True. In Sir Keir Starmer and his Chancellor and the rest of them, China does v. nicely: The Chagos farce, a new embassy in London with all kinds of nifty facilities, continued surveillance and influence in the UK, having a government unwilling to complain about the outrageous jailing of Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong (now a British citizen), and big export of Chinese EVs to the West and all that implies.
Wow. Doing some Googling and I find it was actually built ten years ago: Habshan-Fujairah Oil Pipeline.
– And I was trying to figure-out why Trump doesn’t grasp Kharg Island, to make his point; well, the answer may be painfully obvious.
Iran recently targeted – and blew up – a USAF E-3 on Prince Sultan Air Base; rumour is the Iranian ordnance hit its radar rotodome. Funny how Iran managed to do that when they have no surveillance assets? – well apparently Russia, which is pi$$ed at the U.S. for passing targeting info to the Ukrainians, is getting some payback by providing targeting info to the Iranians. And Russia has the world’s second-most experienced drone fighter cadre, after the Ukrainians whose drone expertise the Russians have been (painfully) learning.
So I posit Trump does not want to take the Iranians on in a stand-up fight; 1) he said “no boots on the ground” and the mid-terms are in the offing, and 2) with Russia’s eager assistance, the Iranian armed forces (such as still exist) could suddenly become adept at drone warfare, and make a U.S. ground invasion of Kharg Island a bloody fiasco. And the U.S. could get a lot of highly-motivated Ukrainian expertise to master drone warfare themselves – but the initial lesson would still be bloody and embarrassing.
I personally would really like to see the U.S. end the Mullahcracy; but sadly, the time may not be right – and Trump (or Hegseth) is likely smart enough to avoid that until the U.S. masters drone warfare on its own.
Shortly after all this began I read in several places that the main cause in the closing of the strait was not Iran, but the decision of insurers to withdraw war risk insurance at affordable rates. That decision, apparently, started with Lloyd’s. I’ve not heard anything since then about the availability of insurance or, if it’s still true, the extant it plays in the ‘closing’ of the strait. Perhaps more knowledgeable bods here can tell us more.
The two week ceasefire doesn’t give breathing space just to Iran. It gives the US time to move assets, to be ready if they need to resume hostilities.
Satellites will continue to gather intelligence, as will agents on the ground. Do not think that the Pentagon, with all its planners and resources, will be going on holiday for the next two weeks.
I hope the ceasefire holds and a long term peace is established, but Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons whatever the USA and Israel need to do militarily to prevent that.
@James Strong
The nuclear balance depends on ‘mutually assured destruction’ (however fragile). If one side of that argument sees not destruction for itself but religiously inspired ‘martyrdom’ then the nuclear balance no longer holds. In my opinion if Iran gained nuclear weapons it would soon use them.
It occurred to me years ago that pipelines were the answer to the straits of Hormuz. It’s not like this issue doesn’t go back to the days when Duran Duran were top of the “Hit Parade”.
DJ,
I dunno. I really don’t. But even if it is a small risk… The thing is, on the basis of what I know about Twelvers (Hasteners) is even if you nuked Qom the ayatollahs would only think this is helping the Mahdi de-occlude himself. How the fuck do you threaten people who don’t just want to be martys at an individual level but actively want to bring about the End of Days?
@NickM
It occurred to me years ago that pipelines were the answer to the straits of Hormuz. It’s not like this issue doesn’t go back to the days when Duran Duran were top of the “Hit Parade”.
I’m probably being dumb but why is this the answer? The strait is a problem because it is a narrow strip where all tanker traffic has to flow. But a pipeline is an even narrower strip through which the oil has to flow. It seems to me, inexpert as I am, a lot easier to blow up a pipeline than close the strait. If you sink a tanker another one can always go through, it you blow up a pipeline you are screwed until you fix it. And pipelines are pretty fragile. With all the talk of drones, it seems a pretty easy target to me.
Though in defense of your position neither the UAE or the SA pipeline seem to have been hit. So what the hell do I know?
As an aside, I note that the UK’s Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) oppose the US-Israeli attack on Iran, putting themselves beyond parody, viz.:
The problem for Asia with the current Saudi pipeline to the Red Sea is that it puts out in the Red Sea, and ships using it have to run the gauntlet of the Houthi rebels in Yemen, Iranian proxies.
Of course, the Houthis probably don’t have the technology to manufacture their own anti-ship rockets (of any efficacy) and they might well be running out of ammo and supplies soon, but a pipeline going to Israel and into the Med also by-passes the Suez Canal, subject to its maximum tanker size threshold, putting Egypt’s nose a bit out of joint.
@Mr Ed
The problem for Asia with the current Saudi pipeline to the Red Sea is that it puts out in the Red Sea, and ships using it have to run the gauntlet of the Houthi rebels in Yemen, Iranian proxies.
There is also a pipeline from Abu Dhabi to the Gulf of Oman, bypassing the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab al Mandab Strait (the southern outlet of the Red Sea). It can carry about one tanker load of oil a day which is about a third of the SA pipeline, and about 10% of the oil consumption of China.
Both the IRI tyranny and its proxies, such as the Houthis, can not be reasoned with – they do not regard any agreement with infidels as binding, and believe that killing and being killed is the road to Paradise.
One kills them, or is killed by them.
But does the Trump Administration, the President and his advisers, understand this?
Not really. While insurers did withdraw insurance, the US government then offered to cover maritime insurance for ships in the Straits. But that has failed as insurance can’t stop Iran attacking ships and can’t stop crew being killed if an attack happens. So the tanker crews have understandably been hesitant to get moving even with insurance. So traffic hasn’t picked up, the only vessels moving are the ones Iran say can. The US government talked earlier in the war of the US navy providing escorts but that hasn’t happened. I assume it would take too many ships to do on any major scale.
Re: the offered US insurance for tankers – I saw this as more of a PR ploy than a substantive effort to reopen the HS.
There were policy limit issues, as well as exclusion issues, that would have left owners on the hook for billions in environmental costs in the event of a sinking.
Trump would in no way allow diminishment of the pressure on the “allies” to participate in defense. To insure everything would allow them to sit back and collect money from us. Again.
@Martin
The US government talked earlier in the war of the US navy providing escorts but that hasn’t happened. I assume it would take too many ships to do on any major scale.
I don’t know much about military matters but one thing I wondered about is rather than sending the navy to convoy them through, can’t we make the tankers more secure? If it is drones that are the problem or small boats, can’t we supply the tankers something like the Phallanx Weapons system or the short range anti missile system that Israel uses whose name I forget, along some sailors to operate them. They seem perfect for the sort of threats that the tankers seem to face. Not sure about larger missiles, but perhaps there are options there too. The tankers only need these for transit and could be loaded in the Gulf and then removed by helicopter and reused after they get through.
Again, I’m no military person but that seems to me to be a useful approach. I remember when we were dealing with piracy and we were spending a ten million dollars a day to deploy large amounts of naval assets when in truth the ships could have been protected by half a dozen guys from a PMC with cameras and semi automatic rifles, and maybe an RPG or two.
Fraser Orr –
Sorry to be so vague, but there is a dim memory somewhere in the back of my head that merchant marine vessels, such as oil tankers, are specifically prohibited from being armed. But then I may be misremembering.
The only way to guaranty the free traffic through the straits of Hormuz is to take full control of them – i.e. occupy a strip of land in Iran on the Hormuz shore. And some islands occupied by Iran, though they are also claimed by the Emirates. It can be done, it’s not too difficult, but it requires booths on the ground and some actual fighting with the losses involved.
Otherwise the Mullahs in Iran control world oil.
They control not only their oil but also that of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and the Emirates.
Mr Ed: Whilst Iran negotiated in good faith over its nuclear programme, the nuclear armed states of Israel and the US sabotaged these diplomatic efforts. It is US and Israel that are the nuclear threats. Britain, as a primary sponsor of the relevant UN resolution, should be promoting the establishment of a Nuclear Weapons-Free Middle East Treaty.
At this stage I have come to assume that many of these “peace” groups are front organisations/useful idiots and that their comments are as worthless as any promises one might get from an Islamist terror regime. In fact, I’d go so far as to call them the enemy.
I’d like to imagine, naively perhaps, that the UK and other security services have a full file on these clowns. However, I am doubtful. As far as I can tell, the current government cannot even – still – bring itself to ban the IRGC.
Philip Scott Thomas:
Sorry to be so vague, but there is a dim memory somewhere in the back of my head that merchant marine vessels, such as oil tankers, are specifically prohibited from being armed. But then I may be misremembering.
A few years ago I recall reading a lot about the piracy problems in the East African coast. A number of ex-military and police types, such as SEALs and UK Royal Marines, etc, got gigs running security on cargo vessels etc. Western naval forces also did a bit to reduce the problem. By 2023, it looked as if the issue was under control. With the clashes vs the Houthis and others, it looks as if piracy attacks have increased in the past year or so.
What this all adds up to is a need for merchant shipping to be allowed to arm itself, and for more naval vessels to be build, manned and deployed to the region.
Mr Ed and Johnathan Pearce – yes.
The Red-Green alliance – the alliance between the Marxists and the Islamists, is horribly real. Philosophically their belief systems are not compatible – but they do not care about such philosophical matters, they just want-us-dead, they want Western civilization destroyed.
And in Britain the “Green” party is made up of both groups – the leader being a far leftist (and do not underestimate him – he is NOT stupid) and the deputy leader being an Islamist.
One can also see all this in the United States, Canada and Australia – it is certainly not just a European thing.
The tens of thousands of people protesting and murdered by the Iranian state are in large part due to effective civilian disarmament.
@Frank
The tens of thousands of people protesting and murdered by the Iranian state are in large part due to effective civilian disarmament.
Amen brother.
Would be too expensive to build pipelines big enough to ship the oil and gas. They would also be open to terrorist/drone attack.
Pipelines to the Red Sea already exist, but lack capacity to entirely bypass the need for the Persian Gulf.
Destroy the Iranian mine layers, and destroy the Revolutionary Guard – do this and no new pipelines will be needed.
And if this is NOT done, then Islamic Republic of Iran agents will destroy new pipelines anyway.
The Islamic Republic of Iran (IR) “Hastener” regime must-be-destroyed – there is no substitute for victory.