US steps up strikes on Iranian mine vessels as Hormuz blockade disrupts oil trade

When speaking with the Japanese PM yesterday Trump said he has defeated the Iranian navy and there all at the bottom of the sea. . Yet this headline tells us the US is upping the strikes of iranian mine laying ships. So has he defeated them or not ??. Today's rant has labelled NATO Cowards and he is looking for help from other countrys. Two words Mr President UP YOURS, and finally his mighty biggest and best army on the planet is not going to put boots on Iranian soil at the moment. Why not Donald ? you frightened of taking on Iran in Combat after you keep bragging you got the best weaponary on Earth.

40 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

Yet this headline tells us the US is upping the strikes of iranian mine laying ships.

Any boat/ship with a ramp over it's stern can lay a mine!

As can Helicopters and aircraft like a C130!

No one, not even Trump, CAN stop anyone laying mines anywhere in the world or even saying they have done so!

Just the actual declaration of such a mine laying operation (which has not yet been made as far as I know) is sufficient to close any area of water

Such areas will not be usable until such time as a long term investigation and search and clearance operation has been conducted and then declared clear with a sufficient percentage of probability of clearance that satisfies the insurance companies etc!!!

13 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

When speaking with the Japanese PM yesterday Trump said he has defeated the Iranian navy and there all at the bottom of the sea. . Yet this headline tells us the US is upping the strikes of iranian mine laying ships. So has he defeated them or not ??. Today's rant has labelled NATO Cowards and he is looking for help from other countrys. Two words Mr President UP YOURS, and finally his mighty biggest and best army on the planet is not going to put boots on Iranian soil at the moment. Why not Donald ? you frightened of taking on Iran in Combat after you keep bragging you got the best weaponary on Earth.

When Hitler was doing his thing in Europe the US should have said as you so nicely put it, Up Yours, Not OUR War.

1 hour ago, cdulaney said:

When Hitler was doing his thing in Europe the US should have said as you so nicely put it, Up Yours, Not OUR War.

That is what the US said until December 11 1941 when Germany declared war against the US.

They did not enter the European war voluntarily.

In one Scottie they were not with us in 1939 and only came in because you were embarrased at Pearl Harbour. If it wasn't for that you would not be joining us your President gave a speach i believe and said we the American people have no wish to join a foreign war.

On 3/20/2026 at 2:49 PM, webfact said:

Focus on mine threats

President Donald Trump has indicated that US naval forces could escort commercial vessels through the strait if required. However, military experts caution that such convoy operations cannot begin until the mine threat is significantly reduced.

Limited naval resources

The US Navy’s capacity to conduct mine-clearing operations has been constrained. Two vessels equipped with counter-mine systems, the USS Tulsa and the USS Santa Barbara, are currently in Singapore for maintenance, while the location of a third ship has not been disclosed.

The US no longer operates dedicated mine-sweeping ships, after its last specialised vessels were decommissioned in 2025. This has increased reliance on multi-role ships and allied support for any large-scale demining effort.

There are only TWO possible causes for the US to not have been prepared, beforehand, with minesweepers at the ready:

a. Underestimation of Iran's capabilities. This seems odd, since the blockading of Hormuz was highly likely, given the attack on Iran.

So, this theory would seem not to hold much water.

b. The US, and not just Trump, is attempting to destroy the oil/refinery/shipping infrastructure of the entire area, and all satelite ME countries. But why?

The theory goes like this: The Iran war is not an Iran war. When we see through the fog of war clearly, we see that this attack on Iran is a screen, a subterfuge, designed to camouflage the US intention to bring China to its knees, economically and militarily. The US intends to deny China petroleum and energy, and this is just part of a very long-term plan to ensure that China will never be able to overtake the USA in terms of economic might or military power.

This is not just a crackpot theory.

However, is it likely???

17 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

When speaking with the Japanese PM yesterday Trump said he has defeated the Iranian navy and there all at the bottom of the sea. . Yet this headline tells us the US is upping the strikes of iranian mine laying ships.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has two navies. The Republic's navy and the IRGC navy which is the fast boats, minelayers and midget subs. The former has pretty much been sunk and now the attention is on the IRGC's assets in the strait.

2 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

That is what the US said until December 11 1941 when Germany declared war against the US.

They did not enter the European war voluntarily.

Scottie, get your facts straight. The Japs hitting Pearl Harbour on 7 December led Italy and Germany to THEN declare War on the US. Little facts that mean so much so try to fill in the blanks when possible.

53 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

The war on Iran has direct bearing on all of ASEAN. If you don't care, don't click. Easy-peasy. Personally, I want to hear others' opinions.

I'd like to see more sabotage of ships, planes and submarines and more soldiers refusing. That's what stops war cold.

There were many young men Refusing during the Viet Nam war, but the war still went on and on and on.

News reports this morning is that Trump is thinking of " Winding down the War with Iran " and leaving the rest to protect the Straits of Hormuz. He has dragged the UK into a war we did not want to be involved in. Two missiles were fired at Britains base in Diego Garcia blaming us for allowing the Yanks to launch strikes against Iran from its base. We can all see whats happened now Trumps bottled it and he is going to scurry back across the Atlantic. A case of throwing a brick through a window then running away. Doesn't want to see body bags coming back so he running away with his tail between his legs and leaving others to clear his Sh/Show. To me it just sums up the Yanks all gob and when its time to fight they run away. I know who i'd like to be in the Trenches and it wouldn't be a Yank.

6 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

News reports this morning is that Trump is thinking of " Winding down the War with Iran " and leaving the rest to protect the Straits of Hormuz. He has dragged the UK into a war we did not want to be involved in. Two missiles were fired at Britains base in Diego Garcia blaming us for allowing the Yanks to launch strikes against Iran from its base. We can all see whats happened now Trumps bottled it and he is going to scurry back across the Atlantic. A case of throwing a brick through a window then running away. Doesn't want to see body bags coming back so he running away with his tail between his legs and leaving others to clear his Sh/Show. To me it just sums up the Yanks all gob and when its time to fight they run away. I know who i'd like to be in the Trenches and it wouldn't be a Yank.

Totally agree Next will be cuba !! the yanks have elected in a dictator they will not be able to get rid of him

4 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

b. The US, and not just Trump, is attempting to destroy the oil/refinery/shipping infrastructure of the entire area, and all satelite ME countries. But why?

The theory goes like this: The Iran war is not an Iran war. When we see through the fog of war clearly, we see that this attack on Iran is a screen, a subterfuge, designed to camouflage the US intention to bring China to its knees, economically and militarily. The US intends to deny China petroleum and energy, and this is just part of a very long-term plan to ensure that China will never be able to overtake the USA in terms of economic might or military power.

A subset of reason (b) if you like, is that the USA would like to replace the Gulf and particularly Iran with Venezuela as source of oil for China and South and East Asia. They would expect to profit, given that now they essentially control Venezuela.

Now I get it that Venezuelan oil is different to that from the Gulf, but 1) thinking things through is hardly a feature of American foreign policy, and 2) some bright spark probably imagines that there a killing waiting to be made from refining it. Venezuela's refineries, currently at 35% capacity, require significant investment, which in turn requires a guaranteed market, and of course the refineries on the Gulf of Mexico coast have spare capacity. It would make importing such oil more expensive for Asia but I somehow don't expect that to bother the US oil companies at all; they are probably eagerly awaiting a good share in the benefits of Trumpian foreign policy...

9 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

There are only TWO possible causes for the US to not have been prepared, beforehand, with minesweepers at the ready:

a. Underestimation of Iran's capabilities. This seems odd, since the blockading of Hormuz was highly likely, given the attack on Iran.

So, this theory would seem not to hold much water.

b. The US, and not just Trump, is attempting to destroy the oil/refinery/shipping infrastructure of the entire area, and all satelite ME countries. But why?

The theory goes like this: The Iran war is not an Iran war. When we see through the fog of war clearly, we see that this attack on Iran is a screen, a subterfuge, designed to camouflage the US intention to bring China to its knees, economically and militarily. The US intends to deny China petroleum and energy, and this is just part of a very long-term plan to ensure that China will never be able to overtake the USA in terms of economic might or military power.

This is not just a crackpot theory.

However, is it likely???

The US has never been very farsighted. That strategy would bring the entire world to its kness...until Venezuela's oil ran out.

9 hours ago, dinsdale said:

The Islamic Republic of Iran has two navies. The Republic's navy and the IRGC navy which is the fast boats, minelayers and midget subs. The former has pretty much been sunk and now the attention is on the IRGC's assets in the strait.

Well that was a twattish strategy. You target the navy that more likely going to be the boys you need to lead a new Iran, and save for last the religious fanatics when you have run out of munitions? Surely your Glorious Leader said the whole purpose of his SMO was to save the Iranian people from the relgious fanatics in charge. So why do you then leave the fanatics alone?

Of course, its not the strategy, because you are just bull<deleted>ting. Fact is, the numbers being reported don't add up compared to the known number of surface vessals, indicating they don't really have a clue whats left, because of overdependance on AI BDAs. You have a short meemory. You remember that school that was hit on the first day? Where was it. In the corner of a IRGC naval barracks, so you are talking total <deleted> when you claim the IRGC is being saved til last.

Who's is the Coward now running away ?? Not one Country in the World will now believe any thing the Yanks say.

6 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

The US has never been very farsighted. That strategy would bring the entire world to its kness...until Venezuela's oil ran out.

Yes.

But, also, in the past we have seen the Scorched Earth strategy used effectively.

If the US were convinced that a rising China would inevitably gain the upper hand in a very few years, there is probably nothing that would stop the US from preventing this happening.

So, would the US destroy the rest of the world, economically, to maintain its preminence?

I would say yes.

So then:

Down deep, if the truth were told, DOES the US even care about keeping the strait of Hormuz open?

Or not?

If the US believes that it is now completely energy sufficient, which it may be, then one strategy to maintain dominance is to just burn down the house.

Then wait for a few years.

And let others gradually rebuild.

We learned that after the house had been burned down during WW2, the relatively-untouched USA became significantly stronger, in a relative way.

9 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

Well that was a twattish strategy. You target the navy that more likely going to be the boys you need to lead a new Iran, and save for last the religious fanatics when you have run out of munitions? Surely your Glorious Leader said the whole purpose of his SMO was to save the Iranian people from the relgious fanatics in charge. So why do you then leave the fanatics alone?

Of course, its not the strategy, because you are just bull<deleted>ting. Fact is, the numbers being reported don't add up compared to the known number of surface vessals, indicating they don't really have a clue whats left, because of overdependance on AI BDAs. You have a short meemory. You remember that school that was hit on the first day? Where was it. In the corner of a IRGC naval barracks, so you are talking total <deleted> when you claim the IRGC is being saved til last.

Trouble is the opposition are both religious fanatics, too! Ain't this a (w)hol(l)y war...like all the others?

3 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Yes.

But, also, in the past we have seen the Scorched Earth strategy used effectively.

If the US were convinced that a rising China would inevitably gain the upper hand in a very few years, there is probably nothing that would stop the US from preventing this happening.

So, would the US destroy the rest of the world, economically, to maintain its preminence?

I would say yes.

I question "effectively". Scorched Earth is napalm--it burns everybody. The US has had it turn at dominance, maybe better to let a less fractious society take the helm.

3 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

So then:

Down deep, if the truth were told, DOES the US even care about keeping the strait of Hormuz open?

Or not?

If the US believes that it is now completely energy sufficient, which it may be, then one strategy to maintain dominance is to just burn down the house.

Then wait for a few years.

And let others gradually rebuild.

We learned that after the house had been burned down during WW2, the relatively-untouched USA became significantly stronger, in a relative way.

Do we really want the USA--as it is right now, not the dream in our hearts--to become stronger? What purpose would it serve the rest of the world. Or don't they count?

4 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Yes.

But, also, in the past we have seen the Scorched Earth strategy used effectively.

If the US were convinced that a rising China would inevitably gain the upper hand in a very few years, there is probably nothing that would stop the US from preventing this happening.

So, would the US destroy the rest of the world, economically, to maintain its preminence?

I would say yes.

But will and have always said it will the "other guys" !

11 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Do we really want the USA--as it is right now, not the dream in our hearts--to become stronger? What purpose would it serve the rest of the world. Or don't they count?

Are you not asking the wrong question?

I am only asking if there might be a theory that explains the actions of the USA.

I am not asking what might be morally correct or good for the world, or even for the USA.

IF, as the theory goes, the Iran war is just one stepping-stone of a much broader, and longer-term, strategy to deny China of petroleum/LNG, etc.,then the recent behavior of the USA can be partially explained.

Israel, and Bibi, becomes no more than a pawn. Israel need not know the part they play. Maybe Bibi realizes he is a pawn, but his hatrid is so rabid for his neighbors, it does not matter to him, anyway.

The Iran war and oil/energy shipment disruption, shipments mostly destined for China, is what is required to facilitate the overall strategy of forever dominating China, and weakening China, any way possible.

If the economies of other countries fail in the process, then this is just one more expediency.

I am not saying this is the most reasonable explaination at this time.

Yet, I think it is also not a conspiracy theory, either.

Perhaps this theory is valid in part, either in a major or minor way, in explaining what we see.

Perhaps Trump is more crazy like a fox, rather than what most might think, crazy in general.

Trump is not crazy, and this should be obvious by now.

Perhaps he is only misunderstood.

28 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

I question "effectively". Scorched Earth is napalm--it burns everybody. The US has had it turn at dominance, maybe better to let a less fractious society take the helm.

We saw the scorched earth strategy used effectively by the USA against the southern states during the Civil War, just for one example.

And there's more........poor old trumpie hasn't got a clue!

United States President Donald Trump today gave Iran 48 hours to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to shipping or face the destruction of its energy infrastructure, as Tehran launched its most destructive attack yet on Israel.

The ultimatum, made just a day after the US leader said he was considering “winding down” military operations after three weeks of war, came as the key oil passage remained effectively closed and thousands more American Marines headed to the Middle East.

21 hours ago, cdulaney said:

Scottie, get your facts straight. The Japs hitting Pearl Harbour on 7 December led Italy and Germany to THEN declare War on the US. Little facts that mean so much so try to fill in the blanks when possible.

4 Thumbs Down per my comment? You have to be kidding me as this just shows you the understanding of the commenters on this site.

22 hours ago, cdulaney said:

Scottie, get your facts straight. The Japs hitting Pearl Harbour on 7 December led Italy and Germany to THEN declare War on the US. Little facts that mean so much so try to fill in the blanks when possible.

What "facts" are not Straight" in the post you are referring to?

1 hour ago, cdulaney said:

4 Thumbs Down per my comment? You have to be kidding me as this just shows you the understanding of the commenters on this site.

The fact that your post is referring to an ambiguous/misleading earlier post of yours may have been the reason!

58 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

The fact that your post is referring to an ambiguous/misleading earlier post of yours may have been the reason!

Very straight forward as it is Facts not just something out of thin air from where you are coming from.

1 hour ago, scottiejohn said:

What "facts" are not Straight" in the post you are referring to?

16 minutes ago, cdulaney said:

Very straight forward as it is Facts not just something out of thin air from where you are coming from.

You are posting riddles and NOT answering direct questions as posted above!

Please answer the question as posted above; "What "facts" are not Straight" in the post you are referring to?"

3 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

You are posting riddles and NOT answering direct questions as posted above!

Please answer the question as posted above; "What "facts" are not Straight" in the post you are referring to?"

Here are some Facts Scottie Boy, You and others on here suffer from <removed> and it shows in your comments now and in the past.

I do not have time to play games with you not now or in the future. End of Story. Bye