Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Strait of Hormuz tracking: 1,900 commercial vessels trapped inside Gulf. Crews rationing food and water. 300 ships waiting outside strait, anchored on both sides.
- - - - - - - - - - - -

Iran blocks Strait of Hormuz once again
https://www.timesnownews.com/world/iran-...-154029500
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/425205

EXCERPTS: Iran has reportedly once again halted tanker movement through the Strait of Hormuz, blocking vessels from transiting the key waterway, according to a report by the IRGC-linked Fars News Agency on Wednesday. The move is said to be in retaliation for Israeli strikes on Hezbollah in Lebanon. Several oil tankers attempting to pass through the strait received threatening warnings from the Iranian Navy, raising fresh concerns over maritime security in the region.

"Any vessel trying to travel into the sea ... will be targeted and destroyed..." the message, which was received by several vessels, said. This comes just hours after the US-Iran ceasefire took effect, an agreement that was expected to stabilise the region and ensure safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical route for global oil supplies.

[...] The Iranian embassy in Mumbai posted to X: “Due to Israeli strikes in Lebanon, oil tankers will not be permitted to pass through the Strait of Hormuz."

The Iranian action comes despite an acknowledgement by US President Donald Trump that the Lebanese theater is not subject to the ceasefire agreement with Iran. Speaking with PBS News Hour, Trump called the conflict between Israel and the Hezbollah terrorist organization a "separate skirmish" that "everyone knows is not part of the ceasefire agreement.

[...] Iran also threatened to destroy any ship that attempted to cross the Strait of Hormuz without its permission. The regime in Tehran is seeking to establish a system where it can charge any ship that seeks safe passage through the strait.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also clarified this evening that the ceasefire does not include Hezbollah, "We are continuing to hit them, today we landed the hardest blow on Hezbollah since the Pager Operation."

(Apr 6, 2026 02:41 AM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]The show needs to be closed down well before the mid-terms to give the economy a chance to stabilize, and encourage amnesia to incrementally creep in. Do the Republican candidates and incumbents a favor, which includes keeping a hand out of the war and fossil fuel disruption cookie jar for the rest of the year.

And meanwhile, a lot of dispsia over the election cycle, people suggesting that Republicans are going to get blown out because of the war in Iran. Let me first of all point out the date today. It is April 7th. You know when the election happens? November. Let me ask you, what were you thinking about 8 months ago, 7 months ago politically? Do you even remember how many news cycles ago that was? So, the notion that Iran is going to somehow decide the election is is silly.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWDDoaUr6PI&t=1235s

I'm increasingly pessimistic about the "ceasefire agreement". Of course, we shouldn't try to judge it as if it was a final peace deal. It isn't. It's just a two week period in which we refrain from bombing Iran into the stone age, in return for Iran opening Hormuz and not attacking us. They are still attacking our friends like the Israel, the Saudis and the UAE though, and they don't seem to be opening Hormuz.

So far Iran has been broadcasting warnings that any ship without Iranian permission to pass through Hormuz will be attacked. As far as I'm aware, no ship has actually been attacked since the "ceasefire" was announced. But supertankers are very expensive and their crews, owners and insurers aren't willing to take the risk until the situation is clarified. So the mere threat keeps the strait closed.

Pressure is already growing on the United States to act more forcefully. (Ironically, from the same people who earlier attacked the idea of acting more forceably.) But talks, led on the US side by Vice President Vance, are scheduled to begin this Saturday in Pakistan. I don't think that the US will want to blow up those talks even before they begin, so I don't expect us to take any military action before then. I think that the US still hopes that diplomacy might provide a mutually agreeable solution, and even if it doesn't we will want to look like we really tried before we blast Iran into the stone age. And countries like Pakistan and Turkey really want a negotiated resolution and the US wants to keep them happy.

My guess is that if Iran actually fires on a ship in Hormuz during the two week "cease fire", the US will pull a trigger. Perhaps not the big "civilization ending" trigger that would destroy almost all large scale electricity generation and a great deal of road transport in Iran, which could crash their economy back to subsistance level which would profoundly hurt the Iranian people. But perhaps less destructive graphite bombs or cyber attacks to temporarily take down large parts of the grid (in Tehran perhaps) without seriously damaging it or preventing it from being brought back up quickly. That would be a good warning shot and it's what I expect to see if Iran fires on ships in Hormuz.

We all know that Iran wants the US and Israel to stop hurting Iran with bombing, while continuing to look as strong and undefeated as they can possibly look. That's where the negotiations come in, getting the US what we want (no nukes or ballistic missiles) while allowing them to save as much face as possible. But we also need to show them that there are hard limits to how hard they can push in places like Hormuz to save face.

Hormuz is the last card that Iran has left to play, allowing them to hold the rest of the world by the balls by controlling much of the world's oil supply. They will make as much use of it as they can. As they see it, it's their last hope of being a great world power.

(Apr 8, 2026 09:27 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]

(Apr 6, 2026 02:41 AM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]The show needs to be closed down well before the mid-terms to give the economy a chance to stabilize, and encourage amnesia to incrementally creep in. Do the Republican candidates and incumbents a favor, which includes keeping a hand out of the war and fossil fuel disruption cookie jar for the rest of the year.

And meanwhile, a lot of dispsia over the election cycle, people suggesting that Republicans are going to get blown out because of the war in Iran. Let me first of all point out the date today. It is April 7th. You know when the election happens? November. Let me ask you, what were you thinking about 8 months ago, 7 months ago politically? Do you even remember how many news cycles ago that was? So, the notion that Iran is going to somehow decide the election is is silly.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWDDoaUr6PI&t=1235s

Crusader amnesia has plenty of time to set in if the war continues to close down within the six weeks max as originally touted (excluding whatever days or weeks of extended negotiations). Like, there is still regular reporting on Gaza (below), but it's no longer THE vehicle for celebrities and average do-gooder groupies to jump on for flashing their sainthood to the world, that it was months ago. Other attractions have become the hot or trendy personal virtue boosters. The Iran war hasn't really had enough time to develop from a grumbler phase to a mature street, campus, and Hollywood protest movement. But it presumably would have risen to fully serve that purpose if not aborted (or hopefully is truly bleeding out air).

Israeli strikes in Gaza kill four, including Al Jazeera journalist, medics say
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/isra...30603.html

---

---

---

---

(Apr 8, 2026 09:57 PM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]I'm increasingly pessimistic about the "ceasefire agreement". Of course, we shouldn't try to judge it as if it was a final peace deal. It isn't. It's just a two week period in which we refrain from bombing Iran into the stone age, in return for Iran opening Hormuz and not attacking us. They are still attacking our friends like the Israel, the Saudis and the UAE though, and they don't seem to be opening Hormuz.

So far Iran has been broadcasting warnings that any ship without Iranian permission to pass through Hormuz will be attacked. As far as I'm aware, no ship has actually been attacked since the "ceasefire" was announced. But supertankers are very expensive and their crews, owners and insurers aren't willing to take the risk until the situation is clarified. So the mere threat keeps the strait closed.

Pressure is already growing on the United States to act more forcefully. (Ironically, from the same people who earlier attacked the idea of acting more forceably.) But talks, led on the US side by Vice President Vance, are scheduled to begin this Saturday in Pakistan. I don't think that the US will want to blow up those talks even before they begin, so I don't expect us to take any military action before then. I think that the US still hopes that diplomacy might provide a mutually agreeable solution, and even if it doesn't we will want to look like we really tried before we blast Iran into the stone age. And countries like Pakistan and Turkey really want a negotiated resolution and the US wants to keep them happy.

My guess is that if Iran actually fires on a ship in Hormuz during the two week "cease fire", the US will pull a trigger. Perhaps not the big "civilization ending" trigger that would destroy almost all large scale electricity generation and a great deal of road transport in Iran, which could crash their economy back to subsistance level which would profoundly hurt the Iranian people. But perhaps less destructive graphite bombs or cyber attacks to temporarily take down large parts of the grid (in Tehran perhaps) without seriously damaging it or preventing it from being brought back up quickly. That would be a good warning shot and it's what I expect to see if the Islamabad talks fail to make progress.

It may become akin to the Gaza peace plan, where there were also violations and deviations. Technically the Gaza War is still ongoing, but the agreement generates the specious(?) appearance of a return to erratic normality and an excuse for Western do-gooderism to ignore the area more often. Without having to admit it's due to moral fatigue and desire for interest in new or different horrors to focus on.

(Apr 8, 2026 09:57 PM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]I'm increasingly pessimistic about the "ceasefire agreement". Of course, we shouldn't try to judge it as if it was a final peace deal. It isn't. It's just a two week period in which we refrain from bombing Iran into the stone age, in return for Iran opening Hormuz and not attacking us. They are still attacking our friends like the Israel, the Saudis and the UAE though, and they don't seem to be opening Hormuz.
...
We all know that Iran wants the US and Israel to stop hurting Iran with bombing, while continuing to look as strong and undefeated as they can possibly look. That's where the negotiations come in, getting the US what we want (no nukes or ballistic missiles) while allowing them to save as much face as possible. But we also need to show them that there are hard limits to how hard they can push in places like Hormuz to save face.

Hormuz is the last card that Iran has left to play, allowing them to hold the rest of the world by the balls by controlling much of the world's oil supply. They will make as much use of it as they can. As they see it, it's their last hope of being a great world power.

I'm betting it will take the US making good on most of its threats, as we're dealing with religious zealots, who believe destiny is on their side.

The Strait of Hormuz still appears to effectively be closed.

President Trump just posted that US forces will remain in the region (one of Iran's 10 points is their withdrawal) until a "real agreement" is reached. If an agreement isn't reached (Trump says he thinks it will) "then the shootin' starts". In the meantime, US forces will be "loading up and resting". Trump also says that despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, "NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS and the Strait of Hormuz WILL BE OPEN & SAFE".

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the Gulf Arabs (Saudis, UAE etc.) believe that there is a significant chance that war will erupt again, even more intense than before. They fear that Iran will just be emboldened by the "ceasefire" (and judging from the rhetoric coming out of Tehran, the Gulf Arabs may be right).

The Iranians are angry that the Israelis continue to attack Hezbollah in Lebanon and call it a violation of the ceasefire agreement. The Israelis say that an agreement between the US and Iran wasn't an agreement between Israel and Hezbollah. The US agrees that Israel and Hezbollah weren't included, while Pakistan's PM says they were.

Mohsen Rezaee, senior adviser to the missing Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, says:

"We stand with all our might alongside the Hezbollah mujahideen, and we will punish Israel. The responsibility for the collapse of the ceasefire lies with America"

---

And the United States is considering punishing NATO members that weren't helpful to the US and Israel in this war. The punishment would involve moving American troops and bases out of countries considered unhelpful and moving them to countries considered more helpful.

Let's face it, Pakistan is not the closest US ally to begin with, even just in comparison with India.
And the Gulf Arabs probably have the best bead in the Iran regime culture, that tends to see negotiation as weakness.

I'm all for there being consequences, and rewards, for NATO country behavior. Apparently they need to be taught a lesson.

Syne Wrote:I'm all for there being consequences, and rewards, for NATO country behavior. Apparently they need to be taught a lesson.

Trump is going to be Trump for the next few years .. only he can guess what he's likely to do next .. I think everyone will just have to deal with what's left when he goes .. if anything.

(Apr 9, 2026 07:23 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Let's face it, Pakistan is not the closest US ally to begin with, even just in comparison with India.
And the Gulf Arabs probably have the best bead in the Iran regime culture, that tends to see negotiation as weakness.

I'm all for there being consequences, and rewards, for NATO country behavior. Apparently they need to be taught a lesson.

I agree with all of that.

Of all the NATO countries, I'd say that the UK and Greece have been the most help. Not without some indecision at first, but definitely on board afterwards with permission to use bases in their countries.

It's interesting how Iran argues that Israel and Hezbollah are included in the limited ceasefire agreement, while Iran has continued to lob missiles at Israel from the time the ceasefire went into effect. They are also busily attacking the Gulf Arabs as well, with Kuwait reporting Iranian drone attacks on infrastructure sites in just the last few hours. So not only Israel, but the Gulf Arabs must be outside the agreement as well.

But Iran's Parliament Speaker MB Ghalibaf says:



Translation: Iran can shoot at Israel and the Gulf Arabs, but Israel can't shoot at Hezbollah. I think that we all know what Bibi Netahyahu thinks about that.

For their part, the Israelis say that they are setting up talks with the Lebanese government to discuss disarming Hezbollah.

Good, Lebanon can join the Abraham Accords after Israel helping to free them from Hezbollah occupation.