Les sous-marins nucléaires britanniques sont arrivés en mer d'Arabie ! Le fondateur de Bridgewater Associates publie : La grande bataille du détroit d'Ormuz est imminente

Local time 21st evening, British media citing military sources said that a Royal Navy nuclear-powered submarine has arrived in the Arabian Sea, capable of launching cruise missiles.

On March 19th local time, France, the UK, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Japan issued a joint statement announcing their readiness to take appropriate measures to ensure the safety of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.

Canada soon joined and issued the joint statement. The UK government’s official website quickly updated and confirmed this information.

On the evening of the 20th, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that South Korea had decided to join the joint statement issued by the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, and Canada regarding the Strait of Hormuz.

The Ministry stated that this decision was made considering South Korea’s basic stance on the security of international maritime routes and freedom of navigation, international developments, and the direct impact of obstructed passage through the Strait of Hormuz on South Korea’s energy supply and economy.

Thus, eight countries have publicly expressed their stance.

As the current focus of the conflict, the United States and Iran are both showing great concern for the Strait of Hormuz. According to sources familiar with the US, the US military is currently reinforcing its presence in the Middle East, with the purpose centered around the Strait of Hormuz.

According to US media reports on the 20th, three warships including the amphibious assault ship “Wasp” and about 2,500 Marines have departed from San Diego, California, heading to the Middle East. Previously, the US Department of Defense had dispatched the amphibious assault ship “Leroy” from Japan to transport the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit to the Middle East.

It is disclosed that this reinforcement will provide President Trump with more military options, including initiating actions to “open” the Strait of Hormuz, which would require deploying air and naval forces along the Iranian coast.

In addition, the Trump administration is also considering deploying ground forces to the oil export lifeline of Iran, Halek Island, with the aim of seizing the island as leverage to force Iran to restore passage through the Strait of Hormuz.

Halek Island is located in the northwest of the Persian Gulf, more than 20 kilometers from the Iranian coast. It is Iran’s largest crude oil export base, with about 90% of Iran’s oil exported from here.

In response to the US plan to seize Halek Island, Iranian military sources stated that if the US launches a “military invasion” of Halek Island, it will face an “unprecedented counterattack” since Israel and the US attacked Iran.

According to a report by Reference News on March 21, Bridgewater founder Ray Dalio issued a dire warning on March 16: the conflict between the US, Israel, and Iran will revolve around a decisive confrontation over the Strait of Hormuz, and the outcome will affect far more than just oil prices. It will determine whether the US-led global order can survive.

In a long article on the X platform, Dalio wrote: “It all depends on who controls the Strait of Hormuz.” He believes that if Iran still has the ability to control the strait, or even participate in negotiations over who can pass through, then regardless of how the conflict is resolved, the US will be seen as having lost the war.

Dalio compared the possible US failure in the Strait of Hormuz to Britain’s experience during the Suez Crisis in 1956, a moment widely regarded by historians as marking the end of the British Empire’s global imperialism. He notes that in nearly 500 years of history, there is a recurring pattern: a rising power challenges the dominant empire over a key trade route, and funds and alliances quickly shift to the victorious side.

The dominant power, i.e., the issuer of the global reserve currency, may first experience “fiscal overexpansion,” and then lose control in the conflict, “exposing its weaknesses.” Dalio wrote: “Be cautious of losing confidence among allies and creditors, the loss of reserve currency status, the sale of debt assets, and currency devaluation, especially relative to gold.”

Dalio believes both sides are caught in a conflict with no diplomatic solution. He wrote: “Although some talk about ending this war through agreements, everyone knows that no agreement can resolve this war because agreements are worthless.”

Dalio states that the core issue is asymmetric motives. For Iran’s leadership, this war “is a matter of survival,” involving regime stability, national dignity, and religious beliefs. For Americans, it mainly concerns gasoline prices; for US politicians, it’s primarily about midterm elections. Regarding which side benefits in the long-term struggle, Dalio’s view is clear: “In war, the ability to endure pain is even more important than the ability to inflict pain.”

He said Iran’s strategy is to impose this pain as long as possible and wait for the US to withdraw, just as the US did in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

(Source: Daily Economic News)