Can the British Reopen the Strait of Hormuz? || Apr. 4, 2026
The British-led effort to reopen the Strait of Hormuz by forming a coalition without U.S. involvement is just unrealistic.
Most countries lack the naval power to do this, and even if the coalition could assemble the ships needed, countering Iran's drones and missiles would be extremely difficult. Protecting shipping and reopening the strait would require naval escorts and control of vast stretches of the Iranian coastline...not something this coalition could achieve.
There's no path forward without U.S. involvement, and any resolution will inevitably have to be political.
Comments (80)
April 7
I don't know what passes for "news" in America these days but here in the UK, what is being reported is that the UK is hosting talks about "appropriate measures" to reopen the straits, and the government has been clear it's not talking about military action.
Generally, I think Peter's right about the chances of the Europeans (including UK) opening the Strait by force and keeping it open. That said, Zeihan's knowledge of contemporary navies is woefully inadequate. In the aggregate, NATO Europe has "a navy" that is larger than Japan's, and much superior (except for nuclear-powered submarines) to Russia's. In fact, I'd rate their POTENTIAL as being equal to about a fifth to a quarter of the U.S. Navy, and at least half that of China (except for nuclear-powered submarines, where they are superior). If Canada and Australia are included, European potential increases at least ten percent. Details: The Europeans have aircraft carriers capable of supporting F-35Bs or conventional catapult-launched fighter/attack aircraft (UK-2, France-1, Spain-1, Italy-2). Admittedly, all are smaller than any USN carrrers, but I'd rate their capability as being about equal to 1 1/2 USN carriers. They have about a dozen nuclear-powered attack submarines, eight nuclear deterrent submarines, and at least a couple dozen high-quality diesel-electric attack submarines. In terms of surface combatants capable of providing defense against air, surface and submarine threats, they have more than twenty reasonably high-capability ships and another forty or more medium-capability ships. They also have fair-to-modest logistics support, amphibious assault and mine clearance capabilities, and lots of coastal patrol craft that would be able to deal with Iranian small attack craft. What the Europeans lack is U.S. level unified political and strategic control, but long NATO participation has given them a good basis for operational and tactical control. They also lack deep weapons reserves and local bases in the prospective operating region. And, most importantly, they lack will ... However, as seen in the events of the past century or so, will can be generated if the need is perceived as being great enough. Though Peter greatly underestimates European naval potential, he does not underestimate the difficulty of opening the Strait of Hormuz and keeping it open at a sustainable cost. All-in-all, he's right that the best solution to the current situation, which is largely of Trump's making, is political and diplomatic.
Fails to understand the core problem of the US Navy right now is it is screaming out for Frigates, the exact type of ship Europe has in abundance and is what's needed to do this exact job. If only Trump hadn't cancelled the Frigate program for a new "battleship" named after himself...
Why not intercept the Iranian approved ships which leave the strait and choke off Irans approval process? Intercepts ships get redirected or cargo confiscated. This would apply to ships from China supplying drone parts
Any concerns there will not be fuel for transpacific trade to usa ? Thanks
I am surprised Peter doesn't see it and it's assuming it is about using naval power. The group was formed WITHOUT US. This means the goal here isn't to join the war, but talk with Iran what those nations need to do to US and Israel to get the strait open. This is very bad news for US as it shows that alliance might finally be broken.
Pretty soon though, no one will be answering the phone in Tehran. What then?
Yeah, the US has to hit them really hard then let them claim a political win. I mean really fucking hard. "War crime" level stuff.
The Brits can't control their own borders/population incursion and they are going to organize this? 🤡🤡🤡🤡
Maybe it will be explicitly about immigration for oil, something like, you send tanker full of oil, we return it filled with 50,000 channel-swimmers.
I suppose instead of spending billions of dollars on war materiel, one route might be massive road and pipeline projects hither and yon to negate the strait, working on a 24/7 schedule. In the meantime, I guess you pay the ransom, I mean, fees.
War materiel is cheap and can be applied quickly. Fixed infrastructure is slightly more vulnerable, will take forever, and likely cost even more
Thanks for the cheerful outlook.
I
Best audio evah...
After some thought, it appears that regime change is the only practical solution to the Iran problem. I'm not sure how to do that, though.
Midterms?
The UAE could create, I think, its own solution, if it could get past the syndrome of never doing much, and just paying others to do actual work. Imagine them digging a sea-level canal going SE from just north of Al Hamriya on the Gulf coast (perhaps starting barely within emirate of Sharjah) across the Jiri Plain, exiting into the Gulf of Oman near either Dibba Al-Fujairah (shorter route, about 70 km) or just north of Fujairah City (longer route, about 90 km). Looking at topo maps, I'm guesstimating a maximum altitude of about 135 meters. Either is about on par with the Panama Canal's length (81 km), though the latter's through much more challenging terrain. Suez, an extant and vital sea-level canal, is 193.3 km. Digging the latter took a decade with massive manpower, but this was of course 19th C. Any trans-UAE canal would require cooperation between at least two of the constituent emirates, i.e., internal politics.
And still in range of drones
Oh what a U.S. American you are Peter. The UK is meeting with 40 countries to discuss a diplomatic and political solution initially, which is of course why they did not invite the United States....
And, when they get their Gallipoli moment x500? In short, having a few ships will do nothing, so it's either regime change (which just might happen), or in short, deal with these Barbary Pirates. LoL. And if Putin falls, oil will flow, and prices will collapse again. As for the Gulf paradise, welp, the mirage will fade back into the unforgiving desert whence it sprang when the money dries up.
The Strait is open unless you're America or Israel. Just pay the toll in Chinese Yuan and go about your way. I'm sure the Iranians are open to negotiating terms as well, as long as you're not Zionist.
You mean,.... Zion-Nazi?!?!
Question: I hear a great deal of inflected blame of the current President for breaking the Bretton Woods deal. Much as I love the gastric noises of politics, isn’t there an argument to be made that the Europeans’ navies would have been in much better shape had the US signaled the withdrawal some time in the Bush II administration? Given the dissolution of the foundational dynamics of global integration, is there any reason that makes sense for the United States to continue being the guarantor of oceanic commerce?
Nope.
Peter, Saw this and thought to send it to you. https://www.facebook.com/reel/2773709852972147
Interesting. One question. Does China have the stones?
The only real solution is for countries to pay Iran’s toll to get through the Strait. So much for eliminating the threat. We just made a more lucrative option for Iran to raise money. Good job DJT. Making Iran Great Again.
Iran would make a lot from tolls (if countries really agreed to pay them), until a pipeline or canal was built. but Iran has lost so much more than they could ever make in tolls. While the U.S. has spent about $30b on the war, that’s about 0.1% of GDp. Iran’s losses are in the 10’s of billions, maybe 100b, which is 10-20% of their GDP. No way to make that up in oil revenues or tolls anytime soon. This is a huge loss that sets them back for decades even if not “to the Stone Age”
The coastal defense is one problem, the other more important one is the several dozen EM-52 sea mines that sit on the bed of the strait...these things can be turned on or off by an encrypted acoustic signal remotely, and fire an underwater missile with a 300lb warhead to target in under 3 seconds. THAT'S why we're not getting near the strait. Fleet defense can generally handle the drones, anti-ship missiles are more questionable but we could spend a few weeks dealing with the bunker batteries on the coast and lower the odds. But the one thing we can't do ANYTHING about are those EM-52s, thus the most powerful Navy in the world is crippled by a 4 mile wide stretch of water.
The EM-52 was developed by China, deployed in the early 1990s, and provided to Iran. I didn't see anything about an encrypted acoustic signal capability, but I did note it has a limited lifetime once deployed. Thanks for the info. Very interesting. https://grokipedia.com/page/te_1_rocket_propelled_mine
All the talk is a sideshow. We're taking Iran over, no two ways about it. The tollbooth won't survive whats coming. The UK and France will have boots on the ground within 4 months.
So we're going to take over a mountainous country 2.5 times the size of Texas, with large-scale logistical backing from China and Russia and a 2 million man army? It worked great in Afghanistan right?
The Brits have more admirals than ships.
But the bigger problem is the operational logistics to sustain any of the naval ships on extended area deployment.
The British are coming. The British are coming.
Lots of comments about the coalition being diplomatic, not military. Good luck with that as well. With no military threat what is Europe’s leverage in negotiations? Iran will write the terms and Europe will agree to them. Until that happens, Iran will inflict maximum pain on the global economy. Their only risk is the if the US decides to turn out the lights and let Iran collapse into a failed state. They are gambling that Trump, for all his bluster, won’t do it. They are probably right. Israel on the other hand probably will. Longer term the world just learns to live without the strait. There is plenty of oil and gas in the ground elsewhere. Will be a rough, years long process in getting there.
It will all come down to insurance costs - if insurers determine that ships can pass unheeded with an Iran Toll - then they may drop the costs. If not - as Gandalf said - "None Shall Pass"
I'm not going to disagree with you on the facts, but I would disagree with you on the purposes of this meeting. Firstly there is a military option open to a coalition here, the one you have openly stated that the US has chosen not to pursue; blockading the Strait. The French almost certainly have enough in the region to do this. Duration and effectiveness are debatable but they can certainly do it to an extent where the Iranians' current toll system becomes untenable. IMO that's the first reason for the meeting; a political agreement on what such a blockade would look like. I also want to point to how coordinated the British and French are here; the French are the ones with the hard power in the region, but the Brits are the ones leading the diplomatic side. It's a big positive imo. Secondly it's about the day after. You are fully correct that there isn't a solution here long term that doesn't involve a political agreement with Iran, but by itself that's not going to restore the shipping industry's confidence. There is going to need to be some sort extra security deployed to the region, and that's imo the second purpose of the meeting.
Could the Strait be blockaded by European navies if the Indians and Chinese object? I don't bloody think so!
Opening the Strait of Hormuz using military means is obviously impossible. Therefore, the only answer is negotiating directly with Iran. The Iranians want money and control of the Strait, so every nation that wants transit rights needs to (a) pay Iran, and (b) tacitly accept the fact that Iran decides who gets through and who doesn't. The only *possible* fly in the ointment would be if the US tries to stop "private deals" and/or itself attacks ships trying to run the straight (which would be a catastrophe for the US). Can and will Trump's administration stop 'private deals' or use force against ships getting through? The US military would almost certainly become a bystander and not an actor. Opening and closing the Strait could be done bilaterally -- without even talking to Washington.
If I’m Iran and the Brits and their coalition come calling, my price for loosening the choke hold on the strait is complicity in fighting off the US. The orange clown will have succeeded in allying the world against us.
But the orange clown wins when he walks away. Then the gulf states, Europe and NE Asia are left to clean up. The world might pay Iran’s tolls….until they figure out a way to bypass the strait. No easy task, but beats paying $100m a day in fees. That kind of money makes ambitious pipelines or canals using immigrant labor look cheap. Then Iran becomes Afghanistan + humanitarian crisis. Regional problem, not America’s. Then Trump loses in midterms and the U.S. presses on.
I don’t see why Peter and everyone here is thinking in terms of past conflicts. This war is basically Trump forcing the scenario that Peter has been talking about in all of his books. Peter’s been advocating for a slow and reasoned transition to “what comes next”, but instead the world has had its head in the sand and was sliding slowly from crisis to crisis (debt, domestic politics, dependence on Russia, North Am loss of manufacturing base). This action forces the hands of every major player BEFORE Iran could develop a nuke. I know this was not a brilliant master plan but the effect is still the same. And when the U.S. walks away from the Middle East: China, Europe and Japan have plausible deniability so Iran will be the pariah state left clinging to the strait and f’ing up the world economy sans the U.S. The U.S. trades its position and credibility for an extrication from the Middle East. Absent Super Power much?
The toll system won't work. Iran won't be able to guarantee safe passage. I don't think Iran wants to be a babysitter even if they could. A trade deal is a better option for them. Death rattle of the petrodollar...
Take the Suez route ? How fast would there be another Ever Given ? To all those chest beaters who want to put boots on the ground go back and read about the Iran-Iraq war and the Gold Key children. I'm sure trump ,miller and greasy pete wouldn't care about machine gunning little children but normal people do.
China may end up being the white knight in this scenario. How ironic.
More likely they have to get their hands dirty. Will probably be quiet about it (arming rebels, supporting Russia arms shipments), but there’s no diplomatic solution that doesn’t create a nuclear Iran. China doesn’t want that either. Best to continue the chaos and disarray. The Mullahs had a chance to be UAE, but chose the Afghanistan route instead.
The coalition is about negotiating with Iran where they get a bulk discount on the toll they be paying going forward.
Why does anyone else need a big navy to succeed, let's put drones & operators on every freight ship if need be to defend themselves... against US warships too if they keep forgetting who their allies have been.
Don has played his trump card & stuft out once again. Just because Goliath has pissed all over the field & David really has control. Who says the Brits or any one else for that matter can't use diplomacy now the yanks have over come them selves.
So basically any navy is vulnerable near a coastline? It's just like another last mile of delivery problem.
I feel Peter is malding that the yanks got left out.
I think politically the British and the rest of the European countries at least have to act like they’re gonna try to find a solution🤷🏽♂️
The UK didn’t say it was going to use military force. Peter - come on now. I know you like to bang on about other Naval assets…but this is not the current option under consideration.
Exactly. Peters wildly hung up in his big navy energy
The British haven't said they are intending to use military force, on the contrary - Yvette Cooper (British Foreign Secretary) said the focus of the talks was on diplomatic measures as opposed to military options, adding the countries involved in the talks want to use "every possible diplomatic, economic and coordinated measure" to reopen the Strait. As reported on the BBC 2nd April https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2d0md89v2o
I came here to say that. Didn’t a French ship just go through last night?
Does the entire coastline need to be occupied? The air force is playing Wack-a-Mole; we have air superiority. Why not take Bandar Abbas and use drones instead of occupying the entire coast? I'm sure the Ukrainians would be willing to help. All Trump has to do is deny that they're there. His cult will believe him. And do the Brits still have a Navy? I believe they have one aircraft carrier, and HMS Dragon is their only operational Destroyer.
I suppose they could drag the HMS Victory out of mothballs.
all the shippers will pay a toll to the Iranians (and Oman gets a small slice) for safe passage and the cost of material that passes thru the strait will be higher. The Iranian government will use those funds to secure their survival. Trump will declare the strait open (success) and most of the cost will be borne by others (Trump doesn’t care about other countries and negative impact on US will be too subtle for mainstream news).
And Iran will make sure they develop nukes asap.
Maybe Elon could build a Gulf tunnel...
Trump never admits a mistake, blames someone else, then doubles down. That is his MO. Learning, taking responsibility, restraint, are something DJT does not possess..
Yes, sociopathic narcissist. Hero or victim of every story. Nothing in between.
Yah, but: Iran doesn't have a navy, and does control the strait. The point: The strait can be controlled at long range with aerial weapons, especially if satellite imagery is available. However, I would think at certain choke points a guy with binoculars might work. If you really want to play a dreadfully dangerous chess game, the next move is to establish an aerial blockade of IRANIAN ship traffic, to/from. 90% of their imports and exports pass through the strait. They need passage as much or more than the rest of the world. But, of course: The Chinese are the principal benefactors of Iranian oil and will be righteously pissed if they don't get it, and maybe triggered to unkind acts themselves. Despite all that, I still think the USA needs to set a date, shut it down, and go home. Let the rest of the world try to solve the problem. And take the complaints about whatever they do.
^^this! It’s a half century festering mess, but not the U.S.’s mess anymore. We did all we could do for decades which just delayed the inevitable. Trump is no military genius, but he understands raw power more than previous admins. It’s time for other countries to get their hands dirty (not in a supporting role, but leading)
You can laugh at the Brits for at least trying, Peter, but the US is looking pretty pitiful right now for its failure for making any meaningful dent in Iran. What a joke Trump is. You’ve got to get him out of there and put some brainpower back in place.
Trump has the best medicine available in his son barron's youthful blood and plasma, along with the absolute authority and candidacy for advanced longevity and anti-cognitive decline drugs and therapies. Trump is a teetotaler, but could be convinced, I think, to go boldly where no president has gone before.
Agreed PZ. There is zero chance of sustaining long term supply chains to that volume of military personnel who would be short-range hostages for Iranian drones. It's not just patrolling the coast, but invading the mountains of Iran surrounding the Strait so that the IRGC can't launch drones from a protected distance. It would require a massive ground invasion of mainland Iran. Not going to happen. Optimistically, if the power and water infrastructure in some of the Gulf states survives then maybe some oil trade can be diverted outside the Strait of Hormuz. Otherwise the world needs to co-operate on replacement strategies for the Middle East industries and trade that is not coming back.
A coalition would have to be global and include ships from all EU navies sailing alongside Asian partners. And (Ukrainian) drone defenses. Personally, I'm waiting for our German frigates to be equipped with laser defense made by Trumpf in the future. Trumpf, a German "hidden champion" is typical of the "Zeitenwende" in the country. The company's ownership green-lit R&D for (purely) defensive laser systems after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, abandoning its formerly pacifist stance.
The UK is pushing lasers as well.
Hey Peter and team, topic is instresing as always... But your audio sucks.. not just static but winch inducing audio jumps and spikes. Maybe look for different mic.
No one wants a political solution that involves the US! The US are both the aggressors and the most unreliable “partner”. Inevitably any negotiated political resolution is likely to be exclusive of the US. Iran won’t want to offer any victory to the US. So the countries that do negotiate, mediate and then support the political agreement will have to exclude the US, no matter how sub optimal that is in terms of military capacity….
The Iranians “spotters” could easily be mini-camera and/or drone. (Ie nothing to shoot at)
Ditto for the other side. Just sayin'.
Peter, If the UK and France secured the Strait of Hormuz itself with strong air and mine defense, and then worked with Oman, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain to protect a coast-hugging shipping route further inside the Gulf (leaving Kuwait aside for now), could that be made viable? The idea would be to create a roughly 1,000 km protected corridor along the western Gulf coastline, with layered defense — not just local navies, but also support from European allies (e.g. Dutch and Scandinavian air-defense frigates), especially if the US stayed out. In your view, would that kind of setup be sufficient to reliably protect commercial shipping against drone and missile threats or would the scale and saturation risk still make it too fragile?
Indefinitely? How long are they supposed to be there? Eventually those ships will need to leave to dock and resupply.
I thought this collation was more about diplomacy?