The US Navy already knows what is going to happen to the planet. The mission to open Hormuz is the closest thing to a suicide operation

In the world there are only a dozen maritime passages capable of altering the global economy if they are blocked. Some are so narrow that, at certain points, they barely exceed 30 kilometers wide. However, millions of barrels of oil, huge ships of liquefied natural gas and a good part of the planet’s energy trade circulate through them every day. When one of those places goes into crisisthe impact it doesn’t take long to feel in markets, governments and homes around the world.

And the Strait of Hormuz points to a unprecedented scenario.

The impossible mission. Yes, the Strait of Hormuz has become the point most dangerous on the planet for global energy trade. Some 20 million barrels of oil daily (around 20% of global consumption) in addition to one fifth of liquefied natural gas that supplies numerous countries. The conflict with Iran has transformed that corridor into a war zone where attacks on oil tankers, drones, missiles and sabotage have paralyzed much of the traffic.

But what is most revealing is not only the violence of the incidents, but Washington’s reaction: even the world’s largest naval power just recognized which is not prepared to escort oil tankers through the area. That delay is a clear sign of the magnitude of the problem, because if the US Navy needs weeks to organize convoys, and that is exactly the words they have usedthe implicit message for the markets is that the Gulf energy blockade may last much longer than many imagined.

Convoys under fire. To understand it we must imagine the scenario. The idea of ​​accompanying oil tankers with warships seems, on paper, a direct solution. In practice, it is one of the riskiest missions that a modern navy can face. The convoys would need frigates and destroyers protecting the freighters while specialized units They search for mines and drones in an environment saturated with threats.

The ships would be exposed to anti-ship missiles launched from mobile trucks off the Iranian coast, swarms of explosive speedboats, kamikaze drones and possible mines hidden in the strait. To completely eliminate these threats, some analysts they even propose something Washington would prefer to avoid: a ground operation to control the Iranian coast that dominates the sea passage. This scenario explains why military planners speak of a “very complicated” situation: reopening the strait does not depend only on naval superiority, but on neutralizing an entire ecosystem of asymmetric warfare.

The cheapest weapon to paralyze commerce. And among all the threats, one stands out for its effectiveness: naval mines. We are talking about simple, cheap and extremely disruptive weapons that can transform a maritime corridor in a death trap. Even a few mines in a narrow spot are enough to paralyze traffic, because shipping companies and their insurers simply refuse to take the risk.

Iran has several types of these devices, from floating mines to models anchored to the seabed capable of detonating charges of more than one hundred kilos of explosives upon contact. Not only that. You can also display them in ways difficult to detect: from small boats camouflaged as fishing boats or by divers who attach them to the hull of the ships. History, in fact, has already demonstrated his powerbecause mines have damaged more American ships than any other weapon naval since World War II. Hence its true effect is not to sink ships, but to sow enough fear to block traffic.

The invisible lock. The paradox of this type of war is that it is not necessary to mine the entire strait to close it. In reality, it is enough the simple suspicion. The reason is simple: in such a narrow channel, the presence of a few mines requires inspection every meter of water with sonar, underwater drones and specialized ships. A slow and dangerous process, especially if the enemy continues to lay new mines or attack demining units.

Plus: recent experience in the black sea has shown that even uncertainty about their presence can keep commercial ships away for months. And in the Persian Gulf the same thing happens: Thousands of ships wait for instructions while the risk of mines, missiles or drones turns each voyage into a gamble.

Oil as a geopolitical hostage. There is no doubt, all this gives Iran a strategic power of large dimensions. Before the conflict, about a fifth of the world’s oil passed through Hormuz daily. With this altered flow, energy prices react immediately and governments release strategic reserves to contain the impact.

The strait thus becomes a colossal geopolitical lever: Even if the war were to end soon, something that is currently a utopia, an Iranian regime still capable of launching drones, missiles or mines could keep threatening maritime traffic when it suits you. That means oil and gas can stay hostage of Gulf stability for a long time, something that worries both the markets and Washington’s regional allies.

There is no easy way out. Under this scenario, the dilemma For the United States it is evident. Stopping the war too soon could leave intact Iran’s ability to blockade the strait and put pressure on global energy markets. Continuing it could require a major climbincluding land operations or prolonged naval campaigns to ensure the security of the sea passage.

Meanwhile, the conflict has already demonstrated something truly disturbing: even in the face of a military power like the United States, Iran retains enough tools to disrupt the global energy system. That is why the real alarm signal is not only the closure of Hormuz, but the realization that opening it may be much more difficult (and expensive) than many thought at the beginning of the war.

Image | US NAVY, Oils & Fats international

In Xataka | China has just found a hole in the US’s quietest weapon: an algorithm has hacked its B-2s in Iran

In Xataka | The great paradox of war: the US ignored Ukraine’s pleas to Russia and now needs it in Iran