OPERATION SEA SENTINEL. PROPOSED RESPONSE TO IRAN'S MARITIME THREAT

COMING IN ON THE COATTAILS OF MIDNIGHT HAMMER, IT'S SEA SENTINEL

(ED. NOTE: This following is a simulation of a document that would be generated for the Executive's approval. It outlines a US Naval operation to be run against the Iranian Navy in case they decided to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. This naval action is completely different in legality and outcome from Operation Midnight Hammer. )

PRESIDENTIAL BRIEFING MEMORANDUM

TO: President Donald J. TrumpFROM: National Security AdvisorDATE: June 22, 2025**RE: Strategic Options and Legal Justification Regarding IRGC Naval Threat to Close Strait of Hormuz

I. Executive Summary

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGC-N) has publicly declared its intent to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, a vital chokepoint responsible for approximately 21% of global oil shipments. Intelligence confirms that IRGC fast-attack vessels, missile platforms, and drone units are being repositioned to key ports in Bandar Abbas, Qeshm Island, and Jask.

This constitutes a clear threat to freedom of navigation and an illegal act of war under international maritime law. While our previous operations (e.g., Operation Midnight Hammer) targeted strategic weapons facilities under WMD doctrine, the current threat resides in maritime disruption and requires a separate legal, tactical, and messaging framework.

II. Key Distinction: Midnight Hammer vs. Proposed Maritime Action

Factor	Operation Midnight Hammer	Proposed Maritime Action
Nature of Threat	Covert WMD development	Overt maritime blockade and oil market disruption
Target Type	Hardened nuclear and missile infrastructure	Surface ships, fast boats, mine deployment assets
Legal Justification	Preventative strike under WMD non-proliferation	Anticipatory self-defense under UN Article 51
Strategic Objective	Strategic decapitation and nuclear containment	Tactical deterrence and restoration of shipping lanes
Risk of Civilian Harm	Minimal (isolated targets)	Medium (coastal proximity, port traffic)
Information Warfare	Highly classified, no public prelude	Public IRGC declaration gives U.S. initiative edge

III. Options for Maritime Engagement

Option 1: Shadow and Intercept

• Allow IRGC vessels to leave port; monitor movements via ISR; intercept upon hostile action or navigation interference.

• Pros: Cleanest under international law.

• Cons: Allows Iran first-move advantage; risks U.S. or allied casualties.

Option 2: Preemptive Port Strike (Limited Scope)

• Target only those vessels actively outfitted with mine-deployment hardware, radar activation, or surface-to-sea launch capability.

• Pros: Cripples blockade before it starts; high deterrence.

• Cons: Must be backed by irrefutable intel and legal documentation. May escalate to broader conflict.

Option 3: Cyber-Sabotage or Standoff Disabling

• Use electronic warfare or drone systems to disable propulsion, navigation, or missile systems before ships leave harbor.

• Pros: Minimal attribution; buys time.

• Cons: Temporary, reversible; may not stop all vessels.

IV. Legal Framing for U.S. and Allied Support

• U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): Iran’s proposed blockade is illegal. The U.S. is within rights to enforce open navigation under customary international law.

• Article 51, UN Charter: Right to self-defense applies against the threat of military force.

• Precedent: Reagan’s Operation Praying Mantis (1988) – U.S. sank Iranian vessels following mining of the USS Samuel B. Roberts. Action was accepted globally.

V. Strategic Narrative

We must contrast surgical preemption against chaos. Unlike Midnight Hammer, this is not a punitive or regime-changing strike. It is law enforcement at sea—a response to piracy with national flags.

Recommended language for public statement:

“Let it be known: If Iran or its IRGC navy attempts to blockade international waters, we will respond not with escalation—but with precision. We are not here to conquer. We are here to ensure that the sea lanes of the world remain free, as they have for generations. These are not warships—we are dealing with pirates in military uniforms.”

VI. Recommendations

1. Authorize limited rules of engagement for U.S. Navy assets to disable or destroy IRGC vessels preparing for illegal maritime actions.

2. Prepare legal briefing and secure international partners' endorsement for a multilateral enforcement mission if needed.

3. Declassify satellite imagery and intercepted IRGC comms if necessary to justify the strike publicly.

4. Coordinate with CENTCOM and NAVCENT for real-time targeting and force disposition.

5. Hold NATO consult call to preempt EU complaints and gain symbolic coalition cover.

Prepared for Next Steps

With your directive, we can initiate Operation Sea Sentinel within 48 hours—a tailored response plan to ensure maritime freedom, preserve American credibility, and avoid broader regional war.

[End of Memorandum]