For the past few hours, amid a howling south-westerly wind (gusts exceeding 50 mph), reflecting on the The Battle of the Strait of Hormuz and practical realities of the United States attempting to blockade all maritime traffic to and from Iranian ports.
Admiral James Stavridis, a familiar “authoritative voice” within the strategic commentary sphere, outlined his views earlier today in a brief interview on CNN.
The admiral proposes deploying two carrier strike groups, around a dozen additional destroyers, and an unspecified number of “frigates” in the Gulf of Oman.
At present, three destroyers are attached to Carrier Strike Group 3 (USS Abraham Lincoln), and four to Carrier Strike Group 10 (USS George H. W. Bush). Reports also indicate six independent destroyers operating in the Arabian Sea, and two in the Red Sea, along with a single littoral combat ship (“frigate”) in the Arabian Sea.
Even if the two destroyers in the Red Sea were to transit the Bab el-Mandeb to reinforce the main fleet, a shortfall of at least four additional destroyers would remain to meet Stavridis’s proposed force structure.
Crucially, he also argues that a successful blockade would require at least another half-dozen US warships positioned inside the Persian Gulf, on the opposite side of the Strait of Hormuz. He further emphasises the need for participation from the naval forces of the Arab Gulf states.
“You try to bottle it up from both sides,” Stavridis explained, referring to the Strait of Hormuz.
In total, his proposed order of battle would include:
- Two Nimitz-class aircraft carriers
- More than 20 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers
- An unspecified number of frigates
- Additional warships from Arab Gulf states
- Amphibious assault ships such as USS Tripoli and USS Boxer, with embarked Marines and aircraft
- Likely elements of the 82nd Airborne Division
- Significant US special operations forces
- Combined US, Israeli and allied air power
Against this, Iran could deploy:
- Hundreds of fast attack craft equipped with anti-ship missiles and torpedoes
- Large numbers of unmanned high-speed surface drones Hundreds of anti-ship cruise missiles
- Thousands of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles
- Extensive drone fleets for both attack and surveillance
- Mini-submarines armed with torpedoes
- Thousands of man-portable air defence systems (MANPADS)
- A layered air defence network, in cluding advanced missile
systems - Sea mines capable of remote activation
- Real-time intelligence support from Russia and China
If the United States proceeds with enforcing such a blockade through direct military force, it would mark the most significant escalation of the conflict to date.
However, this is precisely the type of confrontation for which Iran has been preparing for decades — arguably the very scenario it seeks.
How events unfold remains uncertain. Yet the United States’ tolerance for losses appears extremely low. Even the loss or severe damage of two destroyers would constitute a major strategic shock.
Should an aircraft carrier be disabled by missile or drone strikes, the consequences would be unprecedented — both militarily and geopolitically.
There is a clear sense that the situation carries profound and immediate risk.
Remember Ray Dalio’s formula.
“When superpowers lose control of critical trade routes, trust collapses. Allies drift away. Money flees.”
That’s how Portugal ended. That’s how the Netherlands ended. That’s how Britain ended in Suez in 1956.
There are two scenarios. Both are risky.
The first: The US stops Chinese ships. The blockade becomes real. This could turn into a crisis far more dangerous than a war with Iran. Because you’re not facing Iran— you’re facing China.
The second: The US can’t touch Chinese ships. The blockade stays on paper. A perception forms: “This country can’t back up its words.” Allies could distance themselves. The dollar could weaken.
The first test is coming very soon.
When a Chinese oil tanker heads toward the Strait of Hormuz, what will the US Navy do?
That moment will determine everything.
