Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

Overall assessment of the Hormuz situation

• Many argue the U.S. has failed at a classic naval mission: keeping a strategic strait open to shipping.
• Others counter that fully securing such a narrow, heavily armed chokepoint without land control was never realistic; the failure is political, not purely military.
• A recurring theme: “we could do it, but only at unacceptable cost” (large raids or ground presence, massive interceptor use, broad strikes), which some see as equivalent to failure under real-world constraints.

Drones, missiles, and modern naval limits

• Cheap drones, cruise missiles, anti-ship ballistic missiles, small boats, and mines make sustained protection extremely costly.
• Defensive ships quickly deplete limited interceptor magazines under saturation attacks.
• Debate over whether the U.S. Navy underestimated Iranian drone/missile capability or political leaders ignored realistic assessments.
• Several see this as proof that traditional “control of sea lanes” is obsolete without dominant land and air control.

Political leadership, strategy, and U.S. role

• Strong criticism of U.S. leadership for launching a war without willingness to commit to the scale needed to win militarily.
• Some frame the outcome as a strategic defeat worse than Vietnam, damaging deterrence and encouraging others to bypass or replace U.S. security guarantees.
• Discussion about whether the U.S. should or will retreat from global hegemon role, and who might fill the vacuum.

Shipping, crews, and insurance

• Some traffic continues because of economic pressure and crew vulnerability; mariners can be effectively trapped or coerced.
• Others stress insurers and risk premiums are the real gating factor; war-risk rates have surged before, and high premiums can halt traffic regardless of “openness.”
• Reports conflict on traffic levels; AIS-based trackers may undercount due to ships turning off transponders.

Legal and diplomatic framing

• Dispute over whether Iran’s closure and attacks violate maritime law and a U.S.–Iran memorandum of understanding, especially given ongoing Israeli operations in Lebanon.
• One side emphasizes Iran’s lack of legal right to interfere with innocent passage; the other argues that in practice, power and wartime realities override legal niceties.

Proposed structural alternatives

• Proposal to reduce Hormuz reliance via westward Saudi pipelines to the Red Sea.
• Counterargument: above-ground or terminal infrastructure would still be vulnerable to Iranian drones and missiles, unless deeply hardened.