The Pentagon and the National Security Council underestimated the potential impact of a conflict with Iran on the Strait of Hormuz, multiple sources revealed. Iran’s willingness to close this critical maritime corridor in response to US military strikes was not fully anticipated during the planning phase.
President Donald Trump’s national security team did not comprehensively assess the consequences of Iran possibly shutting down the strait, sources familiar with the matter said. This gap led to unexpectedly severe disruptions in global energy markets and heightened security risks.
Energy and Treasury Department officials participated in some of the planning discussions, but their input was treated as secondary, according to insiders. This sidelining stemmed partly from Trump’s preference for consulting a small, close-knit group of advisers on national security matters.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Energy Secretary Chris Wright played critical roles throughout the conflict’s planning and execution stages. However, interagency debate over the economic fallout from a potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz was limited, increasing the administration’s exposure to risks.
Currently, the Pentagon asserts that escorting oil tankers through the strait is too dangerous to conduct. Military officials consider the presence of Iranian drones, missiles, and mines as severe threats to vessels in the waterway. Consequently, naval escorts requested by shipping industry executives have been declined.
Despite these risks, President Trump publicly urged oil tanker crews to “show some guts” and transit the strait. His remarks contrast sharply with the administration’s cautious posture and reveal a divergence in public messaging and operational realities.
A former US official expressed astonishment at the lack of preparedness, noting that preventing a closure of the strait has been a foundational component of US security policy for decades. Shipping executives who spoke with US military briefers conveyed frustration at not receiving Navy escort guarantees amid growing dangers.
Senior officials recently admitted in classified briefings to lawmakers that the possibility of Iran closing the strait was not fully factored into the initial plans. They believed Iran would refrain from such action because it would cause more harm to itself than to the US, an assumption now challenged by Iran’s actual moves.
The White House maintains that detailed planning processes have prepared the administration for any Iranian action. A spokesperson emphasized the US military’s operational success and framed energy disruptions as temporary setbacks leading to long-term economic benefits.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth dismissed reports of underestimation as “patently ridiculous,” underscoring Iran’s longstanding threats to maritime traffic in the region. He stated that the US has always been mindful of Iran’s tactics to hold the strait hostage.
While some officials acknowledge that contingency plans for naval escorts exist, these operations are not feasible at present due to active US military engagements focused on degrading Iran’s offensive capabilities. Treasury Secretary Wright indicated that escorts might begin “relatively soon,” but not before current military priorities are addressed.
Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei recently declared the strait would remain closed as a “tool of pressure,” signaling continued disruption risks. This stance leaves limited tactical options for the US in managing energy transit through the region.
Energy sector executives urge the administration to seek an early end to the conflict, citing personnel and asset risks associated with tanker transit through the strait. Until hostilities subside significantly, most do not expect naval escorts to commence.
To mitigate rising energy costs, the administration is exploring several measures, including:
1. Temporarily lifting sanctions on Russian oil stranded at sea
2. Considering partial waivers of the Jones Act to facilitate energy product flows between US ports
3. Potentially loosening production requirements for gasoline producers during peak pollution seasons
These steps aim to ease supply chain pressures but are unlikely to fully counteract the impact of the strait’s disruption. Energy experts warn that concerns over global crude supply and refined product availability remain the dominant drivers of price increases.
The administration’s phased approach to managing the crisis signals ongoing efforts to balance national security demands with economic stability. However, the challenges posed by Iran’s actions in the Strait of Hormuz continue to complicate diplomatic and military strategies.
With Iran actively leveraging closure of this strategic passage, the US faces a complex interplay of geopolitical, economic, and military factors that require careful coordination among multiple agencies. The developments highlight critical gaps in intelligence forecasting and interagency collaboration during high-stakes conflict planning.
