Its a double-block blockade. The blockers are blocking the blockers that are blocking the strait that was not blocked until the blockhead bombed the bridges.
Umm, no. We initiated a blockade of goods to/from Iranian ports whereas the Iranians had tried to sustain a blockade of all non-Iranian ports.
It’s as though you don’t think US’ seaborne, airborne, and space-based assets have the ability to track ships to/from the region & communicate to Centcom those trying to evade the blockade.
Actually, the retort was “guess not.” Everything in his post was proven wrong in a day. The blockade was 100% effective immediately, and U.S. control of the flow of ships thru the straight is absolute.
Iran seems always to have been on Israel's hit list as were the other Middle Eastern countries we took out in this 21st century, terrorist states the Net called them, so why talk about it as if any resolution in regard to Iran's nuclear program would satisfy Israel? I'm sick of Israel, and sick of her always portraying herself as a victim, and in doing so has gained a great deal of power in the US and has grabbed hold of our agenda as well as our perspective on the Middle East. She can implement a genocide, and we help, and still she remains a victim. Pretty much was true of how we used Russia, a boogeyman, that was also forever on our hit list, and I'm sure the military industrial complex loves it. We have played Israel's game to our own detriment and it's time to stop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They have been somebody in this country for a long time and I'm thinking more of AIPAC and their influence on America's political agenda which often does not fair well for us. Who wanted this war, Israel, and all our Middle easters wars and didn't we implement what they wanted and not to our benefit, and not the benefit of those who died in our Middle Eastern wars, not to mention the lives and countries destroyed.
Trump can portray himself as Jesus which was his response to the Pope's comments on our deadly stupid war, and I would dare Trump to picture himself as Moses. No way!
I thought she, and perhaps initially she did , offer him a 100 million, and I never read she upped the anti so that he would annex the West Bank which is not his right to do, or her right to ask. For decades I haven't viewed the US as a democracy. and one doesn't have to know much to know that. Citizens united turned corporations into people and and allowed them to donate a whole lot more so their priorities would come first with those the American people elected into office. I think a younger generation is going to be a lot more sophisticated in understand who and what we are and thanks to the computer they won't be corrupted with the BS that passes for news.
It’s silly. A macho attempt to save face after another unnecessary and cruel Republican war.
First of all how can the US Navy stop every vessel? What happens when China sends its navy to escort its tankers from the strait to China, and refuses to obey the American blockade? War with China? Really? Because the Orange Messiah is never wrong?
It’s surely a sign of how brain dead this administration is. Another shocker bombastic statement to his base for what? His base is falling apart, the neo-cons and Israeli’s are running the military “strategy” on power lust, the EU is fracturing, middle powers are gravitating toward China (even Taiwan leaders are turning toward China).
But blocking oil out of Iran, raising the prices of everything everywhere is the strategy??!!! Really?!!!
These guys are waging a war fueled by hyperbole and sadistic military violence, but people can’t fill their gas tanks or buy groceries on hyperbole. It’s just another deadly ponzi scheme.
As someone else commented, these guys are just “special-needs apes.”
John stated that "Iranian oil is essential for limiting the economic damage being done to the world economy" and therefore it is the world economy, not Iranian economy that will suffer most from the blokade. I am not sure this is enirely true:
(1) 80% Iranian government revenue is from oil export
(2) 90% of the export goes to China
(3) Iranian oil consists of only 13% of the Chinese worldwide crude imports
These seems to me that Iranian government has a concentrated economic exposure to oil export, while China, the dominant Iranian oil buyer, is more diversified in its oil supply. So Iran seems to me to be hurt more by the blokade than the world economy.
If degrading Iran's military capabilities and put Iranian government finance at risk are not winning strategies for the US, John should provide a frame work of his winning strategy and enlightening us.
You don’t need a navy to blockade a narrow choke point. The threat of missiles and drones is enough to deter civilian cargo ships. Houthis proved it last year. And now Iran is proving it without a blue water navy.
The threat to the US and other western economies is because they are so overly leveraged that the value of their currency is under enormous pressure. Oil going up will devalue their currency and their bond markets will implode. Without further debt financing all their spending will also collapse.
Iran has a range of ballistic missiles and drones and also has underwater electric AI driven drones that can loiter for 4 days before taking out a ship. Yemen has a subset of that. This approach has gone over the heads of the Air Force and will go below the waves of the Navy, asymmetrically.
In Yemen, there are 5000' mountains within 50 miles of the Red Sea at Bab al-Mamdab strait. That's a perfect locaiton for nests of missiles.
You mean Iran has no navy you can see. Like their army, its is underground/water. Honey combed into thousands of miles of cliffs and caves.
They also have the Houthis who have the capacity to shut down the Red Sea. Meanwhile the US dare not put their navy within hundreds of miles of the coastline of either country.
It is also about who can withstand the highest threshold of pain. The pain threshold in western countries and even some Asian countries is lower than that of Iran who is facing an existential threat.
Boots on the ground are coming. Give it time. Trump is too egotistical to admit defeat. He will drag America deeper and deeper into this thing. Just watch.
JJM is not alone in this embedded US-centric language. Judge Nap, Johnson, Macgregor also. Sachs and McGovern less so. All still seem to believe 9/11 was not an inside job. That the Holocaust happened as the Official Narrative says.
At least Johnson uttered the name "Rothschild" ONCE, when referring to an Economist article.
This has always been a US conceit, labelling any opposition gov't or movement with pejoratives, even when claiming a 'neutral' view. Damning with faint praise. Saint Chomsky also had trouble sticking a toe beyond the "US is basically good, just led by bad people" meme. Of course, now we know Chomsky's true agenda, intentional or duped, supporting 'embattled' Epstein.
Like all Empires, the US leadership and publcicfell into the trap laid by the Oligarchs, Patriotism and Religion. The insidious Oligarchic Debt Lever is always hidden from public view, and ignored by the 'free press'.
I know that the professor avoids domestic politics. But in this case, a potentially beneficial side effect of the war might be Trump turning the economic screws at home to create enough economic pain that people begin to militantly resist, upon which Trump can take steps to cancel the November elections.
We all know why the price of fuel etc has gone up. Israel wanted this war and trump was stupid enough to acquiesce. We put blame where it lies. The irony is the strait was open to anyone willing to negotiate with Iran. The irony is Iran had signed legal documents stating its nuclear program was only for civilian purposes. Trump tore that up. We all know Israel has hundreds of nuclear bombs ready for their Sampson Option. The US has hundreds more. So neither of them have the right to question any other nation given how many war crimes they engage in. Nor does their willingness to lie, lie and deceive mean that Iran isn’t being honest regarding their Intentions for peaceful nuclear energy
Please watch Jon Elmer’s reports on Electronic Intifada before commenting on Hezbollah. They make their own weapons, and they are good at it. He breaks it down.
From what I read, the Saudis et al are hastily arranging for the pipelines to the ports outside the Gulf. If so, this will gradually negate the importance of the Strait. Unless, of course, Iran purely accidentally blows up a critical element of the pipeline infrastructure … and then again and again.
One question for the Professor: given the amount of destruction and the weakness of iranian economy even sanctions relief and a toll on the strait would probably not be enough. Don’t you think it would be a big opportunity for the Chinese to step in (and a big blowback for the US), thus conquering a solid presence in the middle east?
The problem is that one cannot simply equate the ability to severely damage Iran’s economy with the ability to force Iran to concede at a controllable cost.
First, the U.S. execution cost would be far higher than it appears. For a blockade to be genuinely effective, Washington would not only have to intercept Iranian vessels. It would also have to deal with a vast range of third-country commercial shipping, insurance, maritime logistics, ports, flag states, cargo misidentification, deceptive routing, and gray-market transshipment. That implies a prolonged and expensive commitment in fleet deployment, logistics, aerial surveillance, munitions, maintenance, and operational readiness.
Second, Iran does not need to defeat the U.S. Navy in order to impose serious pain. It only needs to raise the cost to a level that becomes politically and strategically difficult for Washington to sustain. The real problem in the Strait of Hormuz is that it is narrow, traffic is concentrated, and coastal missiles, drones, fast boats, naval mines, and proxy harassment can all generate asymmetric leverage. Even if Iran does not fully shut the Strait, it can still exploit geography, mining threats, and coercive signaling to frighten ships away, drive up insurance costs, and reduce commercial flows. For the United States, the worst-case outcome is not necessarily a “failed blockade,” but rather a grinding stalemate in which it must engage in indefinite escort missions, minesweeping, patrols, and responses to intermittent attacks. That would drag the U.S. into a situation where it may be winning tactically every day while bleeding strategically every day.
Third, if the United States were to impose a blockade, the risks would not be borne by Iran alone. The entire global chain of energy, shipping, insurance, and inflation would be exposed. What markets would truly fear is not simply the loss of a given number of Iranian barrels, but the emergence of a broad Persian Gulf risk premium. That is the deeper danger.
Finally, the political and alliance costs for Washington should not be underestimated. A blockade is not a unilateral numbers game. It is a political question involving whether allies are willing to cooperate, whether third countries accept the move, whether the Global South regards it as legitimate, and whether major importers begin actively seeking workarounds. At present, neither the UK nor France has joined the blockade effort; both appear more inclined to pursue separate peace or escort arrangements. China has also publicly opposed external intervention. For the United States, the real difficulty is not launching a round of military action. It is figuring out how to sustain, over time, a high-risk measure that raises global energy prices, disrupts neutral shipping, and invites legal controversy, while still preserving international legitimacy.
On top of that, there is no guarantee that the Iranian regime would convert civilian suffering into external compromise. It may instead turn that pressure inward through repression, outward through nationalist mobilization, or regionally through retaliation. And even if the United States succeeded in sharply reducing Iran’s oil exports, what comes next? What concessions, exactly, would Iran be expected to make? Who would verify them? Who would decide when the blockade should be lifted? If Iran makes partial concessions while continuing gray-zone resistance, would Washington escalate, maintain the blockade, or pull back? Those are the real questions that determine whether the U.S. would end up trapped in a prolonged war of attrition. A blockade without a clear endgame can easily evolve from an instrument of pressure into a new strategic burden.
Overall, my view is that a U.S. blockade would be best understood as a coercive bargaining tool, not as a sustainable long-term policy. It is a high-risk, high-cost, and inherently difficult-to-control military measure. That is precisely why it may be useful as leverage in negotiation, but far less viable as a durable strategic arrangement.
One more basic issue doesn't seem to get much mention. Iran is 90% self-sufficient for food. So no amount of US-blockading can put the Iranian public in desperation-starvation mode. Iran likely has massive currency reserves in 'friendly' countries, so the US has not been successful in its attempts choke all economic trade activity for essentials Iran doesn't have of its own. The SWIFT alternatives are working.
Water/desalination is the fatal Achilles' Heel of all the Gulf/Eastern Med states, so unlikely the US/Israel will attack Iran's for fear Iran can and will reciprocate.
The fact Israel/US have lately focused on bombing civilian infrastructure and killing Iranian citizens shows the level of desperation in the breakaway Adelson/Nutty-Yahoo/AIPAC Cabal. US Oligarchy has long chafed under the yoke of the City of London, Europe-centric Rothschild Class control. The attempted covert Adleson/Trump/Epstein economic/political play, now overt smash-and-grab in Washington, is suffering massive PR self-harm from Trumpty Dumbdy's insane social media gaffes and Hitleresque irrational directions to the US military/black-ops. The Rothschild Class only leaned on Nutty-Yahoo when Trump's rhetoric started to infer a 'nuclear solution' to subjugate Iran permanently, no matter the cost.
Hence the inability of the Trump 'opposition' to enact either Impeachment or 25th Amendment remedies. But a house divided against itself cannot stand.
The Rothschilds want Iran subdued and asset stripped (like intended for Russia) but using nukes would permanently destroy, or at least severely cripple, the Rothschild Empire. Controlled demolition, not post-apocalypse wastelands is the necessary methodology.
The US is haemorrhaging expensive hardware and munitions, conservatively $40+billions spent since late December 2025. All 'new' debt for the $1.5Trillion Pentagon budget. And so the money-printer goes BBRRRRR as the US has to quietly buy back its own Treasuries while the world wholesale dumps them... even 'allies' like Japan and Saudi Arabia have to liquidate assets as the cost of energy goes up, up, up while the supply/$$$ for Saudi coffers through Hormuz is blocked. $10billlion US long-term debt to still 'roll over' in the next few weeks, months.
You make a few strong points, especially the basic one that a blockade is more likely to create inflation, shortages, and import disruption than literal famine. Iran does produce a large share of its own staple food, but it is not fully autarkic: FAO still projects wheat imports for 2025/26, above-average maize import needs, and continuing vulnerability through feed, fertilizer, and other trade channels. Kpler also warned this week that nearly 1 million tons of grains and oilseeds already en route to Iran could be hit by the blockade. So the likely pressure mechanism is not “starve Iran into surrender,” but rather squeeze urban consumption, livestock feed, industry, and the currency at the margin. 
I also think your desalination point is directionally right. The Gulf states are deeply dependent on desalination infrastructure, and the World Bank has noted that the GCC accounts for roughly half of global installed desalination capacity. That creates a powerful logic of mutual vulnerability: once civilian water systems become part of the deterrence equation, escalation gets much riskier for everyone. 
Where I would be more careful is with the much broader political-financial story. Claims about an “Adelson/Nutty-Yahoo/AIPAC cabal,” “Rothschild class control,” or an internal split of that sort are not things I have seen substantiated in credible reporting. I think they weaken your stronger argument. The stronger argument does not need them.
That stronger argument is already enough: the blockade is imposing costs far beyond Iran. AP reports that the U.S. blockade now covers vessels entering or departing Iranian ports, has already sent some tankers turning around, and has pushed Brent from roughly $70 before the war to just under $100. Reuters and other outlets have also described widening spillovers into fertilizer, freight, and food markets. In other words, even without any grand conspiracy, this already looks like a strategy that externalizes costs onto allies, neutral shipping, and the broader world economy. 
I would also be careful with the debt-and-collapse language. There is credible reporting that the war has already cost tens of billions of dollars and raised concerns about U.S. munitions depletion and supplemental funding. But that is different from saying the U.S. financial system is on the verge of breaking in the next few weeks. That claim is much harder to support. 
So my version would be: Iran is unlikely to be starved into capitulation. The more realistic effect of a blockade is to create inflation, import disruption, shipping paralysis, and broader regional economic stress. That is still serious pressure, but it also means the U.S. is choosing a tool whose costs propagate outward very quickly and whose political endgame remains deeply unclear.
We are creating a blockade to block a blockade that only exists because our president is a blockhead.
Its a double-block blockade. The blockers are blocking the blockers that are blocking the strait that was not blocked until the blockhead bombed the bridges.
Cube top, squared off
Eight corners, 90-degree angles
Flat top, stares straight ahead
Stock parts, blockhead
🧊
Umm, no. We initiated a blockade of goods to/from Iranian ports whereas the Iranians had tried to sustain a blockade of all non-Iranian ports.
It’s as though you don’t think US’ seaborne, airborne, and space-based assets have the ability to track ships to/from the region & communicate to Centcom those trying to evade the blockade.
Its not a question of assets. Its about political capital spent on playing chicken in the straight. I assure you, we will swerve first.
Guess not pudding head
Oh, nice retort. Resorting to insults demonstrates weakness.
Actually, the retort was “guess not.” Everything in his post was proven wrong in a day. The blockade was 100% effective immediately, and U.S. control of the flow of ships thru the straight is absolute.
Iran seems always to have been on Israel's hit list as were the other Middle Eastern countries we took out in this 21st century, terrorist states the Net called them, so why talk about it as if any resolution in regard to Iran's nuclear program would satisfy Israel? I'm sick of Israel, and sick of her always portraying herself as a victim, and in doing so has gained a great deal of power in the US and has grabbed hold of our agenda as well as our perspective on the Middle East. She can implement a genocide, and we help, and still she remains a victim. Pretty much was true of how we used Russia, a boogeyman, that was also forever on our hit list, and I'm sure the military industrial complex loves it. We have played Israel's game to our own detriment and it's time to stop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He is Moses to Israel, whether they like it or not. Without him they are nobody.
They have been somebody in this country for a long time and I'm thinking more of AIPAC and their influence on America's political agenda which often does not fair well for us. Who wanted this war, Israel, and all our Middle easters wars and didn't we implement what they wanted and not to our benefit, and not the benefit of those who died in our Middle Eastern wars, not to mention the lives and countries destroyed.
Trump can portray himself as Jesus which was his response to the Pope's comments on our deadly stupid war, and I would dare Trump to picture himself as Moses. No way!
100% we are all sick and tired of that little violent rogue nation
I thought she, and perhaps initially she did , offer him a 100 million, and I never read she upped the anti so that he would annex the West Bank which is not his right to do, or her right to ask. For decades I haven't viewed the US as a democracy. and one doesn't have to know much to know that. Citizens united turned corporations into people and and allowed them to donate a whole lot more so their priorities would come first with those the American people elected into office. I think a younger generation is going to be a lot more sophisticated in understand who and what we are and thanks to the computer they won't be corrupted with the BS that passes for news.
It’s silly. A macho attempt to save face after another unnecessary and cruel Republican war.
First of all how can the US Navy stop every vessel? What happens when China sends its navy to escort its tankers from the strait to China, and refuses to obey the American blockade? War with China? Really? Because the Orange Messiah is never wrong?
China has already passed the blockade
They did it today.
It’s surely a sign of how brain dead this administration is. Another shocker bombastic statement to his base for what? His base is falling apart, the neo-cons and Israeli’s are running the military “strategy” on power lust, the EU is fracturing, middle powers are gravitating toward China (even Taiwan leaders are turning toward China).
But blocking oil out of Iran, raising the prices of everything everywhere is the strategy??!!! Really?!!!
These guys are waging a war fueled by hyperbole and sadistic military violence, but people can’t fill their gas tanks or buy groceries on hyperbole. It’s just another deadly ponzi scheme.
As someone else commented, these guys are just “special-needs apes.”
John stated that "Iranian oil is essential for limiting the economic damage being done to the world economy" and therefore it is the world economy, not Iranian economy that will suffer most from the blokade. I am not sure this is enirely true:
(1) 80% Iranian government revenue is from oil export
(2) 90% of the export goes to China
(3) Iranian oil consists of only 13% of the Chinese worldwide crude imports
These seems to me that Iranian government has a concentrated economic exposure to oil export, while China, the dominant Iranian oil buyer, is more diversified in its oil supply. So Iran seems to me to be hurt more by the blokade than the world economy.
If degrading Iran's military capabilities and put Iranian government finance at risk are not winning strategies for the US, John should provide a frame work of his winning strategy and enlightening us.
You don’t need a navy to blockade a narrow choke point. The threat of missiles and drones is enough to deter civilian cargo ships. Houthis proved it last year. And now Iran is proving it without a blue water navy.
The threat to the US and other western economies is because they are so overly leveraged that the value of their currency is under enormous pressure. Oil going up will devalue their currency and their bond markets will implode. Without further debt financing all their spending will also collapse.
Iran could retaliate and block the Red Sea which would further reduce the amount of oil on the world market.
Remember Iran has no navy.
Iran has a range of ballistic missiles and drones and also has underwater electric AI driven drones that can loiter for 4 days before taking out a ship. Yemen has a subset of that. This approach has gone over the heads of the Air Force and will go below the waves of the Navy, asymmetrically.
In Yemen, there are 5000' mountains within 50 miles of the Red Sea at Bab al-Mamdab strait. That's a perfect locaiton for nests of missiles.
You mean Iran has no navy you can see. Like their army, its is underground/water. Honey combed into thousands of miles of cliffs and caves.
They also have the Houthis who have the capacity to shut down the Red Sea. Meanwhile the US dare not put their navy within hundreds of miles of the coastline of either country.
As the Prof says: the blockade will fail.
Iran has figured out how to go over the heads of the Air Force and below the waves of the Navy.
That's the Houthis' job.
Block with row boats..? Jeeze
It is also about who can withstand the highest threshold of pain. The pain threshold in western countries and even some Asian countries is lower than that of Iran who is facing an existential threat.
No "boots on the ground", no pain.
Boots on the ground are coming. Give it time. Trump is too egotistical to admit defeat. He will drag America deeper and deeper into this thing. Just watch.
Economic pain is increasing in the cushy countries.
Professor why do use "regime" while referring to iranian govt
Israelis a terrorist regime. Trump is fast turning America into the Epstein regime
JJM is not alone in this embedded US-centric language. Judge Nap, Johnson, Macgregor also. Sachs and McGovern less so. All still seem to believe 9/11 was not an inside job. That the Holocaust happened as the Official Narrative says.
At least Johnson uttered the name "Rothschild" ONCE, when referring to an Economist article.
This has always been a US conceit, labelling any opposition gov't or movement with pejoratives, even when claiming a 'neutral' view. Damning with faint praise. Saint Chomsky also had trouble sticking a toe beyond the "US is basically good, just led by bad people" meme. Of course, now we know Chomsky's true agenda, intentional or duped, supporting 'embattled' Epstein.
Like all Empires, the US leadership and publcicfell into the trap laid by the Oligarchs, Patriotism and Religion. The insidious Oligarchic Debt Lever is always hidden from public view, and ignored by the 'free press'.
The main purpose of this war seems to be to restore the status quo that existed before the war. The logic is entirely circular.
I know that the professor avoids domestic politics. But in this case, a potentially beneficial side effect of the war might be Trump turning the economic screws at home to create enough economic pain that people begin to militantly resist, upon which Trump can take steps to cancel the November elections.
My Trumpian map: https://substack.com/@nemopix/note/c-245475425
We all know why the price of fuel etc has gone up. Israel wanted this war and trump was stupid enough to acquiesce. We put blame where it lies. The irony is the strait was open to anyone willing to negotiate with Iran. The irony is Iran had signed legal documents stating its nuclear program was only for civilian purposes. Trump tore that up. We all know Israel has hundreds of nuclear bombs ready for their Sampson Option. The US has hundreds more. So neither of them have the right to question any other nation given how many war crimes they engage in. Nor does their willingness to lie, lie and deceive mean that Iran isn’t being honest regarding their Intentions for peaceful nuclear energy
Curious as to what you make of this, Mr Mearsheimer
https://charliepgarcia.substack.com/p/the-blockade-is-the-smokescreen-kharg-island-invasion?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=5jlspe
The Kargh island thing is misdirection. The us can raid Iran but that's all.
Says the loser globalist that’s never been right about anything..
Keep it up fucktard
Blocked
You’re an award winning mommas boy…living a delusion cause u think ur special…cause the Marxist told me I was..😩
How is he a "globalist"?
Lefties are all foools …listen to the lame stream liars that are all owned by globalist…Comeonman get a clue
🤣🤣🤣
Your heros finally gonna get a bit of consequences …https://substack.com/@americareborn/note/c-244475308?r=1g6n6q&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action…
https://substack.com/@faithingodforever/note/c-243639274?r=1g6n6q&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action….gutless feckless commie..
Please watch Jon Elmer’s reports on Electronic Intifada before commenting on Hezbollah. They make their own weapons, and they are good at it. He breaks it down.
From what I read, the Saudis et al are hastily arranging for the pipelines to the ports outside the Gulf. If so, this will gradually negate the importance of the Strait. Unless, of course, Iran purely accidentally blows up a critical element of the pipeline infrastructure … and then again and again.
One question for the Professor: given the amount of destruction and the weakness of iranian economy even sanctions relief and a toll on the strait would probably not be enough. Don’t you think it would be a big opportunity for the Chinese to step in (and a big blowback for the US), thus conquering a solid presence in the middle east?
The problem is that one cannot simply equate the ability to severely damage Iran’s economy with the ability to force Iran to concede at a controllable cost.
First, the U.S. execution cost would be far higher than it appears. For a blockade to be genuinely effective, Washington would not only have to intercept Iranian vessels. It would also have to deal with a vast range of third-country commercial shipping, insurance, maritime logistics, ports, flag states, cargo misidentification, deceptive routing, and gray-market transshipment. That implies a prolonged and expensive commitment in fleet deployment, logistics, aerial surveillance, munitions, maintenance, and operational readiness.
Second, Iran does not need to defeat the U.S. Navy in order to impose serious pain. It only needs to raise the cost to a level that becomes politically and strategically difficult for Washington to sustain. The real problem in the Strait of Hormuz is that it is narrow, traffic is concentrated, and coastal missiles, drones, fast boats, naval mines, and proxy harassment can all generate asymmetric leverage. Even if Iran does not fully shut the Strait, it can still exploit geography, mining threats, and coercive signaling to frighten ships away, drive up insurance costs, and reduce commercial flows. For the United States, the worst-case outcome is not necessarily a “failed blockade,” but rather a grinding stalemate in which it must engage in indefinite escort missions, minesweeping, patrols, and responses to intermittent attacks. That would drag the U.S. into a situation where it may be winning tactically every day while bleeding strategically every day.
Third, if the United States were to impose a blockade, the risks would not be borne by Iran alone. The entire global chain of energy, shipping, insurance, and inflation would be exposed. What markets would truly fear is not simply the loss of a given number of Iranian barrels, but the emergence of a broad Persian Gulf risk premium. That is the deeper danger.
Finally, the political and alliance costs for Washington should not be underestimated. A blockade is not a unilateral numbers game. It is a political question involving whether allies are willing to cooperate, whether third countries accept the move, whether the Global South regards it as legitimate, and whether major importers begin actively seeking workarounds. At present, neither the UK nor France has joined the blockade effort; both appear more inclined to pursue separate peace or escort arrangements. China has also publicly opposed external intervention. For the United States, the real difficulty is not launching a round of military action. It is figuring out how to sustain, over time, a high-risk measure that raises global energy prices, disrupts neutral shipping, and invites legal controversy, while still preserving international legitimacy.
On top of that, there is no guarantee that the Iranian regime would convert civilian suffering into external compromise. It may instead turn that pressure inward through repression, outward through nationalist mobilization, or regionally through retaliation. And even if the United States succeeded in sharply reducing Iran’s oil exports, what comes next? What concessions, exactly, would Iran be expected to make? Who would verify them? Who would decide when the blockade should be lifted? If Iran makes partial concessions while continuing gray-zone resistance, would Washington escalate, maintain the blockade, or pull back? Those are the real questions that determine whether the U.S. would end up trapped in a prolonged war of attrition. A blockade without a clear endgame can easily evolve from an instrument of pressure into a new strategic burden.
Overall, my view is that a U.S. blockade would be best understood as a coercive bargaining tool, not as a sustainable long-term policy. It is a high-risk, high-cost, and inherently difficult-to-control military measure. That is precisely why it may be useful as leverage in negotiation, but far less viable as a durable strategic arrangement.
One more basic issue doesn't seem to get much mention. Iran is 90% self-sufficient for food. So no amount of US-blockading can put the Iranian public in desperation-starvation mode. Iran likely has massive currency reserves in 'friendly' countries, so the US has not been successful in its attempts choke all economic trade activity for essentials Iran doesn't have of its own. The SWIFT alternatives are working.
Water/desalination is the fatal Achilles' Heel of all the Gulf/Eastern Med states, so unlikely the US/Israel will attack Iran's for fear Iran can and will reciprocate.
The fact Israel/US have lately focused on bombing civilian infrastructure and killing Iranian citizens shows the level of desperation in the breakaway Adelson/Nutty-Yahoo/AIPAC Cabal. US Oligarchy has long chafed under the yoke of the City of London, Europe-centric Rothschild Class control. The attempted covert Adleson/Trump/Epstein economic/political play, now overt smash-and-grab in Washington, is suffering massive PR self-harm from Trumpty Dumbdy's insane social media gaffes and Hitleresque irrational directions to the US military/black-ops. The Rothschild Class only leaned on Nutty-Yahoo when Trump's rhetoric started to infer a 'nuclear solution' to subjugate Iran permanently, no matter the cost.
Hence the inability of the Trump 'opposition' to enact either Impeachment or 25th Amendment remedies. But a house divided against itself cannot stand.
The Rothschilds want Iran subdued and asset stripped (like intended for Russia) but using nukes would permanently destroy, or at least severely cripple, the Rothschild Empire. Controlled demolition, not post-apocalypse wastelands is the necessary methodology.
The US is haemorrhaging expensive hardware and munitions, conservatively $40+billions spent since late December 2025. All 'new' debt for the $1.5Trillion Pentagon budget. And so the money-printer goes BBRRRRR as the US has to quietly buy back its own Treasuries while the world wholesale dumps them... even 'allies' like Japan and Saudi Arabia have to liquidate assets as the cost of energy goes up, up, up while the supply/$$$ for Saudi coffers through Hormuz is blocked. $10billlion US long-term debt to still 'roll over' in the next few weeks, months.
You make a few strong points, especially the basic one that a blockade is more likely to create inflation, shortages, and import disruption than literal famine. Iran does produce a large share of its own staple food, but it is not fully autarkic: FAO still projects wheat imports for 2025/26, above-average maize import needs, and continuing vulnerability through feed, fertilizer, and other trade channels. Kpler also warned this week that nearly 1 million tons of grains and oilseeds already en route to Iran could be hit by the blockade. So the likely pressure mechanism is not “starve Iran into surrender,” but rather squeeze urban consumption, livestock feed, industry, and the currency at the margin. 
I also think your desalination point is directionally right. The Gulf states are deeply dependent on desalination infrastructure, and the World Bank has noted that the GCC accounts for roughly half of global installed desalination capacity. That creates a powerful logic of mutual vulnerability: once civilian water systems become part of the deterrence equation, escalation gets much riskier for everyone. 
Where I would be more careful is with the much broader political-financial story. Claims about an “Adelson/Nutty-Yahoo/AIPAC cabal,” “Rothschild class control,” or an internal split of that sort are not things I have seen substantiated in credible reporting. I think they weaken your stronger argument. The stronger argument does not need them.
That stronger argument is already enough: the blockade is imposing costs far beyond Iran. AP reports that the U.S. blockade now covers vessels entering or departing Iranian ports, has already sent some tankers turning around, and has pushed Brent from roughly $70 before the war to just under $100. Reuters and other outlets have also described widening spillovers into fertilizer, freight, and food markets. In other words, even without any grand conspiracy, this already looks like a strategy that externalizes costs onto allies, neutral shipping, and the broader world economy. 
I would also be careful with the debt-and-collapse language. There is credible reporting that the war has already cost tens of billions of dollars and raised concerns about U.S. munitions depletion and supplemental funding. But that is different from saying the U.S. financial system is on the verge of breaking in the next few weeks. That claim is much harder to support. 
So my version would be: Iran is unlikely to be starved into capitulation. The more realistic effect of a blockade is to create inflation, import disruption, shipping paralysis, and broader regional economic stress. That is still serious pressure, but it also means the U.S. is choosing a tool whose costs propagate outward very quickly and whose political endgame remains deeply unclear.