Rethinking U.S. Response: From Strikes to Blockade
In a growing discussion about how the United States could respond to perceived threats from Iran, some experts argue that a naval blockade, rather than kinetic strikes, could become the primary tool. Danny Citrinowicz, a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), spoke on 103FM, outlining how such a blockade would represent a non-kinetic, pressure-focused approach with wide-ranging consequences for regional security and the global economy.
What a Blockade Could Involve
A blockade would aim to restrict maritime traffic to and from Iran, particularly in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, a critical artery for global oil shipments. Unlike airstrikes or ground assaults, a blockade would rely on naval and air patrols, port controls, and allied cooperation to curb illicit oil sales, weapons transfers, and other sanctioned activity. In theory, it could deter Iran from pursuing escalatory actions without initiating full-scale hostilities.
Legal and Strategic Considerations
Blockades are traditionally associated with declarations of war and require robust international support and clear legal justifications. Proponents argue that a well-structured blockade could be framed as a security necessity to prevent regional instability and humanitarian risks. Critics warn of potential miscalculation, the risk of a protracted standoff, and the possibility of Iran bolstering its domestic production, diversifying trade routes, or increasing cyber and asymmetric responses.
Economic and Global ripple effects
The Persian Gulf is integral to the world energy market. A blockade targeting Iranian shipments could tighten global oil supplies and push prices higher, influencing energy markets worldwide. Countries reliant on Gulf energy might push for exemptions or sanctions relief, testing the unity of international coalitions. The strategic calculus would have to weigh short-term pressure against long-term readiness to counter any Iranian moves, including retaliatory cyber operations or support for proxy groups.
Iran’s Potential Reactions
Iran could respond with a mix of deterrence and escalation tactics, from robust maritime patrols near key chokepoints to cyber intrusions against critical infrastructure or financial networks. The country might also seek to rally regional and non-aligned powers to resist the blockade or push for diplomatic openings to alleviate economic pressure. The balance between coercive diplomacy and the risk of provoking a broader confrontation would be central to any decision-making process.
Global Alliances and Diplomatic Pathways
Any successful blockade would depend on credible coalition-building, with partners in Europe, the Middle East, and beyond weighing the costs and benefits. Countries opposed to an overt military confrontation might favor sanctions and legal-technical measures that limit Iran’s capabilities while preserving regional stability. Diplomatic channels, intelligence-sharing, and coordinated sanctions would be essential to reduce the risk of unintended consequences.
What This Means for Policy and Preparedness
For policymakers, the blockade option adds a non-kinetic tool to a broader deterrence framework. It emphasizes economic pressure and signal strength without immediate physical damage. Yet the path requires careful planning, credible enforcement mechanisms, and contingency strategies should escalation occur. As Citrinowicz and other analysts note, the decision to pursue a blockade would reflect a shift in strategy—from direct military action to sustained coercive pressure— while maintaining readiness for a range of responses from adversaries.
Conclusion: A Delicate Balance
While the idea of a blockade may seem less headline-grabbing than strikes, it is not without significant risk or complexity. Its success would hinge on international support, precise execution, and the enduring ability to deter Iran without triggering wider conflict. As the security landscape evolves, non-kinetic approaches like a blockade could shape the next phase of U.S. policy toward Iran, demanding careful orchestration and robust alliance-building to navigate an uncertain regional future.
