NICK SCHIFRIN: For perspective on the U.S.

effort in the strait, we turn to Ian Ralby, president of Auxilium Worldwide, a nonprofit organization that focuses on ocean governance and maritime law and security.

And retired Rear Admiral Andy Loiselle had a 35-year career in the Navy and has extensive experience operating ships and aircraft in the Middle East.

He's now with a military consulting firm.

Thanks very much, both of you.

Welcome back to the "News Hour."

Ian Ralby, let me start with you.

How are these shipping and insurance officials that you spoke to today responding to Project Freedom, and are they willing now to send their ships through the strait?

IAN RALBY, President, Auxilium Worldwide: Well, I think it's hard to garner any great degree of enthusiasm, when so many of the statements over the last few months have been met with reality at a very different point.

In other words, there has been a lot of enthusiasm behind announcements in the past that the strait was open, that things were going to be over in a couple of days or two weeks, and here we are.

And so I think many of them are skeptical and, at the same time, very cautious because, at the end of the day, human beings' lives are at stake.

These are not just big hunks of metal.

They're moving with people on board.

And so what we're risking is both the loss of those lives, as well as the potential for a catastrophic environmental situation that could become detrimental to the passage through the strait itself if one of these vessels were to entirely be blown up or sink and spill.

And so this is not something that is being seen as being the end of the situation.

It is potentially the next step.

But we're far from the confidence needed to have a mass exodus or a return by other ships that are looking to come into the Gulf.

So this is far from over.

NICK SCHIFRIN: So, far from the confidence of having a mass exodus, but Admiral Cooper, the Central Command commander, did say that ships were beginning to respond.

Are they beginning to respond?

And if they're not assuaged by what they have seen right now or so far, what do they need to see from the U.S.

in order to be able to go through the strait confidently?

IAN RALBY: Well, I think we have one little problem, which is that the U.S.

in the statement from Admiral Cooper indicated that the first two ships that came out were not the neutral ships that this Project Freedom was supposed to be focused on.

That is a legal problem as well.

(CROSSTALK) NICK SCHIFRIN: Because the first two ships were U.S.-flagged.

IAN RALBY: They were U.S.-flagged.

And they were, as a result, potential targets for the Iranian regime.

And so this is not the same thing as bringing out a neutral vessel.

It is actually a vessel belonging to an enemy combatant.

So this is a strange situation.

And to build confidence, we need rhetoric and reality to start lining up, and they haven't for months.

Admiral Loiselle, respond to that, the notion that this military effort so far perhaps isn't giving the level of confidence that would lead to a -- quote -- "exodus" through the strait.

And what do you make of the operation as it's been designed so far?

REAR.

ADM.

ANDY LOISELLE (RET.

), U.S.

Navy: Well, as it's been designed thus far, we haven't had any U.S.

vessels hit.

And they have been able to take care of the vessels that have attempted to go through the strait through the revised transit passage that has been redesigned to be closer to the coast of Oman.

So to think that we were going to see an exodus on day one, I don't think that was realistic.

I don't think anybody thought that was going to happen.

As Dr.

Ralby said, it's going to take some time.

And the Iranians clearly lashed out today because this is the last piece on the chessboard for them.

And they cannot afford to lose it.

So they are going to do whatever they can to try and dissuade everybody from utilizing this opportunity.

And it's the U.S.'

job to instill that confidence in both the shipping companies and the insurance agents that, hey, we can protect the ships as they come through.

So that's not going to happen today.

It's not going to happen tomorrow.

But over some period of time, as the threat is diminished, there's a possibility that these companies can develop the confidence necessary to send their ships through.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Admiral Cooper from Central Command today argued that Iran's response shows a degradation of its military capability.

And he said specifically there were only six fast speedboats that attacked, rather than the two dozen that usually attacked.

Does that really show a degradation if Iran is still able to send those six speedboats?

And how difficult is it to defend this lane from those Iranian boats and Iranian drones?

REAR.

ADM.

ANDY LOISELLE (RET.

): The boats are an easier problem than sometimes the drones are.

But it depends on what the rules of engagement are.

And so if we have told everybody in Iran, hey, if you leave the coast of Iran in a fast boat, then you're a legitimate target -- I don't know what our rules of engagement are.

But if that were the set of rules, then it would be a relatively easy problem to do.

Typically, that's not the set of rules that we use.

We're going to require some hostile intent to be shown before action can be taken against one of those vessels.

It could mean there's a 50-caliber machine gun mounted in the bow and there's somebody manning it.

Sometimes, it's a little bit harder to figure out what their intent is.

In many cases, any of these vessels are capable of delivering a mine.

And they will keep a mine covered under a tarp behind the boat.

And so you can't really tell what's behind there until they lift a tarp.

And at that point in time, the mine is just about in the water and it's too late.

And so you have got to kind of come up with a happy medium somewhere between those two extremes where you think you can take those boats out.

Now, as far as the number of boats go, I'm sure that they have any number of boats.

I'm sure they can commandeer civilian boats and use them to the same effect by carrying the weapons with them on board.

And so I'm less concerned with the number of boats.

I don't think we will ever attrite all of those fast boats.

It's more of, can we disincentivize them such that people are no longer willing to man those boats?

That's how we win this fight.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Ian Ralby, quickly, if you could, does the insurance companies, do the shipping companies have a level of patience that the admiral is describing they will need so that the U.S.

military can have the proof of concept?

IAN RALBY: Well, I don't think anybody has the patience at the moment, but I think we're going to have to.

I mean, they're going to have to wait it out.

Reality is really stark.

And so there's no timeline for this.

It's going to take a while.

NICK SCHIFRIN: And, Admiral, very quickly, sorry, we're running out of time.

If the U.S.

military were to respond to today's attack on the United Arab Emirates, what could that look like?

And, again, sorry to ask you to be quick, but could it be calibrated so that it doesn't reignite the entire war?

REAR.

ADM.

ANDY LOISELLE (RET.

): Well, that's the clear line that we have got to try and stay behind to prevent the cease-fire from falling apart.

It could be argued right now that both sides are breaking the cease-fire.

And so I'm not really sure that's the entire point to make.

It's more about, what is the level of violence that's necessary to protect the ships that are going through?

And so I think what it's going to come down to is, we are going to demand a certain degree of distance from any ships that are transiting the Gulf.

And if you get closer than that distance, then you're a legitimate target.

And I think that will be the easiest way to solve the problem.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Admiral Loiselle, Ian Ralby, thanks very much to you both.

IAN RALBY: Always a pleasure.

REAR.

ADM.

ANDY LOISELLE (RET.

): Thanks.