Connect with us

News

3 things to know about naval blockades as U.S. begins patrols in the Strait of Hormuz

Published

on

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

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

News

Orbán’s defeat is a win for democracy and a warning to Trump, some say

Published

on

Orbán’s defeat is a win for democracy and a warning to Trump, some say

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

Advertisement

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 Magyara 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.

Advertisement

“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.

Advertisement

“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.

Advertisement

“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

Advertisement

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.”

Advertisement

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.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Firefighters Likely Had Limited View of Approaching Plane in LaGuardia Crash

Published

on

Firefighters Likely Had Limited View of Approaching Plane in LaGuardia Crash

The rapidly approaching plane that collided with a fire truck at New York’s LaGuardia Airport last month was most likely hard for the firefighters to see, a New York Times analysis has found.

They were navigating in the rain on a taxiway that was angled away from the oncoming plane. Because the plane had just touched down, the pilots and the firefighters were left with very little time to react.

Advertisement

The collision killed both pilots and was the first deadly crash at the airport in over three decades. The two firefighters, who were rushing to another emergency, survived with injuries.

The Times built a 3-D model, interviewed aviation experts and analyzed flight data, video footage of the crash and air traffic control audio — all to answer a critical question: What could the firefighters see?

Advertisement

The truck’s dispatch

The two firefighters were driving on Taxiway D in the lead vehicle of a convoy that had been dispatched to assist with an emergency on the other side of the airport from the fire station.

Advertisement

Their fire truck, a type that can weigh upward of 60,000 pounds when fully loaded, is designed with the driver’s seat in the center, in part to offer better visibility. The other firefighter typically sits to the right of the driver.

The air traffic control tower had cleared an Air Canada Express jet to land on Runway 4. About two minutes later, the tower cleared the truck to cross the same runway using Taxiway D. Eleven seconds later, the tower called back with an urgent warning to stop, but the truck kept moving. It is unclear if the firefighters in the truck heard the warnings.

Each firefighter had a disadvantage

Advertisement

Even in an optimal scenario in which the driver was looking directly toward the oncoming plane in the moments before collision, it’s likely that his view of the approaching plane would have been obstructed by the second firefighter.

If the driver had leaned forward slightly with his head turned about 90 degrees to the right before looking straight again, the plane would have most likely been obstructed:

Advertisement

Note: Video shows estimated speeds of the truck and plane. The New York Times

The second firefighter would have had a better view, but for him, the plane would most likely not have stood out as a moving object until it grew closer to the truck. Even as the plane was approaching, it would have stayed in roughly the same position in his field of view — making the plane more difficult to track than if it had been moving across his line of sight.

Advertisement

This is a familiar phenomenon documented in aviation and maritime navigation, in which an object approaching on a collision course can appear to be stationary until the last moment, when it seems to suddenly grow in size.

Here is what the view for the second firefighter could have been if he had been leaning forward slightly with his head turned about 90 degrees to the right and looking toward the plane:

Advertisement

Second firefighter’s perspective

Advertisement

Note: Video shows estimated speeds of the truck and plane. The New York Times

Crash footage shows that there was one vehicle in the convoy initially traveling alongside the fire truck, and it may also have blocked the firefighters’ view of the runway before it came to a stop about seven seconds before the crash.

Advertisement

Based on the available evidence, there is no way to know with certainty where the firefighters were looking in the seconds before the crash. The runway where the crash occurred is bidirectional, meaning planes can approach one at a time for landing in both directions. As a result, the firefighters would not necessarily have been able to assume the direction of oncoming planes.

The two firefighters, Sgt. Michael Orsillo and Officer Adrian Baez, who were hospitalized along with about 40 others, did not respond to requests for comment. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which runs LaGuardia Airport and its fire rescue unit, declined to comment.

Advertisement

The taxiway was angled away from the oncoming plane

The lead fire truck had been driving along a taxiway that was angled away from the direction of the oncoming plane. This means that the plane was approaching off the right rear section of the truck — where it would have been difficult for the firefighters to see — instead of its direct right-hand side.

Advertisement

As a result of the angle, the driver would have had a difficult time spotting the plane, regardless of where he was looking. If he had turned to the right, toward the plane, his view might have also been obstructed by the firefighter beside him:

Advertisement

Possible sight lines for the driver

Note: Video shows possible sight lines about two seconds before collision. The New York Times

Advertisement

The plane would have appeared in the right corner of the second firefighter’s field of view, but only if he had leaned forward slightly, turned his head to the right and looked in the plane’s direction. Here is what he might have seen right before the truck entered the runway about two seconds before collision:

Advertisement

Possible sight lines for the second firefighter

Advertisement

Note: Video shows possible sight lines about two seconds before collision. The New York Times

The analysis of the crash footage also shows that the truck turned slightly toward the left as it entered the runway. It is unclear whether it turned because the firefighters saw the plane, but the change in direction angled the firefighters farther away from the approaching plane, making it even harder to see.

Airports use these slanted taxiways because they allow planes to exit the runway more quickly, instead of having to make a sharp 90-degree turn at a slower speed.

Advertisement

That said, the Federal Aviation Administration urges airports to use intersections configured at 90-degree angles because they give pilots and drivers the best visual perspectives to see other aircraft and vehicles, said Michael O’Donnell, a retired F.A.A. official and a former airport firefighter.

The truck did not slow down or stop before entering the runway

Advertisement

The Times analysis of the crash footage indicates that the truck did not stop or slow down before entering the runway and that it was traveling at a relatively steady speed of about 30 miles per hour from the moment the air traffic controller first gave the warning to stop until the collision.

Note: Video shows estimated speeds of the truck and plane. The New York Times

Advertisement

Slowing down or stopping entirely may have given the firefighters more time to look and assess any oncoming traffic on the runway.

Seconds after the controller first warned the truck to stop, about seven seconds before the crash, the convoy of vehicles that was following the lead truck slowed down and stopped while the lead truck continued.

Advertisement

Once the tower clears an emergency response vehicle to cross a runway, the vehicle’s drivers are not expected to obey the stop marks on the pavement, Mr. O’Donnell said. But they are expected to look for aircraft before crossing and proceed with caution, he said.

Other distractions

It’s also likely that there were other visual distractions. The airport runway and taxiways are lined with lights. The night of the crash was rainy and misty, and the rain-slicked surface of the runway could have given it the appearance of a glaring light show.

Advertisement

“At night, it’s basically like driving through a lit-up Christmas tree,” said Bobby Egbert, a spokesman for the Port Authority Police Benevolent Association, the officer’s union. “You have so many lights and the crew has to know exactly what those lights mean.”

Advertisement

Emergency personnel responded to a Port Authority fire truck’s collision with an Air Canada jet on the runway at LaGuardia Airport in New York. Angela Weiss/Agence France-Presse via Getty Images

What the firefighters could have seen or not seen “with that equipment, at that time of night, with that illumination,” is one of the many components of the National Transportation Safety Board’s investigation, said Peter Knudson, a spokesman for the board, who said the preliminary report would be released later this month. He declined to answer questions about the crash, citing the ongoing investigation.

According to safety board officials, the airport’s runway status lights, set in the pavement at taxiways and runway crossings to warn of planes on or approaching the runway, were functional that night. Video analysis of the crash shows that the truck may have entered the runway around the same time as the lights went from red to dark, which they are designed to do a couple seconds before a plane passes.

Advertisement

What the jet’s pilots may have seen

For the pilots, Captain Antoine Forest and First Officer Mackenzie Gunther, the truck was most likely in their field of vision from the cockpit, if they were looking down the runway:

Advertisement

Note: Video shows estimated speeds of the truck and plane. The New York Times

About the same time that the fire truck entered the runway, the Air Canada jet dropped its speed sharply below what is typical after touchdown, according to a Times analysis that compared the jet’s flight data with hundreds of other landings on Runway 4 by the same aircraft model. The plane reduced its speed to about 100 miles per hour from about 140 miles per hour in about three seconds.

Advertisement

The firefighters’ limited visibility is only one factor among many that the authorities are investigating as possibly contributing to the crash. They are also looking into any potential problems with air traffic controller staffing, radio miscommunications and vehicle tracking technology.

Advertisement

How we analyzed the crash footage

Advertisement

The Times estimated the position and speed of the lead fire truck by analyzing video of the crash, flight path data from Flightradar24, satellite imagery and the manufacturer’s dimensions of the vehicle.

First, we geolocated the camera in the crash video by matching landmarks in the footage (buildings, runway markings and lights) to their real-world positions in satellite imagery. From that fixed vantage point, we measured the span of the truck in each video frame. Those measurements — combined with the truck’s physical dimensions, its path along the taxiway and its position relative to the runway lights — allowed us to estimate its position frame by frame. From those positions and the video’s timestamps, we then calculated the truck’s speed. Our estimates of the truck’s position are within three feet, and its speed is within five miles per hour.

We placed the positional data of the truck into a georeferenced 3-D model of the airport, where we programmatically animated the vehicles along their paths. We tested our analysis by overlaying the video frames on the 3-D model rendered from the camera’s position, as seen in the video below.

Advertisement

The Times also obtained flight data showing landings at LaGuardia Airport from several hundred aircraft — the same model as the Air Canada Express jet. The data helped us understand how the plane’s speed on the runway compared with that of other planes slowing down after a typical touchdown.

Advertisement

Source: Video of the crash from @305topgun, via X The New York Times

Continue Reading

News

Retired Coast Guard officer with decades of public health experience is Trump’s pick to lead CDC | CNN

Published

on

Retired Coast Guard officer with decades of public health experience is Trump’s pick to lead CDC | CNN

President Donald Trump is nominating a former Coast Guard officer and public health official to lead the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The president named Dr. Erica Schwartz on Thursday to run the embattled agency, which has been without a permanent director since Dr. Susan Monarez’s ouster in August.

“It is my Honor to nominate the incredibly talented Dr. Erica Schwartz,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “She is a STAR!”

Schwartz served as deputy surgeon general in Trump’s first administration, spent 24 years in the US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps and served as a rear admiral in the Coast Guard. She holds a medical degree from Brown University and a law degree from the University of Maryland.

US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his team had recommended Schwartz to the president along with a slate of other appointees to shore up CDC leadership whom Trump also named Thursday.

Advertisement

They include US Food and Drug Administration Principal Deputy Commissioner Dr. Sara Brenner, who will serve as a public health adviser to Kennedy; Dr. Jennifer Shuford, commissioner of the Texas health department, who will become CDC deputy director and chief medical officer; and Sean Slovenski, a former Walmart and Humana executive who will serve as a deputy director and chief operating officer.

The secretary nodded to the incoming group of CDC leaders during a congressional budget hearing on Thursday.

“We’re bringing in an extraordinary team. … The team has been leaked, and it’s gotten applause from both Republicans and Democrats,” Kennedy said before the House Appropriations subcommittee on health. “I think this new team is really going to be able to revolutionize CDC and get it back on track and get it doing the job that it does better than any other health agency in the world.”

Schwartz certainly has a background in the CDC’s areas of expertise. During her time with the Coast Guard, she led disease surveillance and vaccination programs and wrote Coast Guard policy on pandemic influenza and other viral disease outbreaks.

She also played a role in the government’s response to natural disasters, including hurricanes and earthquakes.

Advertisement

Still, Schwartz will probably face skepticism from some senators over whether she’s willing to break with Kennedy on controversial issues such as vaccine policy.

The White House was under a deadline to nominate a permanent director of the CDC after Kennedy abruptly fired the last Senate-confirmed director, Monarez, in August. The federal Vacancies Act says a Senate-confirmed position can be open for only 210 days, and past that deadline, the agency cannot have an acting director. That 210-day mark fell in late March.

Currently, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is serving a dual role as director of the National Institutes of Health and as head of the CDC, after serving as its acting director.

If confirmed into the role, Schwartz will inherit an agency looking to strike a balance between its traditional public health mission and a slew of high-profile changes, exits and proposed budget cuts.

Monarez was in office for just under a month before she was fired by Kennedy over her refusal to rubber-stamp changes to vaccine policy. After her dismissal, several high-level officials in the agency resigned in protest, leaving a leadership vacuum.

Advertisement

Shortly after Monarez took office, a gunman who blamed vaccines for his health problems attacked the CDC’s Atlanta headquarters, firing more than 180 rounds that sprayed multiple buildings and killed DeKalb County Police Officer David Rose.

Prior to the shooting, CDC staffers had endured months of chaos. Thousands of reduction-in-force cuts hollowed out divisions and departments, though some of those were reinstated after legal action. Web pages on vaccine safety were edited without consultation with staff scientists to cast doubt on statements that vaccines do not cause autism. Political appointees filled top leadership posts that had once been occupied by career staff.

Kennedy dismissed a key panel of 17 experts that advise the CDC on its vaccine decisions, replacing them with his own picks, many of whom have emphasized the risks of vaccines while downplaying their health benefits. A federal judge has reversed some of Kennedy’s efforts, saying he probably violated federal procedures.

Meanwhile, measles cases in the US are at their highest level in three decades, and the nation risks losing its status as a country that has eliminated ongoing transmission of the highly infectious disease within its borders. Other infectious diseases, including whooping cough and mumps, have also surged as vaccination rates have dropped.

Schwartz will go before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee for confirmation. The HELP committee has not yet voted on another Trump administration nominee, Dr. Casey Means, to serve as surgeon general. Means testified in a February hearing that circled back repeatedly to her views on vaccines, with some Republicans, including committee Chairman Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, expressing concerns about the administration’s changes to vaccine recommendations.

Advertisement

Asked by lawmakers on Thursday about morale at the CDC, Kennedy said that it has improved since broad layoffs led by federal DOGE Services last year and that the new CDC leadership will help the agency progress.

“Morale is much better than it was a year ago. I think a year ago, it was really at a nadir. You know, during all the [reductions in force],” he said.

Continue Reading

Trending