News
3 things to know about naval blockades as U.S. begins patrols in the Strait of Hormuz
The U.S. Navy’s aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln sails alongside guided-missile destroyer USS Frank E. Petersen Jr. and dry cargo ship USNS Carl Brashear in the Arabian Sea on Feb. 6.
Handout/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Handout/Getty Images
Days after the U.S. Navy began blockading the Strait of Hormuz, key questions remain unanswered about how such a large-scale operation can be sustained — and history suggests naval blockades are difficult to enforce and their results are often unpredictable at best.
The White House says it wants to choke off Iran’s main source of revenue, oil exports, by cutting the country off from global maritime trade. It’s a move aimed at increasing economic pressure on Iran after weeks of U.S. strikes have failed to persuade the country’s leaders to agree to end the war on Washington’s terms.
The U.S. Middle East command, known as CENTCOM, said on Sunday that it would intercept all vessels going to and from Iranian ports and will “not impede freedom of navigation” for ships from all other Persian Gulf ports.
Meanwhile, President Trump has made clear that stopping all shipping to and from Iran is aimed at strangling Iran’s ability to export petroleum. The administration labels the pressure tactic as a blockade — though Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, argues it’s more of a naval quarantine, because “the U.S. is only stopping traffic that’s coming from Iran.”
Such a tactic is simply a new facet in the long-term sanctions that the U.S. has placed on Iran, says Eric Schuck, an economics professor at Linfield University in Oregon. He says the U.S. is following the classic economic pressure tactic aimed at breaking an enemy’s economy. The way to do that is finding and cutting off “something which is nonsubstitutable, something that is so essential to their economy that everything else is going to come to a halt.” In Iran’s case, that is oil.
But will the strategy work? Here are three lessons learned from the history of naval blockades.
Blockades zap resources and are hard to enforce
For much of history, naval blockades were mostly enforced through coordinated patrols, control of key routes and strategic positioning of ships. During the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars of the early 19th century, for example, Britain imposed blockades on key French ports, which required a significant portion of the Royal Navy’s ships. And even then, some nimble French vessels — blockade runners — were still able to slip through the British screen.
Unlike the British squadrons off French ports or blockades during the 20th century, the U.S. Navy can use shipboard position beacons, satellites, drones and helicopters to locate and watch vessels coming in and out of the Strait of Hormuz, according to Steve Dunn, author of Blockade: Cruiser Warfare and the Starvation of Germany in World War One.
“Detection of vessels is much easier, with satellite, [planes and drones] and radar,” using helicopters and fast boats to send boarding parties to determine whether a ship will be allowed to pass, Dunn wrote in an email to NPR.
The Navy will likely need “six or so destroyers in rotation” to enforce the strait blockade, according to the Hudson Institute’s Clark, who is an expert in naval operations and electronic warfare. Prior to the U.S.-Iran war, an average of 138 ships passed through the strait daily. With so many vessels going through the strategic choke point, “it would be almost impossible [for the Navy] to keep up with that traffic volume,” he says.
The early months of the Ukraine war demonstrated a similar difficulty: Russia’s navy initially tried to restrict Ukrainian maritime exports from the Black Sea, using sea mines and warships to threaten commercial traffic. It resulted in a de facto partial blockade of Ukrainian grain exports, which are crucial to Ukraine’s economy. But it was “quite quickly negotiated away,” partly because Russia lacked the full military capacity needed to enforce it, according to Nicholas Mulder, a professor at Cornell University who specializes in the history of sanctions, blockades and economic warfare.
“That’s the difficult thing about blockades — you have to enforce them,” Mulder says.
The logistics of enforcing a blockade are not simple, Clark says. The blockading country’s navy must essentially pull over ships, like a traffic cop at sea. In the Arabian Sea outside the strait, the U.S. Navy “would intercept [ships] and basically get in their way and force them to turn … or take them over to a marshaling area or an anchorage in Oman,” he says.
The Navy isn’t prepared to track and stop that many ships, he says: “I don’t see the U.S. mounting a scorched-earth campaign of attacking every little vessel that tries to evade the blockade.”
They aren’t always effective
Schuck, of Linfield University, says during World War II, the Allied and Axis submarine campaigns — effectively naval blockades of shipping — provide a stark dichotomy of outcomes. The German U-boat campaign against Britain in the 1940s operated under the assumption that “if we sink everything, then it doesn’t matter. … We can cripple the British war economy,” Schuck says. However, in the end Britain was “able to make sure that the one supply line that mattered, that North Atlantic supply line,” remained open.
By contrast, the U.S. submarine campaign against Japan was “brutally effective,” targeting oil and resource flows from the Dutch East Indies to the Japanese home islands. The pressure forced Japan to shift its fleet in a way that undermined its own defense, since “they had to relocate a bunch of their fleet” just to defend their oil supply. As a result, things deteriorated on the homefront, Schuck says: By the closing months of the war, the caloric intake in Japan had dropped dramatically.
They don’t always hit their target
If history is any guide, naval blockades often have unintended consequences. “In most cases, what we’re aiming at and what we actually break are two different things,” says Schuck, who has studied the economics of naval blockades.
During World War I, the Allies imposed a naval blockade on Germany to restrict imports of strategic materials such as nitrates and phosphates used in explosives. However, these same chemicals were also critical for the production of fertilizer.
“What wound up breaking wasn’t so much the German defense industrial base — it was their agricultural sector,” Schuck says. As a result, Germany’s civilian population faced severe food shortages and widespread malnutrition in the latter years of the war.
Likewise, during the British blockade of French ports around the turn of the 19th century, French trade collapsed along with the economy.
In the case of Iran, Schuck says, its oil revenue is its lifeblood, so “there is a potential … that their food supply could be exposed from this.” But that likely depends on how long the blockade lasts or how effective it is at shutting down Iran’s commerce.
A Pakistani Ranger walks past a billboard for the U.S.-Iran peace talks in Islamabad on April 12, 2026. The talks, led by Vice President JD Vance, produced no concrete movement toward a peace deal.
Farooq Naeem/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Farooq Naeem/AFP via Getty Images
Despite stalled talks with Iran and a fragile ceasefire nearing its end, President Trump expressed optimism this week that a permanent deal is within reach — one that may include Iran relinquishing its enriched uranium. However, experts who spent months negotiating a nuclear agreement during the Obama administration say mutual mistrust, starkly different negotiating styles make a quick truce unlikely.
Referring to Vice President Vance’s whirlwind negotiations in Islamabad last week that appear to have produced little beyond dashed expectations, Wendy Sherman, the lead U.S. negotiator on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal finalized in 2015, says the administration’s approach was all wrong.
“You cannot do a negotiation with Iran in one day,” she told NPR’s Here & Now earlier this week. “You can’t even do it in a week.” To get agreement on the JCPOA, she said, it took “a good 18 months.”
The talks leading to that deal highlighted Iran’s meticulous style of negotiation, says Rob Malley, who was also part of the JCPOA negotiating team and later served as a special envoy to Iran under President Joe Biden.
Summing up the two sides’ differing styles, Malley said: “Trump is impulsive and temperamental; Iran’s leadership [is] stubborn and tenacious.”
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry speaks during a news conference on the Iran nuclear talks deal at the Austria International Centre in Vienna, Austria on July 14, 2015.
Pool/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Pool/AFP via Getty Images
In 2015, patience led to a deal
The talks in 2015, led by Secretary of State John Kerry and Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, culminated with a marathon 19-day session in Vienna to finish the deal, says Jon Finer, a former U.S. deputy national security adviser in the Biden administration. Finer was involved in the negotiations as Kerry’s chief of staff. He said his boss’s patience “was a huge asset” in getting the deal to the finish line, he said.
Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister during the negotiations for the Obama-era nuclear deal, speaks on April 22, 2016 in New York.
AFP/via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
AFP/via Getty Images
“He would endure lectures … ‘let me tell you about 5,000 years of Iranian civilization’… and just keep plowing ahead,” Finer said, adding that a tactic of Iranian negotiators seemed to be “to say no to everything and see what actually matters” to the U.S.
“They’re just maddeningly difficult,” he said. “You need to go back at the same issue 10 or 12 times over weeks or months to make any progress.”
Even so, Finer called the Iranian negotiators “extremely capable” — noting that, unlike the U.S., they often lacked expert advisers “just outside the room,” yet still mastered the details of nuclear weapons, nuclear materials and U.S. sanctions.
“They were also negotiating not in their first language,” Finer added. “The documents were all negotiated in English, and they were hundreds of pages long with detailed annexes.”
Vance’s trip to Islamabad suggests that the U.S. doesn’t have the patience for a negotiation to end the conflict that could be at least as complex and time-consuming. “The Trump administration came in with maximalist demands and actually just wanted Iran to capitulate,” Sherman, who served as deputy secretary of state during the Biden administration, told Here & Now. “No nation – even one as odious as the Iran regime – is going to capitulate.”
Distrust but verify
Iran was attacked twice in the past year. First in June of last year, as nuclear negotiations were ongoing, Israel and the U.S. struck the country’s nuclear facilities. Months later, at the end of February, Iran was attacked again at the start of the latest conflict. This time around, “the level of trust is probably almost at an all-time low,” Malley said.
“It’s hard for them to take at their word what they’re hearing from U.S. officials,” Malley said. The Iranians, he said, have to be wondering how long any commitment will last and “will be very hesitant to give up something that’s tangible” – such as their enriched uranium – in exchange for anything that isn’t ironclad or subject to suddenly be discarded by Trump or some future president.
“Once they give up their stockpile … they can’t recapture it the next day,” Malley said.
Even during the 2013-2015 nuclear deal talks, the decades of mistrust between Tehran and Washington were impossible to ignore, Finer said. “Our theory was not trust but verify — it was distrust but verify,” he said, adding: “I think that was their theory too.”
Malley cautions about relying on the JCPOA as a guide to how peace talks to end the current war might go. The leadership in Tehran that agreed to the deal is now gone — killed in Israeli airstrikes, he says. The regime’s military capabilities are also greatly diminished and “whatever lessons were learned in the past … have to be viewed with a lot of caution, because so much has changed,” he said.
Negotiations have a leveling effect
Mark Freeman, executive director of the Institute for Integrated Transitions, a peace and security think tank based in Spain that advises on conflict negotiations, says several factors shape the U.S.-Iran relationship. Going into talks, one side always has the upper hand, he says, but negotiations have a leveling effect. “The weaker party gains just by virtue of entering into a negotiation process,” he said.
Each side is looking for leverage, he adds.
In Iran’s case, it has used its closure of the Strait of Hormuz to exert such leverage, while the White House has shown an eagerness to resolve the conflict quickly. “If one side perceives the other needs an agreement more … that shapes the entire negotiation,” he said.
President Trump has followed Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s competitive authoritarian playbook, according to political scientists. But that playbook was not enough to save Orban from a landslide defeat Sunday.
Getty Images/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Getty Images/Getty Images
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán was seen for years as a master of tilting the electoral playing field in his favor to remain in power. On Sunday, his carefully-crafted strategy finally failed.
His opponent, Péter Magyar – a former Orbán loyalist – ran a campaign focused on Hungary’s economic problems, government corruption and getting rid of the prime minister himself. The record turnout overwhelmed the measures Orbán had taken over the years to preserve power.
Hungarian American experts here in the U.S. say Orbán’s loss has lessons for President Trump, and about the resilience of democracy.
“You can rewrite the constitution, you can capture public media, you can gerrymander election districts, but as long as people still enjoy the freedom to vote and to vote for whomever they want to, these systems can be reversed under the right circumstances,” said David Koranyi who runs Action for Democracy, a U.S.-based civil society organization.
The case of Hungary is relevant because many political scientists say Trump has adopted a version of Orbán’s competitive authoritarian playbook.
The president has sued news organizations, and the Federal Communications Commission has threatened to pull licenses from broadcasters the president has said are biased against him.
Trump has also suggested the federal government take over the running of elections in 15 states and has used the Justice Department to target his perceived political enemies.
Orbán’s defeat shows the limits of these sorts of tactics, especially when wielded by an unpopular leader.
“Fundamentally in a democracy, you can’t have the majority of people against you for too long before you lose power,” said Lorinc Redei, who teaches politics at the University of Texas at Austin.
Orbán’s loss also suggests opportunities for Democrats heading into the midterms and Republicans thinking about a presidential run in 2028, experts say. Like Orbán, President Trump is vulnerable on the economy, which he pledged to fix. An NPR/PBS News/Marist Poll earlier this year found nearly 6 in 10 people disapproved of Trump’s handling of the economy – normally a strength for the president.
Magyar, a former member of Orbán’s Fidesz party, led the opposition in Hungary and built a broad coalition. Magyar cut a patriotic profile, traveling the country in a pickup truck with a color scheme that matched the Hungarian flag.
“Everywhere he went, he emphasized that national identity and patriotism do not belong to the right wing,” said Julia Sonnevend, a professor of sociology and communications at the New School in New York.
Sonnevend said Magyar also steered clear of divisive social issues. When Orbán tried to ban last year’s Pride parade in Budapest, Magyar chose not to march and kept his coalition together.
“Magyar really managed to unite the entire opposition to Orbán under his flag and I think that carries lessons for Democrats . . . that you need to create a very, very broad tent,” said Redei, the politics professor.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has been a favorite of many MAGA Republicans for his tough stance on immigration and his anti-LGBTQ policies.
Getty Images/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Getty Images/Getty Images
Magyar also benefitted from his profile as an insider and member of Orbán’s right-wing party, who saw the light and quit. Magyar publicly broke with Orbán’s government two years ago. Magyar was furious after his ex-wife, the justice minister, took the fall for a scandal involving the pardon of a child sex abuser.
Koranyi says members of the Trump administration who want to succeed him could try to distance themselves from the president in advance of a 2028 presidential run. But choosing when to break with a powerful leader is tricky.
“It’s hard to know ahead of time when that window of opportunity is going to close,” said Redei. “The higher up you are in a party, the earlier it closes.”
Some conservative political watchers in the U.S., however, said people are reading too much into Orbán’s loss. The United States is a vast, ethnically diverse nation of about 340 million people, while Hungary has a population of less than 10 million and is about the size of Indiana.
Matt Schlapp, who leads the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), pointed out that Orbán, 62, was running for a fifth term, and that no politician can win forever.
“When you’ve been in power 16 years, as Victor Orbán has, longer than FDR . . . it was probably asking a little too much to buck that much history,” said Schlapp, whose organization has held annual conferences in Hungary.
Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, noted that a win for Magyar – who favors strict immigration and conservative social values – is no victory for the left. But Gonzalez added that Orbán’s defeat has lessons for President Trump.
“Keep the promises you’ve made,” said Gonzalez. “Above all, don’t get complacent.”
‘The Naked Gun’ actor Paul Walter Hauser bloodies opponent at Maple Leaf Pro’s first US show
Fox News AI Newsletter: Tech company cuts 1,000 jobs in AI-driven restructuring
‘We’ve lost our way’: Clifton’s operator gives up on downtown Los Angeles
Coachella 2026: Sabrina Carpenter brings out Madonna to perform new song ‘I Feel Free’
They lost their homes to fire. Now they’re rebuilding with all-electric.
Florida High School Football Rankings: Top 25 teams – Oct. 21
How old is Bo Nix? What to know about Oregon quarterback ahead of 2024 NFL Draft
Cleary's 21 help Le Moyne down Central Connecticut State 69-64 in OT
99th annual Pony Swim held in Virginia
Indiana Members Credit Union announced as new anchor tenant at Bottleworks District
White House vs the pope: What is behind the Catholic just war doctrine
What’s it like to negotiate with Iran? We asked people who have done it
Grieving mothers scorch Dem lawmaker after he pivots during hearing to attack ‘MAGA Republicans’
Pressure mounts on Peru’s election authorities amid presidential race delay
Tornadoes touch down in Rochester area
-
Ohio4 days ago‘Little Rascals’ star Bug Hall arrested in Ohio
-
Arkansas1 week agoArkansas TV meteorologist Melinda Mayo retires after nearly four decades on air
-
Politics4 days agoDem fundraising giant in the hot seat as GOP lawmakers demand answers over dodged subpoena
-
Science4 days ago‘Dr. Pimple Popper’ Sandra Lee had a stroke last fall. Here’s how the TV doc is bouncing back
-
Health1 week agoWoman discovers missing nose ring traveled to her lungs, causing month-long cough
-
Politics7 days agoTrump blasts Spanberger ahead of Virginia meetings, says state faces tax base exodus like New York, California
-
San Francisco, CA6 days agoPresident Trump terminates Presidio Trust
-
Technology1 week agoIs the ‘Holy Grail of batteries’ finally ready to bless us with its presence?