Ex-Army commander lays out 'extreme' complications in Trump military operation

11h

U.S. President Donald Trump with Secretary of State Marco Rubio at Joint Base Andrews, in Maryland, U.S., March 20, 2026. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

When the Trump Administration's ceasefire talks with the Iranian government stalled without an agreement, U.S. Central Command announced a blockade of Iranian ports that went into effect on Monday morning, April 13. The financial markets, after surging when the ceasefire started, plummeted in response to the turmoil in the Strait of Hormuz — a waterway crucial to the flow of oil in the Middle East.

Retired U.S. Army Lt. General Mark Hertling examines the blockade in an article published by the conservative website The Bulwark on April 14, lays out some reasons why the situation in the Straight of Hormuz is "extremely" complicated militarily.

"I started my Army career in tanks," explains Hertling, who served as commander of U.S. Army Europe under former President Barack Obama. "So when President Trump announced, on Sunday (April 12), that the U.S. Navy would begin a 'blockade' of the Strait of Hormuz, I started calling up some old naval officer friends — some American, some allies. They are all professionals who spent their careers commanding ships in waters like the Strait of Hormuz. I asked them to explain, in terms I would understand as an Army guy, what our Navy is dealing with when facing Iran — not in naval jargon, but in language a former tanker could grasp."

Hertling adds, "What they provided was instructive. And sobering."

According to Hertling, the U.S. blockade of the Strait of Hormuz "sounds like a single, decisive task" but is, in fact, "an extremely complex mission."

"A blockade of Iranian ports along the Strait of Hormuz is difficult, but manageable," Hertling writes. "A full blockade of the Strait — controlling all movement through one of the world's most critical chokepoints — is something else entirely, with a much greater resource bill. Current reporting suggests the United States has about 15 warships in the region, including aircraft carrier strike groups and their associated destroyers, cruisers, and logistic vessels, as well as amphibious ships. If the mission is limited to blocking Iranian port traffic, that's a credible starting force."

The former U.S. Army Europe commander continues, "In practical terms, such a mission requires an air umbrella, several destroyers or cruisers for defense and command-and-control, patrol vessels for interdiction, an amphibious platform for boarding operations, mine countermeasures assets, logistics ships, air cover and reconnaissance, and persistent intelligence coverage. So far, President Trump sounds happy with this limited 'blockade.'"

Hertling warns that if the U.S. "mission" in the Strait of Hormuz "expands to a full blockade, the "resource requirements" will "grow significantly."

"Politically, 'blockade the Strait of Hormuz' sounds decisive," Hertling emphasizes. "Operationally, it means sustained sea control, mine countermeasures, logistics, intelligence integration, and escalation management against an adversary that doesn't need to defeat the U.S. Navy to complicate the mission. Iran only needs to replace mines in the water, threaten shipping, and keep the cost of oil and other commodities high."

Hertling continues, "When Trump was reportedly considering ground operations in Iran, I wrote that the troop-to-task ratios were scary — some of the objectives in public conversation would have required very large forces to accomplish. The ship-to-task analysis looks similar here: Cutting off some Iranian ports from the Strait looks straightforward; completely controlling the Strait would require thousands of sailors, dozens of ships, and continuous operations in a confined, contested environment."

From Your Site Articles