Pentagon reportedly concludes no military plan can guarantee Hormuz safety and stability, according to Iran Press TV citing sources

Sourcing carries a heavy discount here: the claim is attributed to Iran's state-aligned media citing unnamed sources, a channel that has historically served signalling as much as reporting, and on past occasions such accounts have been framed to shape negotiating positions or deterrence perceptions rather than to convey Pentagon assessments verbatim. The substance, that no military option fully guarantees flow through the strait, is not a novel finding; it has been the standing analytical consensus in every prior episode of Gulf tension, which is precisely why it is useful to one side to have it in circulation. Precedent in Hormuz scares is that the risk premium in crude is built on insurance and freight costs and the probability of actual disruption rather than on statements about capability, so the binding variables remain tanker traffic, war-risk premia, and any physical incident rather than reportage. The distinction that matters operationally is between rhetoric that stays rhetorical, where premia have tended to fade within days, and rhetoric accompanied by seizures, mine activity, or convoy decisions, where the move has persisted. Follow-ons worth noting are any official denial or confirmation from the defence establishment, shipping and insurance pricing through the strait, and whether Gulf producers or the US naval presence alter posture in response.