Putin’s Envoy, Syria’s Assad Hold ‘Secret Meeting’ on Political, Military Arrangements

Lavrentiev meets with Bashar Assad in Damascus in October. (Syrian presidency)
Lavrentiev meets with Bashar Assad in Damascus in October. (Syrian presidency)
TT

Putin’s Envoy, Syria’s Assad Hold ‘Secret Meeting’ on Political, Military Arrangements

Lavrentiev meets with Bashar Assad in Damascus in October. (Syrian presidency)
Lavrentiev meets with Bashar Assad in Damascus in October. (Syrian presidency)

The Kremlin's special envoy for Syria Alexander Lavrentiev, who frequently travels Damascus, carried out a secret visit to the Syrian capital at the end of last week. Accompanied by “senior generals”, he met with president Bashar Assad, but why didn’t Moscow announce such a trip?

The obvious reason was because the Syrian Constitutional Committee was meeting in Geneva and because Damascus and Moscow are still trying to bridge the divide between them. The deeper reason has to do with the understandings in the Idlib province and ensuring that they hold amid the deteriorating military situation in southern and northeastern Syria. It is imperative that the ceasefire hold with the arrival of Joe Biden to the White House and as Syria prepares to hold presidential elections in July. Russia strongly supports the elections and wants it to serve as a turning point for Damascus’ ties with other countries.

Converging views
After meeting Assad in Damascus, Lavrentiev headed to Geneva to follow up on the Constitutional Committee talks. He also met with the “guarantors” of the Astana process and United Nations envoy to Syria, Geir Pedersen.

The guarantors – Russia, Iran and Turkey – appeared to be on the same page regarding the developments in war-torn country. Their assessment of the Constitutional Committee talks was the same, with the three countries emphasizing the need that they continue despite the slow pace of work and failure to reach a breakthrough. They stressed the need to commit to this “political accomplishment”, refusing to set a timeframe for it to complete its work. The process, they said, is a purely “Syrian affair led by Syrian figures.”

Before their meeting, the guarantors assessed the results of the fifth round of the five-day constitutional talks, which amounted to a “cultural seminar” and not political negotiations, which are their main purpose.

The government delegation continued to stall by demanding “more discussions and preparations” before beginning to “draft the constitution.” It sought more talks on sovereignty, Syria’s borders, national symbols, Arabism, a secular state, decentralized governance and a stance on “Turkish and American occupation.”

Head of the opposition delegation, which lost its Moscow and Cairo platform representatives, had traveled to Geneva with the conviction that talks would get underway over the drafting of the principles of the constitution and reaching an agreement on the work mechanisms of the future committee talks.

Pedersen watched the disputes unfold, relaying his observations to the guarantors. At the end of the committee talks, he frankly spoke to the media about his disappointment with their failure to make any progress. The envoy, who is known for choosing his words well, was on the verge of openly blaming the government for the failure. Both delegations submitted documents with their proposals, with the government representative rejecting the opposition’s suggestions, to the envoy’s dismay.

Significantly, Pedersen did not set a meeting for the next round of committee talks. Rather, he opted to omit the date in an effort to exert some pressure on Moscow and Damascus to reach a “complete deal” that includes a date for the next round, work mechanisms, the drafting of the constitution and coordinating stances between the government and opposition delegations.

Military arrangements
Lavrentiev, meanwhile, was observing the gap widen between Syrian parties and the rapprochement between the three guarantors. He is aware that France is seeking to declare the failure of the Constitutional Committee and that the Biden administration is pushing for achieving political legitimacy to its Kurdish allies. He is also aware of the pressure being exerted on Pedersen to explore new options to implement UN Security Council resolution 2254. Damascus was supposed to play a more cooperative role, at least on the surface, which prompted his visit to the Syrian capital. The trip, however, was also related to developments on the ground and gains sought by the Russian army.

The frontlines remain unchanged in Idlib due to the understandings between Moscow and Ankara, but three fronts are heating up in other parts of Syria: Daraa, Sweida and al-Hasakeh.

In the western Daraa region, generals at Russia’s Hmeimim airbase attempted to mediate between the local negotiations committee and the Fourth Armored Division, of Bashar’s brother Maher, to reach an understanding that would avert a military operation against Tafas. Talks have stalled and deadlines have ended to reach an understanding in a region that is subject to the 2018 American-Russian agreements, with Israeli approval. These agreements were drafted by officials from the Barack Obama administration, and who are now part of Biden’s administration.

The predominantly Druze region of Sweida, meanwhile, is no stranger to tensions. This is the first time however that its grievances are so openly laid bare. Reports have said that head of the military security branch, Louay al-Ali, had insulted Druze spiritual leader Bahjat al-Hajri. Other reports said that Hajri had demanded an “official apology” and Ali’s dismissal. Another significant report said that Hajri and Bashar Assad had also held talks. That report was not officially announced, but pro-Damascus media confirmed that “Assad had inquired about Sheikh Hajri’s health, underscoring national unity.” He was also quoted as saying that the “offender only represents himself.” Ali was later allegedly sacked and replaced by Ayman Mohammed.

None of these developments were officially declared. Local sources in Sweida said that these issues go beyond the province’s borders. They explained that Damascus’ seeming “leniency and exposure of the tensions was prompted by Russia in an effort to win over the residents and factions of Sweida and steer them away from Iran and Hezbollah’s influence.” Tehran and the party are trying to impose their presence in the area, which diplomats believe will harm the greater picture in terms of relations between Washington, Moscow and Tel Aviv in their approach towards Iran.

In the northern Hasakeh region, tensions are high between the forces of the Kurdish autonomous administration and the regime. The Kurdish forces have surrounded Damascus’ troops in the “security zone” in Hasakeh, prompting the regime to retaliate by surrounding Kurds in Aleppo and Qamishli.

The Russian officers in Hmeimim again intervened to contain the tensions. They achieved some breakthroughs by persuading both sides to carry out a prisoner swap. However, tensions continue to persist. Taking in the broader picture, the situation in Hasakeh will weigh on relations between Moscow, Washington and Ankara. The situation does not bode well for Turkey because Biden has appointed officials to his administration who sympathize with the Kurds, have been hurt by Russia and are suspicious of Ankara.

Western officials believe that the abovementioned issues were on the table during the Syrian-Russian talks. Some were addressed during Lavrentiev’s visit. Damascus, meanwhile, continues to escalate its rhetoric against the Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces and western sanctions as it prepares to hold the presidential elections in the summer. At the same time, it is mending relations with its “old allies”, demonstrated in Foreign Minister Faisal al-Mekdad’s telephone talks with his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, and the condemnation of the “illegal economic sanctions.”



Iran’s Parliament Speaker Is Floated as a Possible US Contact in Talks as War Rages

 Iran's parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, left, waves to residents as he visits the site of an Israeli airstrike in Beirut, Lebanon, on Oct. 12, 2024. (AP)
Iran's parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, left, waves to residents as he visits the site of an Israeli airstrike in Beirut, Lebanon, on Oct. 12, 2024. (AP)
TT

Iran’s Parliament Speaker Is Floated as a Possible US Contact in Talks as War Rages

 Iran's parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, left, waves to residents as he visits the site of an Israeli airstrike in Beirut, Lebanon, on Oct. 12, 2024. (AP)
Iran's parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, left, waves to residents as he visits the site of an Israeli airstrike in Beirut, Lebanon, on Oct. 12, 2024. (AP)

Long before he became Iran's parliament speaker, Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf went on a charm offensive for almost two decades, portraying himself as a hard-liner the West could do business with in the country.

"I would like the West to change its attitude to Iran and trust Iran, and rest assured that there’s an attitude in Iran to advance issues through dialogue," he told The Times newspaper of London in 2008.

With the US and Israel's war with Iran in its fourth week, the 64-year-old pilot and former Revolutionary Guard commander has denied there have been talks with the United States amid reports that he was floated as Washington's negotiating partner in talks.

Questions also remain as to what power Qalibaf has within Iran's theocracy, shattered after the Feb. 28 Israeli airstrike that killed 86-year-old Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Khamenei's son, Mojtaba, now Iran's new supreme leader, has backed Qalibaf through his repeated and failed presidential campaigns. Still, multiple centers of power within Iran's theocracy now likely vie for control of the country — and uncertainties remain over Mojtaba Khamenei's status as he has yet to be seen after reportedly being wounded.

Meanwhile, Qalibaf has been tied to the crackdown against protesters calling for change within Iran's government and has seen corruption allegations swirl around him during his time in office.

US President Donald Trump may just be looking for an Iranian version of Venezuela’s acting President Delcy Rodríguez, who took over as the US military seized former Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in January.

"Many Iranians despise Ghalibaf; diplomats see him as pragmatic," wrote analyst Michael Rubin, using a different transliteration for the politician's last name. "Those diplomats confuse pragmatism with opportunism. Ghalibaf is a survivor. He sees in Trump someone who can help him achieve what late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei denied him: the presidency or some equivalent interim leadership role."

Iran's semiofficial Tasnim news agency, believed close to the Guard, on Tuesday described reports in Western media as a "political bomb" meant to put the country's leaders in disarray.

"Qalibaf was introduced as a negotiating party in order to present a contradictory and non-unified image of Iran," Tasnim said. "The mention of Qalibaf’s name was clearly intended to create internal divisions within Iran and to provoke conflict among political forces."

Qalibaf's rise within Iran's theocracy

Qalibaf was born in the city of Torqabeh in Iran's northeastern Razavi Khorasan province to a father who was a shopkeeper — not a member of the Shiite clergy that seized power in the 1979 revolution.

Like many young men of his generation, he joined the paramilitary Guard during the country’s bloody 1980s war with Iraq, quickly rising through the ranks. After the conflict, he served as the head of the Guard’s construction arm, Khatam al-Anbia, for several years leading efforts to rebuild.

Trained as a pilot, he then served as the head of the Guard’s air force. In 1999, he co-signed a letter to reformist President Mohammad Khatami amid student protests in Tehran over the government closing a reformist newspaper and a subsequent security force crackdown. The letter warned Khatami the Guard would take action unilaterally unless he agreed to putting down the demonstrations.

Violence around the protests, the first in a string of widening demonstrations over the last decades, saw several people killed, hundreds wounded and thousands arrested.

Qalibaf then became the head of Iran’s police, modernizing the force and implementing the country’s 110 emergency phone number. However, a leaked recording of a later meeting between Qalibaf and members of the Guard’s volunteer Basij force, had him claiming that he ordered gunfire be used against demonstrators in 2003 and praising the violence used in Iran’s 2009 Green Movement protests.

Iran's then-President Hassan Rouhani hinted at the 2003 incident when the two sparred in a 2017 presidential election debate.

"There was an argument that you were saying that the students should come then we can pincer attack them and finish the job," Rouhani said at the time.

Qalibaf offered himself as alternative to Ahmadinejad

As Tehran's mayor from 2005 to 2017, Qalibaf faced corruption allegations, including over some $3.5 million being donated to a foundation run by his wife.

However, he also used his prominence to travel to the World Economic Forum and even praised New York City in an interview with The Financial Times, undoubtedly raising eyebrows among other hard-liners. His opponents claimed Qalibaf was like Reza Pahlavi, a hard-charging soldier who became shah in 1925 and rapidly pushed to Westernize Persia and rename it Iran before handing power to his son Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

Qalibaf didn't outright reject the comparison.

"If authoritarianism means when collective sense reaches a plan and decision, I’m very determined and firm in carrying it out," Qalibaf told The Financial Times in 2008, casting himself as an alternative to the hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "When the expediency of the society is in carrying a project, then I’m very firm and show little flexibility and don’t let that collective sense be marred or disarrayed."

Qalibaf ran in presidential elections in 2005, 2013, 2017 and 2024 but despite the failures of those campaigns, US diplomats suggested he enjoyed the support of Mojtaba Khamenei, according to diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks.

"Mojtaba reportedly has long maintained a very close relationship with Tehran Mayor and presidential hopeful Mohammad Baqr Qalibaf; Mojtaba was reportedly the ‘backbone’ of Qalibaf’s past and continuing election campaigns," an August 2008 cable read. "Mojtaba is said to help Qalibaf as an advisor, financier, and provider of senior-level political support. His support for and closeness to Qalibaf reportedly remains undiminished."

With Khamenei now Iran’s new supreme leader, Qalibaf’s position may be significantly boosted.

Qalibaf's name floated as a possible negotiator

Trump pulled back from a 48-hour deadline for Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz, media reports suggested Qalibaf may be a possible Iranian contact for the US government. Qalibaf himself has denied any talks are ongoing.

"No negotiations have been held with the US, and fake news is used to manipulate the financial and oil markets and escape the quagmire in which the US and Israel are trapped," he wrote Monday on X.

Surprisingly, unlike many officials within Iran's government, Qalibaf's name is not on any US bounty.

It remains unclear whether the Israelis view Qalibaf as a target. As parliament speaker, Qalibaf praised the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel, saying that it showed the "Zionist regime will never have peace until the day it is annihilated."

Trump as well apparently appeared concerned Monday that his unnamed negotiating partner could jeopardize the safety of any talks.

Asked why he wouldn't name the Iranian negotiator, Trump told journalists: "Because I don’t want them to be killed, OK? I don’t want them to be killed."


Back to Black: Facing Energy Shock, Asia Turns to Coal

A worker operates a wheel loader to convey heaps of raw coal into train carriages, excavated from an open-cast mine on the outskirts of Dhanbad, in India's Jharkhand state on August 13, 2025. (AFP)
A worker operates a wheel loader to convey heaps of raw coal into train carriages, excavated from an open-cast mine on the outskirts of Dhanbad, in India's Jharkhand state on August 13, 2025. (AFP)
TT

Back to Black: Facing Energy Shock, Asia Turns to Coal

A worker operates a wheel loader to convey heaps of raw coal into train carriages, excavated from an open-cast mine on the outskirts of Dhanbad, in India's Jharkhand state on August 13, 2025. (AFP)
A worker operates a wheel loader to convey heaps of raw coal into train carriages, excavated from an open-cast mine on the outskirts of Dhanbad, in India's Jharkhand state on August 13, 2025. (AFP)

Asian countries are ramping up use of polluting coal to tackle energy shortages and price spikes linked to the Iran war, but the crisis could have an environmental silver lining.

While leaning on the fossil fuel will raise emissions in the near term, the energy crisis is demonstrating the risks of energy import dependence, and could push policymakers to embrace renewables faster, analysts told AFP.

"The ongoing Iran oil and gas crisis shows the importance of having domestic energy sources that are not exposed to the global commodity market, which coal is," said Amy Kong, research analyst at Zero Carbon Analytics.

"Countries like Vietnam who have rapidly increased their share of solar generation, have a stronger buffer against rising energy import prices," Kong said.

Much of Asia is heavily exposed to the energy crisis that has unfolded since the US-Israel attack on Iran began last month.

More than 80 percent of the crude oil and liquified natural gas (LNG) that passes through the Strait of Hormuz heads to Asia, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

Pakistan, India and Bangladesh are all major importers of LNG from Qatar, which said last week that its export capacity had been slashed by 17 percent because of Iranian attacks.

It warned it would be forced to declare force majeure for up to five years on some long-term LNG contracts, signaling it may be unable to fulfill the agreements.

- Higher prices -

Compounding the problem, most Asian countries do not have underground gas storage, according to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, leaving them especially vulnerable to price spikes.

As a result, many nations are bumping up use of coal, which can be sourced regionally or even domestically, to prevent power outages and protect citizens from severe price shocks.

While it cannot be substituted directly in LNG plants, countries can run existing coal power plants at a higher capacity or bring idle units back online.

The shift has come in wealthy and developing economies alike.

In South Korea, a cap on how much power can be generated from coal has been lifted, while Thailand is preparing to resume operations at two coal power units decommissioned last year.

In India, already highly dependent on coal for electricity generation, the fuel is now being substituted for cooking gas.

And in the Philippines, energy secretary Sharon Garin told AFP authorities "plan to ramp up cheaper coal, (domestic) natural gas, and renewables".

The increase in demand has pushed coal prices higher and even sparked talk of a windfall tax in coal-producing Indonesia, which reversed a decision taken last year to reduce production.

The shift is bad news for the environment in the short term. Coal is a top contributor to planet-warming greenhouse gases, and also a powerful air pollutant that is harmful for human health.

- 'Transition fuel' -

The shift will "impose substantial environmental and public health costs," said Dinita Setyawati, senior energy analyst for Asia at think tank Ember.

Asia's vulnerability is due in part to its heavy reliance on LNG, often promoted as a "transition fuel" -- a less polluting option than coal that can "bridge the gap" as countries move towards renewable energy.

Upfront costs for LNG plants can be lower than for renewables that may require grid upgrades.

But renewables are now cheaper in the long run, and the current crisis is illustrating their benefits in terms of stable supply, said Putra Adhiguna, managing director at Energy Shift Institute, an energy finance think tank.

"The story of gas as a stable transition fuel is highly in question," he said.

And while temporary increases in coal capacity are an attractive stopgap, the banking sector is reluctant to finance construction of new coal projects, concerned about stranded assets as nations are forced to phase down fossil fuels to meet their climate obligations.

That could help refocus policymakers' attention on the benefits of renewables, said Adhiguna.

"I think we already see a bit of that coming from Southeast Asian countries," he said.

"There have been all these debates about how we can't afford to spend the money (on renewables) upfront, but I think this security of supply issue is going to override that."


Five Options Under Consideration to Reopen the Strait of Hormuz

Tankers sail in the Gulf, near the Strait of Hormuz, as seen from northern Ras al-Khaimah, near the border with Oman’s Musandam governance, March 11, 2026. REUTERS/Stringer/File Photo
Tankers sail in the Gulf, near the Strait of Hormuz, as seen from northern Ras al-Khaimah, near the border with Oman’s Musandam governance, March 11, 2026. REUTERS/Stringer/File Photo
TT

Five Options Under Consideration to Reopen the Strait of Hormuz

Tankers sail in the Gulf, near the Strait of Hormuz, as seen from northern Ras al-Khaimah, near the border with Oman’s Musandam governance, March 11, 2026. REUTERS/Stringer/File Photo
Tankers sail in the Gulf, near the Strait of Hormuz, as seen from northern Ras al-Khaimah, near the border with Oman’s Musandam governance, March 11, 2026. REUTERS/Stringer/File Photo

Luke Broadwater, Helene Cooper, Eric Schmitt*

Washington: As the United States presses ahead with its military campaign against Iran, the Strait of Hormuz has emerged as the war’s most pivotal battlefield.

In response to US and Israeli airstrikes, Iran has largely blockaded the strait, snarling oil shipments and rapidly causing the price of gasoline to rise.

With the war approaching the three-week mark, President Donald Trump is facing a battery of military and diplomatic choices that are testing his abilities as a leader.

The United States has been flowing military resources into the region to deal with the problem, and carrying out waves of attacks against Iranian forces and installations in the hopes of reopening the strait — a goal vital to ending the war and addressing the economic and political pressures on the White House.

The president has also pushed for allies to send warships to protect oil tankers in the strait. But he has built up little good will with those countries, after repeatedly subjecting them to punishing tariffs, insults and threats.

On Friday, Trump said he would leave reopening the strait to the countries that use it, claiming the United States did not. “If asked, we will help these Countries in their Hormuz efforts, but it shouldn’t be necessary once Iran’s threat is eradicated,” he wrote on social media.

It was one in a string of mixed messages the Trump administration has sent about the war.
Here are the options under consideration to attempt to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, all of which are complex and carry substantial risks. None of them would guarantee a quick end to the conflict.

Eliminate threats to shipping from land-based attacks

Before the Navy escorts commercial vessels through the strait, US commanders want to destroy as many of Iran’s missiles and drones as possible.

What it would take: In recent days, American warplanes have ramped up strikes against missiles and their launchers along Iran’s southern flank that could target slow-moving oil tankers and giant cargo ships.

Earlier this week, the military’s Central Command said that Air Force F-15E fighter-bombers had dropped several 5,000-pound bombs to penetrate layers of rock and concrete to destroy underground bunkers storing cruise missiles and support equipment.

Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that Iran’s ability to launch missiles had declined by 90% since the start of the war. But he acknowledged that Iranian forces still had some firepower left.

General Caine added that some regional allies, which he did not identify, were using Apache helicopter gunships to “handle one-way attack drones,” one of the most potent weapons Iran has used to threaten shipping, as well as neighboring Arab countries and their energy sites across the Arabian Gulf.

Sweep the strait for mines

US officials appear to disagree about whether Iran has already started mining the strait. Intelligence officials say yes, while Pentagon officials say they have not seen clear evidence.
What it would take: Clearing the narrow waterway of Iranian mines would be a weekslong operation, according to one former naval officer who was stationed on a minesweeper in the Arabian Gulf. And it could put US sailors directly in harm’s way.

Iran is believed to maintain a variety of naval mines. They include small limpet mines containing just a few pounds of explosives that divers place directly on a ship’s hull and typically detonate after a set amount of time. Iran also has larger moored mines that float just under the water’s surface, releasing 100 pounds or more of explosive force when they come in contact with an unsuspecting ship.

More advanced “bottom” mines sit on the seafloor. They use a combination of sensors — magnetic, acoustic, pressure and seismic — to determine when a ship is nearby, and explode with hundreds of pounds of force.

“All it takes is for one of those things to get through to shut down traffic,” said Rear Adm. John F. Kirby, a retired naval officer. “The fear alone can be paralyzing to the shipping industry, as we have already seen.”

The Navy had four minesweepers in the Gulf, each with 100 sailors aboard, based in Bahrain. But those ships are gone now, one official said, replaced with three littoral combat ships that can sweep for mines but are also used for other purposes. And two of the ships, the USS Tulsa and the USS Santa Barbara, were spotted far from the Middle East this week, between Malaysia and Singapore, according to the military website The War Zone.

Go after Iran’s navy and fast boat fleet

The Pentagon has targeted the Iranian navy since the opening hours of the war, destroying or damaging more than 120 vessels, including several submarines. The goal was to blunt Iran’s ability to shut down the strait and threaten neighboring countries.

But Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps also has hundreds of speed boats. A fighter armed with a rocket-propelled grenade aboard one of these boats could slip through US defenses and land a deadly blow to a tanker or warship.

What it would take: Low-flying Air Force A-10 Warthog planes are “hunting and killing fast-attack watercraft” in the contested sea lanes, General Caine said. The A-10 was developed to provide close air support for US ground troops, but has been repurposed to strike ships at sea, he said.

US warplanes are also striking speedboats hiding in coastal redoubts, but Iran has positioned some of them in civilian ports, increasing the risks to civilians from any American attacks.

The US military is also attacking storage areas for naval drones before the drones can be launched.

Invade Kharg Island

Adm. Brad Cooper, the head of the military’s Central Command, said the US attack against Iranian military sites on Kharg Island, the country’s oil export hub, had destroyed more than 90 targets, including bunkers for naval mines and missiles.

That has softened the island’s defenses if Trump follows through on his threat to seize the island and put a stranglehold on Iran’s oil economy, a possibility the Pentagon has gamed out in war-planning scenarios for years.

But Iranian troops are still on the island, and US commanders say that such a mission would be risky.

What it would take: Some 2,200 Marines on three warships — armed with drones, attack helicopters and warplanes — have cut short a patrol in the Indo-Pacific region, and are expected to arrive in the Arabian Gulf region later next week. The Marines are trained to conduct amphibious landings.

The US military is dispatching 2,500 additional Marines to the Middle East next month, officials said Friday. They are expected to replace or augment those en route to the region now.

Another option involves Special Operations forces and paratroopers from elite units, like the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division, taking the island. Once in control, the Americans would likely be subject to attack from any remaining land- or sea-based Iranian forces.

On Thursday, the president said he had no plans to commit ground forces to the war, before qualifying: “If I were, I certainly wouldn’t tell you.” He added that he would “do whatever’s necessary to keep the price” of oil down.

Use naval escorts to escort oil tankers

Trump said on Friday that escorting oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz was “a simple military maneuver.” Naval experts say it is anything but.

In fact, of all of Trump’s options for opening up the strait, naval escorts are perhaps the trickiest.

What it would take: Naval escorts are cumbersome operations that require not just Navy destroyers and littoral combat ships, but also attack aircraft.

The Navy has deployed around 12 destroyers and littoral combat ships to the region and could certainly send more, although that could take weeks, Navy officials said. A Navy destroyer, which is equipped with the Aegis Combat System that uses computers and radar to track and target, can protect oil tankers by firing cruise and ballistic missiles at land targets in Iran, while Standard antimissile systems can intercept incoming threats.

But one Navy official said that would require a high ratio of Navy destroyers to commercial ships, and would likely be a huge strain on naval assets. The Pentagon has already requested an additional $200 billion in funding for the war.

Mark Montgomery, a retired rear admiral, estimated that about a dozen Navy destroyers, with armed helicopters and other aircraft overhead, would be needed to escort five or six tankers or cargo ships at a time through the strait — a transit he said could take roughly 10 to 12 hours.

During the so-called tanker war between Iran and Iraq in the 1980s, the United States escorted reflagged Kuwaiti tankers through the Arabian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, part of Operation Earnest Will.

The USS Samuel B Roberts was nearly destroyed by a mine, and the USS Stark was heavily damaged by Iraqi missiles. In the end, 37 American sailors were killed.

*The New York Times