The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
My AI spent 30 minutes researching these undersea cables, results here
| Jared Baumeister | 05/10/26 |
| Jared Baumeister | 05/10/26 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: May 10th, 2026 12:14 AM Author: Jared Baumeister This is a significant and timely question — especially given the current Iran conflict. Here's what the evidence shows:
Which cables are at risk
At least 7 major submarine cable systems pass through or near the Strait of Hormuz:
- AAE-1 (Asia-Africa-Europe 1) — connects Southeast Asia to Europe via Egypt, with landing points in UAE, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia - FALCON — connects India/Sri Lanka to Gulf states, Sudan, and Egypt - Tata TGN-Europe/Gulf — major India-to-Europe backbone - SEA-ME-WE systems — the classic Southeast Asia-Middle East-Western Europe routes - Gulf Bridge International — links all Gulf states - Plus Meta's 2Africa Pearl segment (construction suspended March 2026 due to the conflict)
Critical vulnerability: all cables were laid in Omani waters (avoiding Iranian territorial waters), which means they're tightly clustered in a narrow corridor — a single point of failure.
Scale of disruption
99% of global internet traffic runs through undersea cables (ITU). The Red Sea corridor alone carries an estimated 17–25% of global internet traffic. The Hormuz cables are a secondary but vital artery connecting India, Southeast Asia, and the Gulf data center hubs to Europe.
The disruption is not global internet shutdown — most Europe-US and intra-US traffic uses Atlantic/Pacific cables. But the impact is severe for:
- Gulf states entirely — UAE and Saudi data centers (including AWS facilities already hit by Iranian drones) are heavily reliant on these cables. The region's multi-billion-dollar AI infrastructure depends on them. - India and South Asia — significant portion of Europe-bound internet traffic routes through Hormuz cables - Financial transactions — cloud services, e-commerce, SWIFT-adjacent flows through Gulf financial hubs - Repair impossibility — the Red Sea precedent is instructive: in 2024, a Houthi-hit vessel dragged anchor and severed 3 cables. Repairs took 6 months due to ongoing attacks on repair vessels. In a Hormuz conflict zone with sea mines, repairs could take months or be impossible entirely.
The compounding chokepoint effect
The real nightmare scenario is simultaneous disruption of Red Sea + Hormuz cables. If both corridors are hot, traffic between Europe, Asia, and Africa has to be rerouted through much longer paths (around Africa's southern tip, or over satellite with vastly lower bandwidth). That's when you get:
- Multi-week internet degradation across the Middle East, South Asia, and parts of Europe - Financial transaction delays and settlement failures - Cloud service outages for hyperscalers with Gulf presence - AI/data center operations in UAE and Saudi Arabia going dark or severely throttled
Economic impact
Hard to put an exact dollar figure on, but consider: the EurAsian Times is estimating $10 trillion in daily financial flows at risk through these corridors. That's the total addressable flow — the actual disruption would be a fraction of that, but still massive for the regions directly affected.
The cascading effect is the bigger concern: energy prices spike (Hormuz carries ~20% of global oil), shipping insurance explodes, supply chains stall, and digital infrastructure degrades simultaneously. That's the kind of multi-system shock the World Economic Forum article describes — not just one chokepoint, but physical and digital arteries intersecting in the same geographic space.
Bottom line
Not apocalyptic globally, but severely disruptive regionally — Gulf states, India, and South Asia would experience significant internet/financial degradation for weeks to months. And the inability to repair cables in a contested zone is what makes this genuinely novel compared to accidental cable breaks. This is why Iran's IRGC-linked Tasnim News explicitly warned about it on April 23 — it's a legitimate asymmetric warfare lever. |
Date: May 10th, 2026 1:21 AM Author: Jared Baumeister It's the combination of three factors that makes the Hormuz and the Persian Gulf a nightmare for US subs:
1. The depth problem (always existed)
The Persian Gulf averages only ~50 meters (164 ft) deep. The Strait of Hormuz itself runs 300–650 ft on average, but the navigable channels are only 150–200 ft deep. US nuclear attack subs (Los Angeles, Virginia class) are designed for deep-ocean operations with crush depths around 300+ meters. In shallow water:
- They can't use depth as a defense — there's nowhere to dive to escape anti-sub weapons - Shallow-water acoustics are chaotic — sound bounces off surface and seabed, creating a cluttered sonar environment that degrades both offensive and defensive detection - The sub becomes more detectable, not less
This was always the case — the Gulf has historically been a poor operating environment for big nuclear subs.
2. The mine problem (new and acute)
This is what makes things genuinely dangerous now. US/intel estimates put Iran's mine stockpile at up to 6,000 mines. Iran has already deployed mines in the Strait using small surface craft (speedboats, fishing boat conversions). Critically:
- Iran can't even find the mines it laid — the NYT reported in April that Iran lost track of its own minefield locations, deployed haphazardly by small boats - The mines are modern types: moored mines at preset depths and bottom mines camouflaged as rocks/debris — not old-school floating contact mines - Bottom mines with magnetic/acoustic influence triggers are specifically dangerous to submarines - The Pentagon told lawmakers in April that clearing could take 6 months - US Navy is using autonomous unmanned minehunting systems (not risking crewed vessels), but progress is slow
A Virginia-class sub transiting through undetected bottom mines is a genuine risk.
3. The Ghadir-class problem (asymmetric counter)
Iran has roughly 10 Ghadir-class midget submarines — about 1/10th the size of a conventional attack sub, specifically designed for:
- Operating in 50-meter shallow water where big US subs can't effectively hunt them - Exploiting the noisy, cluttered acoustic environment of the Hormuz - Laying mines and launching torpedoes from hidden positions
They're not a threat to a Virginia-class in the open ocean, but in the Strait's narrow, shallow waters they're a real asymmetric threat — the same way North Korean midget subs worry everyone about the Korean Strait.
So what's the actual posture?
US subs are NOT completely blocked — nuclear attack subs can still operate in the Gulf of Oman (deep water) and the northern Arabian Sea. They can conduct intelligence gathering, launch Tomahawks from outside the Strait, and provide flank protection for surface task groups. But:
- Operating inside the Strait itself or the shallow Persian Gulf proper is high-risk and likely restricted to specific missions - They'd be running with extreme caution, if at all, through the mined areas - The minefield is a two-way constraint — it limits US sub operations just as much as it threatens them
This is classic sea denial — Iran doesn't need to defeat the US Navy; it just needs to make the Strait too risky for unrestricted US submarine operations. And in this specific geography, with mines and shallow water working together, that's actually achievable.
The irony: the same geographic features that make the Strait a critical chokepoint for commerce also make it one of the most dangerous places on Earth to operate a submarine. |