Trump's move on Hormuz – the front where Iran is winning, for now

2026-03-18 - 17:35

"The Revolutionary Guards believe that if they lose control of the Strait of Hormuz, Iran will lose the war," a senior Iranian official was quoted by Reuters, who successfully summarized the state of the campaign. Day after day, masses of bombs and munitions are being rained on Iran, hitting military and regime targets across the country. Despite this, the Iranian success in creating a credible threat to the strategic shipping route is currently the main headache of the American administration. Hormuz has for years been perceived as the Iranian "doomsday weapon": the ability to shut down traffic in the maritime route through which about a fifth of the world's oil supply passes. The assumption was that this is a double-edged sword, since Iran itself depends on exporting oil through it. But this time, from the understanding that this is a struggle for the survival of the regime, Iran realized the threat, and at the same time turned the strait into a political tool: Iranian tankers continue to export oil through it, and alongside this, Tehran selectively grants passage approvals to India, Turkey, and other ships. An Iranian armed patrol boat in the Strait of Hormuz (Photo: EPA) Last week, market panic led to a surge in the price of a barrel of Brent oil to above $120, which has since moderated to around $100. But the pressure on the administration is increasing: fuel prices in the U.S. are creeping upward, and the administration admits that the Navy is still not ready to escort tankers through the strait. A report by CNN claimed that the closure of the strait caught the administration by surprise, but White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt called the report "fake news" and claimed that the scenario was part of the planning "long before Operation Rising Fury set out." Whether or not the administration prepared properly for this threat, which the Iranians had warned about for years, it is now forced to take action on the ground and slightly change its rhetoric. Last week, Trump announced a plan to cover the insurance costs for tankers that will cross the strait through an American corporation, and promised that the Navy would escort tankers "as soon as possible." But the attacks on tankers and oil and energy facilities in the area continued, and the trade route remained paralyzed. On Saturday, Trump ordered an attack on military targets on Kharg Island, the heart of the Iranian economy, through which 90% of its oil is exported. Trump emphasized that the oil infrastructure on the island was not damaged, but threatened that if Iran continues to interfere with shipping, "it will be attacked at a level it has never seen before," a clear threat to the economic anchor not only of the regime, but also of any Iranian state in the future. At the same time, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth approved sending an amphibious force to the area, led by the assault ship Tripoli and a Marine unit of about 2,200 Marines, F-35 aircraft, and Osprey helicopters, which are expected to arrive within about two weeks. But perhaps more than anything, the change in tone stands out: if, at the beginning of the war, Trump declared a complete victory and claimed he did not even need the British aircraft carriers, yesterday he called on China, France, Japan, South Korea, and Britain to send warships. "The countries that receive oil through Hormuz must take care of this passage, and we will help a lot," he wrote. UAVs, drones, and coastal missiles Iran, it should be noted, has not physically closed the strait in the sense that its ships stand in its narrow 34 km points and forbid passage through it. The Iranian conventional navy was, for the most part, destroyed or put out of action following a systematic American hunt for it. But it created a credible threat to traffic in a way that does not require ships at all: a combination of UAVs, anti-ship missiles, unmanned vessels loaded with explosives remotely, and naval mines. This threat was enough to lead maritime insurance companies and, following them, shipping companies to stop sailing in the area. The USS Tripoli warship (Photo: US Navy) According to a report published yesterday by the Joint Maritime Information Center (JMIC), since the beginning of the fighting, 20 maritime incidents against commercial vessels and maritime infrastructure in the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, and the Gulf of Oman have been confirmed, and at least six crew members were killed, according to the International Maritime Organization. The result speaks for itself: traffic in the strait dropped from about 138 vessels a day to only two. The precedent from the 1980s The most discussed option is escorting the tankers by U.S. Navy ships. But its implementation encounters difficulties: U.S. forces are currently busy with offensive missions, the strait is narrow, and response times are short, and officers in the US Navy warned in the Wall Street Journal that UAVs and anti-ship missiles could turn it into a "killing zone" for American sailors. The US escorted tankers in the Gulf in the 1980s, during Operation "Earnest Will" during the Iran-Iraq War, but even then, the operation was selective and resource-intensive. Since then, UAVs and unmanned vessels have been added to the arena, making the mission much more difficult. And even if such escorting sets out, the estimates are sober: according to the maritime analysis company Lloyd's List, traffic will reach at most 10% of its normal level. Lieutenant General (res.) John Jansen, who retired from the Marine Corps in 2021, served as Deputy Commandant of the Corps for force build-up and budget and commanded an amphibious force of the type now being sent to the area. Today, he is a senior advisor to the Israeli defense-tech VC fund Kinetica. In a conversation with "Israel Hayom" he emphasizes that the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) is "definitely ready in terms of planning and intelligence for scenarios of ensuring freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz," and that many of the conditions have already been achieved: "Air superiority has been established, and the Iranian navy has been almost completely wiped out. What is happening now is a matter of positioning forces to carry out the required actions." But Jansen, who knows the lessons from Operation "Earnest Will," emphasizes that one must not think of this as merely an escort operation. "Mines, once they are deployed, are the main challenge. You need to destroy the archer and not try to defend against all the arrows, and for that, special operations forces and Marines are required to destroy the launch points." Conquering the coastline In light of these, the second option raised is to conquer the Iranian coastline—or at least key points on it—hold it, and prevent threats from it to traffic in the Gulf and the Strait. Trump himself has already threatened massive bombardments of the coastline, which began in the first three weeks of the operation. But the challenge is enormous: the Iranian coastline along the Persian Gulf stretches for hundreds of kilometers of mountainous, difficult terrain, and Iran controls seven strategic islands in the strait and the Gulf itself. This, without mentioning the fact that this will put "boots on the ground," is an American scar from years of war in the Middle East. Jansen, who himself commanded a similar amphibious force as commander of a Marine expeditionary brigade, describes the expeditionary unit as "one of the most effective tools that an American commander has, because it can fight at sea, from the sea, and on land." According to him, such a force can "seize key points on the coast and take control of ships at sea. It cannot secure a Strait alone, but it provides forces without which it is impossible to do this." Lieutenant General (res.) John Jansen It should be remembered that even seizing the coastline may not completely remove the threat: Iran has long-range missiles and UAVs that can reach from deep within the country. The challenge will therefore be in completely crushing Iranian military capabilities throughout the south of the country. Another option discussed in the administration is seizing Kharg Island itself, the heart of the Iranian oil industry. According to a report by Axios from March 7, officials in the administration discussed the possibility of seizing the island, through which about 90% of Iranian oil is exported. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who is sometimes also called "a close ally of Donald Trump," wrote yesterday that "rarely in war does the enemy provide you with a single target that can dramatically change the outcome of the conflict," and added: "whoever controls Kharg controls the fate of this war." Beyond seizing the island by landing forces by sea or air, the challenge will also be in holding it in light of its proximity to the Iranian coast, only about 25 km, which places it within convenient range of missiles, UAVs, and artillery. Any American force stationed on the island will require a continuous defensive array and a long supply chain. A similar result, namely, burdening the Iranian oil trade, may possibly also be achieved by seizing Iranian tankers in a manner similar to that done in Venezuela. "Raise the stakes" But despite the risks, American control of Kharg will give Washington enormous economic leverage over Tehran, which may convince the regime to give up its control of the strait, perhaps as part of a broader agreement in which the U.S. will demand the conditions it set for Iran even before the war: giving up the nuclear program and stopping support for terrorist organizations in the region. How long will it take? "Military operations always take more time than expected, and certainly more than desired," says Jansen, "the operation will end when we convince Iran that continuing the attacks no longer serves the survival of the regime. It will probably require increasing the level of risk. What exactly the risks will be, we will still see, but they will certainly include greater international commitment and intensive pressure." Kharg Island, the heart of the Iranian economy (Photo: AFP) That same statement by the Iranian official with which we opened also works in the opposite direction. From Tehran's point of view, as long as the U.S. does not succeed in opening the strait, it cannot declare victory. Iran, despite the systematic destruction of its military power, is fighting a war of survival in which its very survival will be considered a success, and it sees the blows it has taken as ones that would have occurred even if it had not closed the strait. It now seeks to prove that its threat to the global economy is credible and to force an end to the war through an arrangement rather than through a ceasefire or a dissolution into "rounds of fighting." To some extent, the U.S. has entered a strategic ambush in the Strait of Hormuz, and it will have to win there.