For the Geopolitics expert Klemens Fischer The problem lies primarily in the interaction between politics and the military. “What we are experiencing here is the difference between military planning and political instructions,” he says in an interview. Apparently the US government expected to “fight a relatively short, clearly defined war.” The aim was direct strikes against the Iranian regime and its military capabilities. It was assumed that the conflict would end quickly.

“It was not assumed that it was at risk”

“In this limited war scenario, the Strait of Hormuz “It didn’t play a role because it wasn’t assumed that it was at risk,” explains Fischer in an interview with FOCUS online. In a larger regional conflict, it should actually have been secured first to prevent Iran from blocking the passage.

The fact that the situation is now escalating is also a result of political assumptions. “The political requirement to wage a limited, spatially and temporally limited war here was wrong,” says Fischer. Ultimately, the military can only plan based on these specifications.

Haphazard in the Strait of Hormuz

The consequence is an unprepared situation. “Planless in the sense that something has now happened that was not foreseen in the original planning. An expansion of the war, both in terms of time and geography.”

Currently, passage through the Strait of Hormuz is open for many ships blocked. Iranian sea mines make safe passage difficult.

It remains unclear when the situation will ease. Even if escorts are arranged, the eviction could take a long time. During the Iran-Iraq War, only a few tankers were escorted through the strait each week – at great military expense. Given that there are currently around a hundred ships stuck, the situation could drag on for weeks.