Government officials from the Trump administration admitted to Congress that no preparations had been made for the possibility of the Strait of Hormuz being closed, because they believed it would not be closed and that Iran needed the strait more than the United States.
This brief message contains rich connotations, pointing to serious strategic miscalculations and planning deficiencies in the Trump administration before launching military actions. This is not just a tactical oversight but also exposes the hasty decision-making process and internal contradictions within the administration.
This was a fatal strategic miscalculation: taking the opponent's "rationality" as one's own "assumed certainty."
The government officials admitted they did not make any preparations, the fundamental reason being their misjudgment of Iran's determination and its strategies.
The U.S. believed that 90% of Iran's oil exports depended on this strait, so blocking it would amount to "self-harm," costing over $100 million per day, and thus Iran would "not dare" to act. This purely economic logic ignored the irrational national sentiments and strategic retaliation needs in conflicts.
Being misled by "empiricism," in the summer of last year, Iran once threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz but did not follow through, which led the U.S. to develop a侥幸心理 (lucky mentality) that "this time was just talk," reinforcing the wrong judgment.
A "backyard-style" decision-making process has led to today's difficult situation.
This incident also reflects problems with the decision-making mechanism of the Trump administration.
By marginalizing the Treasury Department and the Department of Energy's professional economic analysis in formulating war plans, it led to a lack of anticipation of potential economic consequences (such as soaring oil prices and shipping stagnation).
After a closed-door briefing, a senator openly stated that the government had "no plan at all" for the Strait of Hormuz and did not know how to safely reopen it. This confirmed that the action was more like "fighting first and then dealing with the aftermath," lacking a clear exit strategy.
Current dilemma: from "not daring to close" to "once closed, it can't be opened again." Iran's actual actions delivered a heavy blow to the United States, putting it in an embarrassing and passive position.
This incident also serves as a warning to the world: on key waterways that the global economy highly depends on, pure military deterrence cannot replace complex commercial logic and the anticipation of geopolitical risks. Once the war machine starts, its chain reactions often exceed the initial expectations of the decision-makers.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1859551845842944/
Statement: The article represents the views of the author.