Obviously a narrow strait like this would be easy to blockade.
However I would draw attention to the tanker driver strike in the UK
a few years back.
In three days the supermarkets were virtually stripped bare.

It would probably take a week or two before service stations were
affected and then another week before food ran short, then a couple of
weeks before starvation set in.
Once people realised the implications those timescales would be shortened.

How long after that before Iran was a sheet of glass ?

It is not a realistic tatic for Iran.

Of course, the issue arises only because of Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and Irani statements suggesting that they would be used on Israel. Those issues can not be resolved via discussions with the IAEA, they can be resolved only by Iran genuinely renouncing nuclear weapons and dismantling all nuclear weapon-related facilities under international supervision. The ball is in Iran's court, not those of the IAEA or international community.

Despite Iran having forsworn nuclear weapons and opened their nuclear program to an unprecedented level of international inspection, they are still being accused of having a nuclear weapons program. This accusation has been growing in volume ever since the UN's IAEA gained a US and Israel friendly head.
Perhaps Iran is building something in secret. Can they be blamed in light of what happened in Libya and Iraq and didn't happen in Korea?
Israel is one of the loudest voices calling for an attack on Iran, all the while repeating a misquote attributed to the Iranian president. He is not the only one thinking that the Zionist regime in Israel/Palestine is up to no good. Nor is he the only one thinking Israel would gain credibility if she were to open her nuclear program to international inspection to the same level she demands of others.
A possibility seldom if ever considered is that Iran and the "west" are natural allies. We're a match made in heaven, if only the fishwives would let it happen.

Iran can't block the Straits of Hormuz, for if it did, that would
be seen as trying to blackmail the rest of the world. Iran as a
result, would get what it deserved, through every fault of its own.

More likely, as the locals in Iran are restless and would like to
overthrow the Govt, which hangs on by every means of corruption
it can think of, the Govt needs an outside threat to try and rally
local support behind it.

With the Straits of Hormuz it would have picked the wrong way to
do so, for them remaining open is far more important globally
then the present Iran regime.

So block the Straits at your peril and the result won't be pretty.

Halduell;
Had it occurred to you that Iran might have let the IAEA
inspect all sorts of places, but not told them of other places ?

In fact, that is just what the IAEA reported and what has lead to the
current unease. They are not so naive to have come to their conclusion
without some evidence.
They study such things as material ordering and production of fuel.

The number of centrifuges was one clue that they mentioned.

Let recent history guide us.
The US invaded Iraq because it thought Iraq had ‘weapons of mass destruction’. It found none. The US did not then leave, it stayed for some other motivation.
Prior to the invasion of Iraq, the US initiated a huge PR campaign trying to prove there were weapons of mass destruction. When that media campaign was complete they invaded.

We now see the same propaganda campaign against Iraq and it will likely lead to an invasion of Iran if a desperate US sees it as a viable option. In addition to oil, perhaps the state of the US economy will provide a further motive to invade, in that people unite behind their governments in times of war.

On the qualities of the governments in both countries; the US through its corruption of the financial system is shown to be a most destructive agent. Its invasion of country after country over many years also proves it is a warlike country. How can the quality of Iran government be a justification to attacking Iran

Michael DW; Are you saying that Iraq DID NOT have a nuclear weapons
program ? Well I heard it from Saddam Hussein's own mouth that they did.
There he was standing on a stage boasting that the west had tried to
stop Iraq from getting devices used to trigger a nuclear weapon but
that they had managed to get the needed device and he held it up for all to see !
Cheers from the crowd !

AS someone said, you don't want to find out you were wrong when you see the mushroom cloud !

IF WMD's are an issue, why aren't we invading Israel, China, North Korea, Britain, France, Pakistan, India, Russia ... Q.E.D, WMD's have nothing to do with it, marketing hyperbole aside.

If I was Iran I would be developing WMDs, its not as if the other kids in the backyard aren't, let alone those in the wider playgroup who are a bunch of bullies, who have shown they WILL come and kick sand in your face if you don't do what they say.

All of that said, I would rather we spend our tax dollars helping those trying to escape Iran resettle in Aus. rather then go over there and shoot them.

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?" - Mahatma Gandhi

Bazz, the weapons inspectors found no WMD, not even the makings of them. Regardless of what Sadam, George and Tony said, there were no WMDs.

WMDs were the excuse, not the reason for the invasion. Oil and the trading of oil in US dollars and not some other currency were big reasons to get in there and show that anyone who goes against the US empire gets raped.

Where does this logic leave Iran?
Cheers

Well of course the makings were not there, but they did find where
part of the assemblies had been stored.
Just because no weapons were found does not mean that there was no
program to develop a weapon. Any way Saddam said there was a program.

I suspect it had not got very far. They only had a small number of
centrifuges. I am told not enough to produce a weapon.

As far as the present situation, well I guess some of things the
Iranians have said would worry Israel and perhaps some further away.
The whole nuclear weapon thing is silly anyway as there would be no
winners. It is the trust in Allah that worries me as they can act
thinking they have an indestructible ally and that the very worse
that can happen to them is that they arrive in paradise with 73 virgins !
It is the suicide bomber syndrome.

Iran cannot legally close the strait, as half of it belongs to Saudi. The blocking of the strait would be seen as an act of war against Saudi, Bahrain, Qatar, and the the US whose 5th fleet is based in Bahrain close to the strait.

While blocking the strait would seem easy, it would involve military action from Iran. The unblocking of the strait would involve removing this capability, and with considerable US air force nearby, this would initially include obliterating Iran's air force, air defences, and pitiful navy. This would be followed by destroying any fixed or mobile military hardware. I personally think the US would welcome the chance to shred Iran's military and test their latest batch of weapons.

Secondly, The blocking of the strait would block 16% of the world's oil production, but close to 100% of Iran's.

None of the possible out comes for Iran would be better than not blocking the strait. I would like to believe that Iran's leaders are not complete idiots.

Ali Omidi wrote 28 December 2011:

>... Historically, using speed boats in warfare traces back to the Iran-Iraq war (1980-88)...

Small high speed vessels have been used warfare well before the Iran-Iraq war. The term used for such vessels is a "Boghammar", from the name of the Swedish firm which made them for Iran. The Swedish navy have been building small high speed patrol boats for years, for use in their fiord's and coastal waters.

Since the 1980s, navies have been working on countermeasures against small high speed boats. These include the use of helicopters and Unmanned aerial vehicles to detect and intercept the boats at a distance, unmanned surface vessels (USV) around ships, video cameras on ships and remote controlled guns. The major difficulty is where the boats are operating intermixed with civilian vessels during a peacekeeping operation. However, if an area is declared closed to shipping, that would ease the restrictions on the use of force.

>... The Iranian Navy has been equipped with submarines which increase Iranian military power in the region. ...

Submarines do pose a risk to military ships. However, the primary mission of NATO navies during the Cold War was anti-submarine warfare. Those capabilities have been maintained. In any case the most effect way to deal with submarines is to destroy them while they are in port for resupply.

>... 1. Anti-ship beach –deploying surface-to-surface cruise missiles;

Modern warships are equipped with anti-missile systems, with antimissile missiles and cannons.

>... 2. Ballistic missiles which can be launched from the heartland ...

Some US ships are equipped with RIM-161 (SM3) anti-ballistic missiles. The Aegis radar of Spanish and Norwegian ships can track ballistic missiles and transmit the data to the US ships to direct the SM3 missiles (Australia has ordered six destroyers with this capability, but so far has not ordered the SM3 missiles).

Well, now that Iran has virtually ordered the US to not bring an
aircraft carrier into the Persian Gulf, it seems that they have left
the US with no option but to do just that.

It strikes me as a very silly thing to do over an international water
way. If the US were to not send the carrier back it would say that any
country could order US naval ships, and any other navies, out of
International waters.

The Chinese are trying just that in the South China Sea.

The Persians were ancient invaders from way back in the middle east
so I suspect they think they have residual rights.

I would bet a lot that the US will send the aircraft carrier back and Iran will do nothing.

Yes, they probably will do nothing, unless they are totally mad.

They even told the Americans that they would not get another warning.
If they are not mad then it could only result in them looking stupid.