U.S. blockade ‘a somewhat desperate act’: retired Canadian navy vice-admiral
A naval blockade is an act of war, but U.S. ships would not fire on ships attempting to run it, says Mark Norman, a retired Royal Canadian Navy vice-admiral and fellow with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. The mission would be to intercept and interdict, order them to stop, possibly using warning shots. Boarding and seizing ships would involve dropping troops by helicopter. ‘That gets pretty dicey,’ Norman said.
Mark Norman, retired Royal Canadian Navy vice-admiral and fellow with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said the operation will likely involve U.S. forces establishing patrol zones outside of the strait itself to intercept ships, using a combination of warships, aircraft and helicopters.
But he cautioned that physically stopping tankers presents major challenges. Boarding operations tactics can get “pretty dicey,” he said, particularly if ships are linked to countries like China.
Norman also warned of the legal and geopolitical implications: “The act of a blockade itself … is an act of war,” he said, noting there had been ambiguity around whether the U.S. had engaged in war or not with Iran.
“As soon as you blockade a country, that is, under international law, an overt act of war. Now, to board and seize a vessel of another flagged nation, that is right up against the line of a similar act of war,” Norman said.
He described the blockade as a high-stakes gamble to force Iran back to negotiations, calling it “the only significant remaining pressure point” — but also “a somewhat desperate act.”
“I’m not convinced strategically that it’s necessarily the best solution, but I think the U.S. have painted themselves into a bit of a corner here,” he said.
While the U.S. likely has the capability to carry out the operation, Norman said resources will be stretched. “It’s going to come at a cost.”
Correction: A previous version of this post’s headline incorrectly identified Mark Norman as a retired Canadian navy general.
