525 comments • Comments Link

美国军方无法维持霍尔木兹海峡的通行，这被视为当前政府的一次重大失败。伊朗早已具备封锁海峡的能力，而美国既缺乏周密的长期规划，又缺少公众对持续军事行动的支持，导致其在战略上处于劣势。

非对称战争已经从根本上改变了海军力量的格局。伊朗可以用从海岸发射的廉价无人机和导弹，威胁到价值数十亿美元的军舰和脆弱的油轮，使得在狭窄海峡中依靠传统海军力量进行投射变得低效且代价高昂。对伊朗领导层的斩首行动被认为是重大战略失误——它抹杀了温和派的声音，削弱了威慑效果，并使伊朗几乎没有谈判的动力，因为美国的行动传递了任何反应都会被升级的信号。

伊朗利用比特币接受勒索款项，凸显受制裁政权绕过以美元为核心的金融体系的能力。尽管大多数稳定币仍与美元挂钩，这也引发了这种做法是否真正构成去美元化的疑问。与此同时，美国海军规模较冷战高峰期已显著缩小，再加上全球性的部署任务，使得在波斯湾维持持续护航面临严重的后勤挑战，尤其是在地区盟友因惧怕伊朗报复而拒绝提供基地支持的情况下。

伊朗的主要目标并非大量击沉船只，而是通过可信的威胁进行敲诈勒索，以取代美国对 IRGC 商业利益的打击，维持一种靠保护费运作的掠夺性政权。其他国家不愿协助美国巡逻海峡，因为对他们而言，战争在国内舆论中极不受欢迎；能源价格的上升也不足以抵消公众的反对，且没有任何保证表明军事介入能降低本国能源成本。

霍尔木兹海峡的关闭对全球经济造成了严重损害，尤以欧洲和中国为甚；相对而言，美国作为主要产油国受影响较小，这产生了一个僵局：伊朗经济受损，但美国面临声誉受损和作为自由航行保障者角色的信誉丧失。与上世纪 80 年代油轮战争的历史类似，即便遭到袭击，航运也很少完全停摆——油轮难以彻底击沉，是否通行往往由托运人和保险人的经济考量决定，而非绝对的安全保证。

更广泛的影响包括二战后由美国主导的国际秩序可能被侵蚀：未能确保国际水域开放或将促成一个更交易化的全球体系，各国自行征收过境费用，最终损害全球贸易并削弱美国的影响力。

总体讨论反映出对美方对伊政策的普遍批评：战略上缺乏连贯性，斩首行动和随后未能确保霍尔木兹海峡畅通暴露了重大军事与外交弱点。人们普遍认为，非对称战争已使传统海军投射对地理上占优的对手变得既昂贵又低效。对伊朗行为的解读存在分歧：有人把其勒索视为非法侵略，有人则认为这是对美国挑衅的可预测反应。但多数观点一致认为，当前僵局对各方都无益，鉴于相互猜疑和升级的动态，外交解决短期内仍然十分困难。 • The US military's inability to keep the Strait of Hormuz open represents a significant failure of the current administration, as Iran's ability to close the strait was well-known beforehand, and the lack of planning or public support for sustained operations has left the US in a strategically weak position.

• Asymmetric warfare has fundamentally changed naval dynamics, with Iran able to threaten multi-billion dollar warships and vulnerable tankers using relatively cheap drones and missiles launched from its coastline, making traditional naval power projection ineffective in narrow straits.

• The decapitation strike against Iranian leadership was a critical strategic blunder that eliminated moderate voices, undermined deterrence, and left Iran with little incentive to negotiate, as the US demonstrated it would escalate regardless of Iranian actions.

• Bitcoin's use by Iran for extortion payments highlights its utility for sanctioned regimes to bypass dollar-based financial systems, though most stablecoins remain dollar-pegged, raising questions about whether this truly represents de-dollarization.

• The US Navy's reduced size and capabilities compared to its Cold War peak, combined with global commitments, make sustained convoy operations in the Persian Gulf logistically challenging, especially with regional allies refusing basing rights due to fear of Iranian retaliation.

• Iran's primary goal is not to sink ships but to extort money through credible threats, replacing lost income from US attacks on IRGC commercial interests, functioning as a kleptocratic regime sustaining power through protection rackets.

• Other nations are unwilling to assist the US in patrolling the strait because the war is phenomenally unpopular globally, energy price increases don't outweigh public opposition, and there's no guarantee that military involvement would lower domestic energy costs.

• The closure of the Strait of Hormuz harms the global economy, particularly Europe and China, while the US as a major oil producer is relatively insulated, creating a stalemate where Iran suffers economically but the US faces reputational damage and loss of credibility as a guarantor of free navigation.

• Historical parallels to the Tanker War of the 1980s suggest that shipping never completely stops despite attacks, as tankers are difficult to sink and the economic calculus for shippers and insurers determines transit decisions rather than absolute safety.

• The broader implications include the potential erosion of the post-WW2 American-led world order, where failure to keep international waters open could lead to a more transactional global system with countries imposing their own transit fees, ultimately harming global trade and US influence.

The discussion reveals a widespread perception that the US administration's approach to Iran has been strategically incoherent, with the decapitation strike and subsequent inability to secure the Strait of Hormuz exposing significant military and diplomatic weaknesses. There is broad consensus that asymmetric warfare has fundamentally altered naval dynamics, making traditional power projection costly and ineffective against a determined adversary with geographic advantages. The conversation also highlights the complex interplay between military action, economic consequences, and global opinion, with many participants noting that while the US may weather the economic impact better than most, the reputational damage and erosion of its role as guarantor of free navigation could have lasting consequences for the international order. Perspectives on Iran's actions vary, with some viewing its extortion as illegitimate aggression and others seeing it as a predictable response to US-initiated conflict, but there is general agreement that the current stalemate serves no one well and that diplomatic solutions remain elusive given the mutual distrust and escalatory dynamics at play.