“They have no navy. They have no air force… And they have no leadership. It’s all gone.” So declared President Trump less than two weeks into the war with Iran. He was not entirely wrong. By that point, U.S. and Israeli strikes had significantly degraded much of Iran’s conventional military capability. And yet only a day later, the first major reports emerged that Iran had begun mining the Strait of Hormuz — the world’s most important strategic waterway.
How does a country with “no navy” effectively threaten global shipping lanes? The answer says less about Iran’s military strength than it does about America’s strategic blind spots: Even small numbers of cheap weapons can threaten movement, complicate planning, impose costs, project risk, and slow even the most capable military forces.
1. This Is Strategy, Not Desperation
It would be a mistake to read Iranian minelaying as the last act of a cornered adversary. It is a sign of preparation, not desperation — a deliberate effort to shift the terms of the conflict. Tehran is executing a classic risk strategy, exploiting the possibility of escalation to impose global economic costs and generate political pressure on Washington to stop fighting.
The sea mine is the ideal weapon for this strategy. In the Strait of Hormuz — just 21 miles wide at its narrowest point — even a small minefield poses a significant threat, producing global economic impacts far beyond the mines’ immediate physical presence. The roughly dozen mines reportedly laid so far signal Iran’s willingness to escalate, deploying weapons that are difficult to remove and capable of sustaining disruption over time.
Iranian strategy should not come as a surprise. A declassified 2009 CIA report noted that Iran “has adopted a strategy in which a few mines or the threat of mining would be used to deter shipping,” adding that such mining would be “just as effective as a blockade.” A 2017 Office of Naval Intelligence assessment went even further, concluding naval mines were a critical component of the IRGCN’s strategy in the Strait of Hormuz, and that Iran has specifically invested in new mines and mine delivery vessels after observing their impact during the Tanker War and Operation Desert Storm. This is a strategy Iran has planned for decades. Only now has it been put into practice.
2. Iran Does Not Need a Navy to Mine the Strait
Much of Iran’s traditional navy is gone; Trump was right about that. But that misses the larger picture. The real threat comes from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGCN). This separate force has spent decades developing asymmetric capabilities aimed specifically at targeting traffic in the strait, and it remains largely intact.
Iran is estimated to possess between 2,000 to 6,000 naval mines, including rudimentary contact mines of the type Tehran deployed during the Tanker War in the 1980s as well as more sophisticated bottom and influence mines that detonate in response to acoustic, magnetic, or pressure signatures and are significantly harder to detect and clear. But the number of mines matters far less than how they are employed.
The IRGCN has built its mine warfare capability around speed, redundancy, and concealment. Its primary platforms include a mix of small vessels and submersibles concealed within a network of tunnels and caves along its southern coast. The United States reportedly destroyed 16 of these boats in the first few hours after reports of mining surfaced, but the IRGCN still has hundreds — possibly even thousands — of such attack boats. Using swarm tactics, these boats operate in large groups, approaching targets simultaneously from multiple directions. Each of these boats can deploy two to three mines per sortie. Specially trained combat divers called “frogmen” either drop mines directly from boats or place them manually in the water. By dispersing its mine laying capacity across numerous, highly mobile platforms, Iran has made it much harder for the United States to locate and target the minelayers themselves.
3. The Mine Is Not the Only Threat
Naval mines do not operate in isolation. The IRGCN has spent decades developing a layered set of asymmetric capabilities — mines, missiles, drones, fast attack boats, small submersibles, and uncrewed surface vessels — designed to work together. Each of these assets poses a challenge on its own, but combined, they form what U.S. officials have reportedly called a “Death Valley” — a gauntlet of air and naval threats that any mine clearance operation would have to survive before clearing a single mine.
Mine countermeasure operations are slow and methodical under the best conditions. They require specialized ships, helicopters, and uncrewed platforms operating in close proximity to the minefield for days or weeks — and those conditions would place any U.S. minesweeper within range of Iran’s shore-based anti-ship missiles, drones, and fast attack boats. The clearance operation itself becomes the target. That is precisely the opportunity Iran’s risk strategy is designed to exploit.
4. The U.S. Navy Is Less Prepared Than It Should Be
The U.S. Navy has long deprioritized the mine countermeasure mission. It is now paying for that choice.
Just last year, the United States withdrew its last dedicated mine countermeasure ship from the Gulf, leaving only four such vessels in the U.S. inventory — all forward deployed in Japan. The Navy’s new mine-clearance ship relies on the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) equipped with a mine countermeasures (MCM) mission package. But decades of delays, technical problems, and cost overruns mean that only three ships have ever been outfitted and deployed with that package, and the system has never been tested in combat. Even then, the capability remains limited: Its aerial component, the MH-60S Seahawk helicopter, can only detect surface or near-surface mines in shallow waters no greater than 40 feet. Moreover, operating these helicopters without air superiority would be extraordinarily risky, as they would be highly vulnerable to Iranian shore-based anti-aircraft artillery and short- to medium-range surface-to-air missiles.
The most promising new system — a semi-autonomous, uncrewed surface or undersea vehicle — is still in testing, with low-rate initial production not expected until 2030. As a result, the United States finds itself in a conflict that demands a capability the navy never prioritized, and that is therefore consistently underfunded and repeatedly delayed.
5. Time Is the Weapon, and Iran Knows It
In a recent interview, former CENTCOM Commander Joseph Votel stated, “I think the worst case now would be if we’ve found positive evidence of the Strait being mined… That would really extend out the time [for the opening of the Strait].”
As pointed out by General Votel, naval mines are not just physical obstacles. They are used to buy time — and time is what Iran needs most. The longer the strait remains closed, the louder the calls for a ceasefire will become, from American consumers absorbing rising energy costs to governments grappling with the economic fallout from sustained energy price shocks. Iran is counting on that pressure to compel Washington to stop fighting.
Mines are ideally suited to this strategy because they are so difficult to remove. During the Korean War, North Korea released more than 3,000 mines across 400 square miles, many laid by hand over the course of three weeks. A large mine clearing operation — deploying about 10 U.S. Navy and 12 Japanese minesweepers, took 15 days to neutralize just 225 mines. In short, mines compel exactly the kind of slow, costly, dangerous operation that generates casualties, consumes resources, and tests public patience.
Uncertainty compounds the problem. A cleared passage is not the same as a safe one — not in the eyes of tanker operators, insurers, and shipping companies. Even after mines are removed, the question of whether all of them have been found is unanswerable with confidence. A single missed mine, or the rumor of one, can undo weeks of clearance work. Iran does not need to reseed the strait to sustain the disruption. It needs only to leave open the possibility that it has.
Every week the strait remains closed is a week Iran’s strategy is working. Every failed clearance attempt becomes a headline. Every damaged ship is a political liability Washington cannot afford.
What Comes Next
The war in the Middle East is, among other things, a reminder of the outsized impact that cheap, asymmetric weapons can have on a far more powerful navy. The United States has consistently underinvested in mine countermeasure capabilities not because the threat was unknown, but because mines are unglamorous, and procurement dollars followed other priorities. Those choices have finally caught up with the fleet.
The immediate operational problem is stark. The United States has no good options for reopening the strait right now. Clearing mines under fire, with an intact IRGCN still capable of targeting minesweepers with missiles, drones, and fast attack boats, is a slow and dangerous undertaking that would take weeks or months. And doing nothing — accepting a prolonged closure — imposes escalating economic costs throughout the entire world.
Iran has handed Washington a choice between bad options. That is not an accident. It is the point. These mines are not just a military problem — they are a political one. The military costs of forcing the strait open under fire, and the economic costs of leaving it closed, are increasingly disproportionate to whatever is left to gain from continuing to degrade Iranian capabilities. Put differently, the United States has a greater interest in reopening the strait than in prosecuting the war. The strategic logic points in that direction.
Five Things to Know About Iranian Minelaying
By Kelly A. Grieco • Marie-Louise Westermann
Defense Policy & Posture
Naval mines are among the simplest and cheapest weapons in Iran’s arsenal — they are also among the most disruptive. Tehran’s mining threat to the Strait of Hormuz is designed to impose maximum costs by halting commercial traffic, raising oil prices, and forcing the United States into a slow, hazardous, and politically fraught clearance campaign. This is not an act of desperation. It is the deliberate execution of a strategy Tehran has refined since the tanker wars in the 1980s — one that leverages limited means to stretch timelines, exhaust resources, and place the burden of escalation squarely on Washington.
“They have no navy. They have no air force… And they have no leadership. It’s all gone.” So declared President Trump less than two weeks into the war with Iran. He was not entirely wrong. By that point, U.S. and Israeli strikes had significantly degraded much of Iran’s conventional military capability. And yet only a day later, the first major reports emerged that Iran had begun mining the Strait of Hormuz — the world’s most important strategic waterway.
How does a country with “no navy” effectively threaten global shipping lanes? The answer says less about Iran’s military strength than it does about America’s strategic blind spots: Even small numbers of cheap weapons can threaten movement, complicate planning, impose costs, project risk, and slow even the most capable military forces.
1. This Is Strategy, Not Desperation
It would be a mistake to read Iranian minelaying as the last act of a cornered adversary. It is a sign of preparation, not desperation — a deliberate effort to shift the terms of the conflict. Tehran is executing a classic risk strategy, exploiting the possibility of escalation to impose global economic costs and generate political pressure on Washington to stop fighting.
The sea mine is the ideal weapon for this strategy. In the Strait of Hormuz — just 21 miles wide at its narrowest point — even a small minefield poses a significant threat, producing global economic impacts far beyond the mines’ immediate physical presence. The roughly dozen mines reportedly laid so far signal Iran’s willingness to escalate, deploying weapons that are difficult to remove and capable of sustaining disruption over time.
Iranian strategy should not come as a surprise. A declassified 2009 CIA report noted that Iran “has adopted a strategy in which a few mines or the threat of mining would be used to deter shipping,” adding that such mining would be “just as effective as a blockade.” A 2017 Office of Naval Intelligence assessment went even further, concluding naval mines were a critical component of the IRGCN’s strategy in the Strait of Hormuz, and that Iran has specifically invested in new mines and mine delivery vessels after observing their impact during the Tanker War and Operation Desert Storm. This is a strategy Iran has planned for decades. Only now has it been put into practice.
2. Iran Does Not Need a Navy to Mine the Strait
Much of Iran’s traditional navy is gone; Trump was right about that. But that misses the larger picture. The real threat comes from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGCN). This separate force has spent decades developing asymmetric capabilities aimed specifically at targeting traffic in the strait, and it remains largely intact.
Iran is estimated to possess between 2,000 to 6,000 naval mines, including rudimentary contact mines of the type Tehran deployed during the Tanker War in the 1980s as well as more sophisticated bottom and influence mines that detonate in response to acoustic, magnetic, or pressure signatures and are significantly harder to detect and clear. But the number of mines matters far less than how they are employed.
The IRGCN has built its mine warfare capability around speed, redundancy, and concealment. Its primary platforms include a mix of small vessels and submersibles concealed within a network of tunnels and caves along its southern coast. The United States reportedly destroyed 16 of these boats in the first few hours after reports of mining surfaced, but the IRGCN still has hundreds — possibly even thousands — of such attack boats. Using swarm tactics, these boats operate in large groups, approaching targets simultaneously from multiple directions. Each of these boats can deploy two to three mines per sortie. Specially trained combat divers called “frogmen” either drop mines directly from boats or place them manually in the water. By dispersing its mine laying capacity across numerous, highly mobile platforms, Iran has made it much harder for the United States to locate and target the minelayers themselves.
3. The Mine Is Not the Only Threat
Naval mines do not operate in isolation. The IRGCN has spent decades developing a layered set of asymmetric capabilities — mines, missiles, drones, fast attack boats, small submersibles, and uncrewed surface vessels — designed to work together. Each of these assets poses a challenge on its own, but combined, they form what U.S. officials have reportedly called a “Death Valley” — a gauntlet of air and naval threats that any mine clearance operation would have to survive before clearing a single mine.
Mine countermeasure operations are slow and methodical under the best conditions. They require specialized ships, helicopters, and uncrewed platforms operating in close proximity to the minefield for days or weeks — and those conditions would place any U.S. minesweeper within range of Iran’s shore-based anti-ship missiles, drones, and fast attack boats. The clearance operation itself becomes the target. That is precisely the opportunity Iran’s risk strategy is designed to exploit.
4. The U.S. Navy Is Less Prepared Than It Should Be
The U.S. Navy has long deprioritized the mine countermeasure mission. It is now paying for that choice.
Just last year, the United States withdrew its last dedicated mine countermeasure ship from the Gulf, leaving only four such vessels in the U.S. inventory — all forward deployed in Japan. The Navy’s new mine-clearance ship relies on the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) equipped with a mine countermeasures (MCM) mission package. But decades of delays, technical problems, and cost overruns mean that only three ships have ever been outfitted and deployed with that package, and the system has never been tested in combat. Even then, the capability remains limited: Its aerial component, the MH-60S Seahawk helicopter, can only detect surface or near-surface mines in shallow waters no greater than 40 feet. Moreover, operating these helicopters without air superiority would be extraordinarily risky, as they would be highly vulnerable to Iranian shore-based anti-aircraft artillery and short- to medium-range surface-to-air missiles.
The most promising new system — a semi-autonomous, uncrewed surface or undersea vehicle — is still in testing, with low-rate initial production not expected until 2030. As a result, the United States finds itself in a conflict that demands a capability the navy never prioritized, and that is therefore consistently underfunded and repeatedly delayed.
5. Time Is the Weapon, and Iran Knows It
In a recent interview, former CENTCOM Commander Joseph Votel stated, “I think the worst case now would be if we’ve found positive evidence of the Strait being mined… That would really extend out the time [for the opening of the Strait].”
As pointed out by General Votel, naval mines are not just physical obstacles. They are used to buy time — and time is what Iran needs most. The longer the strait remains closed, the louder the calls for a ceasefire will become, from American consumers absorbing rising energy costs to governments grappling with the economic fallout from sustained energy price shocks. Iran is counting on that pressure to compel Washington to stop fighting.
Mines are ideally suited to this strategy because they are so difficult to remove. During the Korean War, North Korea released more than 3,000 mines across 400 square miles, many laid by hand over the course of three weeks. A large mine clearing operation — deploying about 10 U.S. Navy and 12 Japanese minesweepers, took 15 days to neutralize just 225 mines. In short, mines compel exactly the kind of slow, costly, dangerous operation that generates casualties, consumes resources, and tests public patience.
Uncertainty compounds the problem. A cleared passage is not the same as a safe one — not in the eyes of tanker operators, insurers, and shipping companies. Even after mines are removed, the question of whether all of them have been found is unanswerable with confidence. A single missed mine, or the rumor of one, can undo weeks of clearance work. Iran does not need to reseed the strait to sustain the disruption. It needs only to leave open the possibility that it has.
Every week the strait remains closed is a week Iran’s strategy is working. Every failed clearance attempt becomes a headline. Every damaged ship is a political liability Washington cannot afford.
What Comes Next
The war in the Middle East is, among other things, a reminder of the outsized impact that cheap, asymmetric weapons can have on a far more powerful navy. The United States has consistently underinvested in mine countermeasure capabilities not because the threat was unknown, but because mines are unglamorous, and procurement dollars followed other priorities. Those choices have finally caught up with the fleet.
The immediate operational problem is stark. The United States has no good options for reopening the strait right now. Clearing mines under fire, with an intact IRGCN still capable of targeting minesweepers with missiles, drones, and fast attack boats, is a slow and dangerous undertaking that would take weeks or months. And doing nothing — accepting a prolonged closure — imposes escalating economic costs throughout the entire world.
Iran has handed Washington a choice between bad options. That is not an accident. It is the point. These mines are not just a military problem — they are a political one. The military costs of forcing the strait open under fire, and the economic costs of leaving it closed, are increasingly disproportionate to whatever is left to gain from continuing to degrade Iranian capabilities. Put differently, the United States has a greater interest in reopening the strait than in prosecuting the war. The strategic logic points in that direction.
Recent & Related