Iran Closes Strait of Hormuz, Blames US and Israel

But but but all their ships are on the bottom of the sea, their military has been completely destroyed, and America is great and powerful. So how can they close it?

Announcement on the PA system:

Just a temporary glitch, folks. It'll be fixed before you know it. Apologies to all our riders, especially those stuck right at the top. What's the view like there? Ha, ha. Whatever you do, don't try to unlock the safety clasps, folks. I see our technicians leaving the control room. Looks like repairs are done. The ME roller-coaster ride, the bestest, the highest, excitingest ride in the world is about to start again in 3-2-1 ...

Never trust Iran.

Mad as a box of frogs.

Thank goodness Trump set them back 20 years on the arms front.

1 hour ago, josephbloggs said:

But but but all their ships are on the bottom of the sea, their military has been completely destroyed, and America is great and powerful. So how can they close it?

Queshm - and whats on there....

8 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Never trust Iran.

Mad as a box of frogs.

Thank goodness Trump set them back 20 years on the arms front.

Change the word Iran to Israel and we’re in agreement.

Deal was Israel would withdraw from Lebanon, America has not honored it’s commitments in the agreement.

Well, that lasted longer that I expected. I figured that the MOU would last about 5 minutes. It made it a full day.

5 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

Change the word Iran to Israel and we’re in agreement.

Deal was Israel would withdraw from Lebanon, America has not honored it’s commitments in the agreement.

Please tell us where a withdrawal from Lebanon by Israel was stated in the "deal". Do share.

What is stated is that aside from a cessation of hostilities, Iran will agree to ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon and other provisions of this paragraph. Hezbollah's military wing is outlawed by Lebanon. Hezbollah operates illegally as a state within a state. Did Hezbollah agree to respect Lebanon's sovereignty? We do know that Israel has agreed with Lebanon that it will withdraw once Lebanon takes full control of lebanese territory. Are you supporting Hezbollah's illegal occupation of Lebanon and the use of the country as a launching site for missiles and drones?

The Fart of the Deal

12 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

Please tell us where a withdrawal from Lebanon by Israel was stated in the "deal". Do share.

What is stated is that aside from a cessation of hostilities, Iran will agree to ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon and other provisions of this paragraph. Hezbollah's military wing is outlawed by Lebanon. Hezbollah operates illegally as a state within a state. Did Hezbollah agree to respect Lebanon's sovereignty? We do know that Israel has agreed with Lebanon that it will withdraw once Lebanon takes full control of lebanese territory. Are you supporting Hezbollah's illegal occupation of Lebanon and the use of the country as a launching site for missiles and drones?

Territorial integrity of Lebanon.

How can their be territorial integrity with an enemy occupying part of that territory.

Does the MOU say “Partial Territorial Integrity “?

Rhetorical question.

I share Iran’s view of the deal.

If Trump has any intelligence or guts, he would tell Bibi stop all hostilities and withdraw from Lebanon now, or the USA will immediately suspend all aid to Israel.

If hostilities continue, maybe a few B-52s flying over Israel may change Bibi's mind.

48 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

Territorial integrity of Lebanon.

How can their be territorial integrity with an enemy occupying part of that territory.

Does the MOU say “Partial Territorial Integrity “?

Rhetorical question.

I share Iran’s view of the deal.

Hezbollah is occupying southern Lebanon. The Lebanese government has declared it illegal. The Lebanese want Hezbollah out of Lebanon. Iran backs Hezbollah. Do you deny this?

Why do you support the illegal occupation of Lebanon by Hezbollah?

Israel and Lebanon already have an agreement that israel will withdraw from lebanon, once the Lebanese government will take control of the parts of the country illegally occupied by Hezbollah. Are you opposed to this agreement?

Israel is in Lebanon because of its conflict with Hezbollah. Do you deny this?

Iran should have no say in the government of lebanon, yet it insists that it should by way of its proxy Hezbollah. You are supporting iran and its interference in lebanon.

2 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

Please tell us where a withdrawal from Lebanon by Israel was stated in the "deal". Do share.

What is stated is that aside from a cessation of hostilities, Iran will agree to ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon and other provisions of this paragraph. Hezbollah's military wing is outlawed by Lebanon. Hezbollah operates illegally as a state within a state. Did Hezbollah agree to respect Lebanon's sovereignty? We do know that Israel has agreed with Lebanon that it will withdraw once Lebanon takes full control of lebanese territory. Are you supporting Hezbollah's illegal occupation of Lebanon and the use of the country as a launching site for missiles and drones?

The exact wording of article one is:

The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war by signing this M.O.U. declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain [from] the threat or use of force against each other and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and other provisions of this paragraph.

It’s clear Lebanon is included.

The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war . . . Lawyers would have a field day arguing that one if it were in court. Not clear at all what it means. Does that mean US allies? Iranian allies? Both? Israel? Hezbullah? Needs an edit, or at least add a few commas.

The United States of America and their allies, and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies . . . Would be more clear.

Doesn’t matter. Donnie has no control over Bibi. Plus, Congress wouldn’t allow anyone to cut off the flow of American munitions to Israel.

1 hour ago, JimHuaHin said:

If Trump has any intelligence or guts, he would tell Bibi stop all hostilities and withdraw from Lebanon now, or the USA will immediately suspend all aid to Israel.

If hostilities continue, maybe a few B-52s flying over Israel may change Bibi's mind.

With much of Congress taking contributions from AIPAC, both Democrats and Republicans, Trump wouldn’t and couldn’t be able to cut off military aid to Israel.

2 minutes ago, Front Row said:

With much of Congress taking contributions from AIPAC, both Democrats and Republicans, Trump wouldn’t and couldn’t be able to cut off military aid to Israel.

Yes! Its called corruption !

1 hour ago, Patong2021 said:

Hezbollah is occupying southern Lebanon. The Lebanese government has declared it illegal. The Lebanese want Hezbollah out of Lebanon. Iran backs Hezbollah. Do you deny this?

1 hour ago, Patong2021 said:

No

1 hour ago, Patong2021 said:

Why do you support the illegal occupation of Lebanon by Hezbollah?

2*2=5

Israel and Lebanon already have an agreement that israel will withdraw from lebanon, once the Lebanese government will take control of the parts of the country illegally occupied by Hezbollah. Are you opposed to this agreement?

Yes. Any agreement made under duress has no validity.

Israel is in Lebanon because of its conflict with Hezbollah. Do you deny this?

I’m not convinced it’s the only reason, I suspect another West Bank vis-a-vis Settlers

Iran should have no say in the government of lebanon, yet it insists that it should by way of its proxy Hezbollah. You are supporting iran and its interference in lebanon.

2+2=5

4 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

Yes! Its called corruption !

Doesn’t matter what it’s called. Placing Bibi into a time out is not going to happen.

They will have two weeks' in two weeks' or two weeks more' to make a deal and make Donald' look more stupid than he does now🤔

3 minutes ago, Front Row said:

Doesn’t matter what it’s called. Placing Bibi into a time out is not going to happen.

It matter a great deal !! showing how corrupt the American government is matters

1 hour ago, Front Row said:

With much of Congress taking contributions from AIPAC, both Democrats and Republicans, Trump wouldn’t and couldn’t be able to cut off military aid to Israel.

Do you know what AIPAC is? It is an American lobby group, exclusive to US citizens and funded solely by US citizens. It is not a foreign based lobby group or PAC. As far as PACs go, AIPAC isn't that big.

These are US citizens expressing their opinions and are no different than other groups who express their views, like the insurance group, or unions or personal injury bar. Do you have a problem with Americans participating in the political process or do you just have the few that supporters of Israel should not be allowed to participate in the process?

13 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

But but but all their ships are on the bottom of the sea, their military has been completely destroyed, and America is great and powerful. So how can they close it?

Because U.S. intelligence is no longer intelligent, just like the MAGA emperor.

53 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

Do you know what AIPAC is? It is an American lobby group, exclusive to US citizens and funded solely by US citizens. It is not a foreign based lobby group or PAC. As far as PACs go, AIPAC isn't that big.

These are US citizens expressing their opinions and are no different than other groups who express their views, like the insurance group, or unions or personal injury bar. Do you have a problem with Americans participating in the political process or do you just have the few that supporters of Israel should not be allowed to participate in the process?

I merely stated a fact. I made no judgement about AIPAC. Trump wouldn’t be able to go against their lobbying power.

13 minutes ago, Front Row said:

I merely stated a fact. I made no judgement about AIPAC. Trump wouldn’t be able to go against their lobbying power.

And where do you get lobbying from ?? giving money to congress members and others is not lobbying its called corruption !

14 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

14 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

But but but all their ships are on the bottom of the sea, their military has been completely destroyed, and America is great and powerful. So how can they close it?

Queshm - and whats on there....

Some confusion to my response from @MikeandDow & @josephbloggs (with question mark emojis - discussion in the below linked thread - and quotes from that thread below explaining why Qeshm is important - and how Iran might continue to try to monetise the Straits of Hormuz.

https://aseannow.com/topic/1391514-us-asked-for-a-48-hr-ceasefire-iran-said-no/page/2/#comment-20450130

On 4/4/2026 at 7:02 PM, richard_smith237 said:

That means - taking Qeshm - blitzing it, putting boots on the ground there. Neutralising all potential Iranian risk assets that 'could' impact shipping -

On 4/4/2026 at 7:23 PM, JimGant said:

Taking Qeshm wouldn't reduce the threat to shipping. Iran's long coastline along Hormuz would still be in play. No, troop insertion anywhere would just be one more idiot move that doesn't have a viable end result. Just declare victory and come home; the sailors on the Ford would be so grateful.

It also turns out (as stated previous) Iran continues to want to monetise the straits - that was one of the primary issues at the beginning.

27 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Some confusion to my response from @MikeandDow & @josephbloggs (with question mark emojis - discussion in the below linked thread - and quotes from that thread below explaining why Qeshm is important - and how Iran might continue to try to monetise the Straits of Hormuz.

https://aseannow.com/topic/1391514-us-asked-for-a-48-hr-ceasefire-iran-said-no/page/2/#comment-20450130

Quote: 4/4/2026 at 8:14pm, richard_smith237

I’m not convinced Qeshm is as irrelevant as you’re suggesting. It’s not just “another bit of coastline” - it sits right on the choke point of the Strait, which makes it a forward position for ISR, drones, anti-ship systems and swarm boat ops. That alone makes it strategically significant.

On top of that, the island’s geology is important - Qeshm is known for extensive salt formations and cave systems - exactly the sort of terrain that lends itself to hardened underground storage. I’m not saying we can prove what’s in there, but it’s entirely plausible that it’s used for concealed munitions, drones, or launch infrastructure - that needs on the ground investigation which means taking the island.

More broadly, this isn’t about “take one island and win”. The question is whether enough launchers, storage, sensors and command nodes can be taken to downgrade the risk Qeshm and nearby islands presents, also the mainland - when the overall threat drops below the level needed to shut down shipping. You don’t need zero threat - you just need manageable threat.

The commercial angle also matters just as much as the military one. Ships aren’t avoiding Hormuz purely because of what Iran might do. They’re avoiding it because the insurance market effectively shuts the route down.

So, while I agree that taking Qeshm wouldn’t magically fix Hormuz. But dismissing it as irrelevant feels just as off. If it’s a forward node for surveillance and strike capability - which its location and terrain strongly suggest - then neutralising it could materially reduce the threat. And that reduction, not total elimination, is what would get shipping moving again (IMO of course) - and I suspect thats where this conflict may be heading.

It also turns out (as stated previous) Iran continues to want to monetise the straits - that was one of the primary issues at the beginning.

27 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Some confusion to my response from @MikeandDow & @josephbloggs (with question mark emojis - discussion in the below linked thread - and quotes from that thread below explaining why Qeshm is important - and how Iran might continue to try to monetise the Straits of Hormuz.

https://aseannow.com/topic/1391514-us-asked-for-a-48-hr-ceasefire-iran-said-no/page/2/#comment-20450130

Quote: 4/4/2026 at 8:14pm, richard_smith237

I’m not convinced Qeshm is as irrelevant as you’re suggesting. It’s not just “another bit of coastline” - it sits right on the choke point of the Strait, which makes it a forward position for ISR, drones, anti-ship systems and swarm boat ops. That alone makes it strategically significant.

On top of that, the island’s geology is important - Qeshm is known for extensive salt formations and cave systems - exactly the sort of terrain that lends itself to hardened underground storage. I’m not saying we can prove what’s in there, but it’s entirely plausible that it’s used for concealed munitions, drones, or launch infrastructure - that needs on the ground investigation which means taking the island.

More broadly, this isn’t about “take one island and win”. The question is whether enough launchers, storage, sensors and command nodes can be taken to downgrade the risk Qeshm and nearby islands presents, also the mainland - when the overall threat drops below the level needed to shut down shipping. You don’t need zero threat - you just need manageable threat.

The commercial angle also matters just as much as the military one. Ships aren’t avoiding Hormuz purely because of what Iran might do. They’re avoiding it because the insurance market effectively shuts the route down.

So, while I agree that taking Qeshm wouldn’t magically fix Hormuz. But dismissing it as irrelevant feels just as off. If it’s a forward node for surveillance and strike capability - which its location and terrain strongly suggest - then neutralising it could materially reduce the threat. And that reduction, not total elimination, is what would get shipping moving again (IMO of course) - and I suspect thats where this conflict may be heading.

It also turns out (as stated previous) Iran continues to want to monetise the straits - that was one of the primary issues at the beginning.

Yes total confusion, to your response, for a 3month old post with "Queshm - and whats on there...." thanks for the explanation have remove question mark !

CENTCOM insists that they are keeping the Straits open.

Reality?
The insurance companies dictate whether or not ships will transit the Straits. My guess is that if the IRGC states they are closed, most insurers will stop issuing policies for ships attempting to transit therefore defacto making them "closed."

6 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

Yes total confusion, to your response, for a 3month old post with "Queshm - and whats on there...." thanks for the explanation have remove question mark !

Yes, given how extensively Qeshm was discussed at the time as a key strategic component in controlling, and ultimately securing, traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, I had assumed most people following these discussions understood its significance.

In truth, I am somewhat surprised it has not already been heavily targeted. A considerable degree of restraint has been shown in that regard, although a considerable degree of restraint has been evident across the board.

The reason is fairly obvious. Any major operation against Qeshm carries the risk of triggering wider regional retaliation. The Gulf states remain heavily dependent on vulnerable desalination infrastructure for their freshwater supply. Significant disruption to those assets could create a humanitarian crisis within weeks, potentially rendering parts of the region extremely difficult to inhabit and driving large-scale population displacement.

Beyond that sits an even larger concern. The Gulf region plays a critical role in global fertiliser production and exports. Any sustained disruption to those supply chains would ripple far beyond the Middle East, affecting agricultural output worldwide and placing further pressure on food security in already fragile regions.

Arguably, both sides have exercised far more restraint than many commentators acknowledge. Both have much to lose. The difference is that the United States and its GCC allies arguably have considerably more critical infrastructure and economic interests exposed to retaliation. Washington is acutely aware of those vulnerabilities, even if much of the Western media commentary remains focused on the immediate military dimension rather than the potentially catastrophic second and third-order consequences.

14 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

Yes total confusion, to your response, for a 3month old post with "Queshm - and whats on there...." thanks for the explanation have remove question mark !

Off topic but on point: the use of the forum question mark is handy in these situations - If something remains unclear and people raise the question mark - it gives the original poster an opportunity to explain.

39 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Some confusion to my response from @MikeandDow & @josephbloggs (with question mark emojis - discussion in the below linked thread - and quotes from that thread below explaining why Qeshm is important - and how Iran might continue to try to monetise the Straits of Hormuz.

https://aseannow.com/topic/1391514-us-asked-for-a-48-hr-ceasefire-iran-said-no/page/2/#comment-20450130

Quote: 4/4/2026 at 8:14pm, richard_smith237

I’m not convinced Qeshm is as irrelevant as you’re suggesting. It’s not just “another bit of coastline” - it sits right on the choke point of the Strait, which makes it a forward position for ISR, drones, anti-ship systems and swarm boat ops. That alone makes it strategically significant.

On top of that, the island’s geology is important - Qeshm is known for extensive salt formations and cave systems - exactly the sort of terrain that lends itself to hardened underground storage. I’m not saying we can prove what’s in there, but it’s entirely plausible that it’s used for concealed munitions, drones, or launch infrastructure - that needs on the ground investigation which means taking the island.

More broadly, this isn’t about “take one island and win”. The question is whether enough launchers, storage, sensors and command nodes can be taken to downgrade the risk Qeshm and nearby islands presents, also the mainland - when the overall threat drops below the level needed to shut down shipping. You don’t need zero threat - you just need manageable threat.

The commercial angle also matters just as much as the military one. Ships aren’t avoiding Hormuz purely because of what Iran might do. They’re avoiding it because the insurance market effectively shuts the route down.

So, while I agree that taking Qeshm wouldn’t magically fix Hormuz. But dismissing it as irrelevant feels just as off. If it’s a forward node for surveillance and strike capability - which its location and terrain strongly suggest - then neutralising it could materially reduce the threat. And that reduction, not total elimination, is what would get shipping moving again (IMO of course) - and I suspect thats where this conflict may be heading.

It also turns out (as stated previous) Iran continues to want to monetise the straits - that was one of the primary issues at the beginning.

Agree Iran " IS TRYING " monetize the straits using " innocent passage" , Freedom of Navigation is covered by UNCLOS which iran is not part of it they did not ratify Oman, which shares the Strait's overlapping territorial waters, formally rejected these transit fees and reaffirmed the historical status of the waterway as an international channel open to unimpeded navigation.

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

Some confusion to my response from @MikeandDow & @josephbloggs (with question mark emojis - discussion in the below linked thread - and quotes from that thread below explaining why Qeshm is important - and how Iran might continue to try to monetise the Straits of Hormuz.

https://aseannow.com/topic/1391514-us-asked-for-a-48-hr-ceasefire-iran-said-no/page/2/#comment-20450130

Quote: 4/4/2026 at 8:14pm, richard_smith237

I’m not convinced Qeshm is as irrelevant as you’re suggesting. It’s not just “another bit of coastline” - it sits right on the choke point of the Strait, which makes it a forward position for ISR, drones, anti-ship systems and swarm boat ops. That alone makes it strategically significant.

On top of that, the island’s geology is important - Qeshm is known for extensive salt formations and cave systems - exactly the sort of terrain that lends itself to hardened underground storage. I’m not saying we can prove what’s in there, but it’s entirely plausible that it’s used for concealed munitions, drones, or launch infrastructure - that needs on the ground investigation which means taking the island.

More broadly, this isn’t about “take one island and win”. The question is whether enough launchers, storage, sensors and command nodes can be taken to downgrade the risk Qeshm and nearby islands presents, also the mainland - when the overall threat drops below the level needed to shut down shipping. You don’t need zero threat - you just need manageable threat.

The commercial angle also matters just as much as the military one. Ships aren’t avoiding Hormuz purely because of what Iran might do. They’re avoiding it because the insurance market effectively shuts the route down.

So, while I agree that taking Qeshm wouldn’t magically fix Hormuz. But dismissing it as irrelevant feels just as off. If it’s a forward node for surveillance and strike capability - which its location and terrain strongly suggest - then neutralising it could materially reduce the threat. And that reduction, not total elimination, is what would get shipping moving again (IMO of course) - and I suspect thats where this conflict may be heading.

It also turns out (as stated previous) Iran continues to want to monetise the straits - that was one of the primary issues at the beginning.

Iran will monetise the SoH but legally. Oman will probably be part of it.

4 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

Iran will monetise the SoH but legally. Oman will probably be part of it.

I don't think they will. They're just putting cards on the table for the Geneva negotiations.