Viral post comparing Portugal's Hormuz conquest to US Iran operation mixes facts with exaggeration
Is it possible to draw comparisons between the ongoing US military operation against Iran and the onslaught that led to the conquest of Hormuz by the Portuguese Empire in the 16th century? Euronews spoke to two historians about the consequences of the two "expeditions".
In Portugal, a viral social media post comparing its empire's 16th-century conquest of Hormuz with the current US military operation in Iran contains both accurate historical facts and exaggerated claims, according to historians consulted by Euronews.
The post claims Portugal achieved lasting control of the strategic Strait of Hormuz in 1515 with far fewer resources than the United States has deployed against Iran, while avoiding the economic disruption caused by Washington's intervention.
Euronews sought clarification from two historians to verify the claims circulating on Facebook and other social networks.
Portuguese conquest: The facts
Historian Rui Manuel Loureiro, whose work on Portugal's presence in Hormuz has been published, confirmed that Portugal's 1515 expedition involved 27 ships, as the post claims.
"There were 1,500 Portuguese and around 600 or 700 Indians," Loureiro told Euronews, noting that the troop numbers cited are also correct.
The expedition was commanded by Afonso de Albuquerque, Portugal's second governor of India, and established Portuguese control over the island of Hormuz until 1622, when a Persian-English alliance dislodged them.
However, several claims about the Portuguese conquest are "exaggerated" or "anachronistic", Loureiro said.
The post claims Portugal dominated the Persian Gulf for approximately 150 years. In fact, Portuguese rule over Hormuz lasted until 1622 — around 107 years — and covered only the island and "some of its small dependencies on both sides of the Gulf".
"There was by no means total control of the Persian Gulf," Loureiro said, noting that Arab and Persian shipping continued in the region.
The claim of a Portuguese "commercial monopoly between Arabia and India" is also problematic, he said.
"There were many other ships that escaped Portuguese control," Loureiro explained. "There was Portuguese interference, to a large extent, with success, but in no way was there a monopoly."
The post's claim of "European dominion in the Indian Ocean" lasting 500 years is also exaggerated, he said.
"You only have to think in terms of numbers, of people, of ships, to realise that it was totally impossible to control all the traffic that crossed the Indian Ocean," Loureiro said.
Loureiro also highlighted a key difference between the Portuguese and US approaches.
"Afonso de Albuquerque's idea was to ensure control of the island of Hormuz," he said, noting there was "no intention or any idea of attacking Persia", which was a "huge continental state".
"The current situation is a bit the other way round. There's an attack on Iran and then, as a consequence, the problem of Hormuz arises, which the US strategists probably didn't think about in advance," Loureiro said.
US operation: The costs
The social media post cites US military costs of $18 billion (€16.1 billion) as of March.
Bruno Cardoso Reis, a specialist in contemporary history and security studies, cited a more recent Financial Times estimate, based on American Enterprise Institute data, that points to daily spending of around $500 million due to US military equipment destroyed in the conflict.
The newspaper reported the institute predicts "the cost of the campaign against Iran has been between $22.3 and $31 billion in the five weeks since (US President Donald) Trump ordered US forces to attack at the end of February".
The post claims 30 ships, 120 aircraft and 50,000 personnel were deployed in March.
Data from US think tank Atlantic Council for 3 April shows at least 134 aircraft (excluding fighter jets) and 18 ships deployed in the Iran conflict.
A 29 March New York Times report cited a US military official saying the "number of US troops in the Middle East region above 50,000" following the "arrival of 2,500 marines and another 2,500 sailors".
These troops are "spread out on bases and ships in the region, including in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait", up from the usual 40,000.
Cardoso Reis said this represents "the largest concentration of US naval and air forces in this region since 2013, i.e. since the intervention against Iraq".
Consequences of US intervention
The post lists consequences including "global energy crisis", "economic disruption", "diplomatic tensions" and Iran signalling a potential toll system in the Strait of Hormuz.
Cardoso Reis said other effects should not be overlooked, including "disruption caused in the allied Gulf countries" where there have been "some deaths and destruction of critical infrastructures, such as energy production, refining, gas liquefaction".
This undermines "the perception that that area is a kind of oasis of wealth and security", he said.
Despite a ceasefire agreement between the United States and Iran mediated by Pakistan, what remains is a "stalemate situation", Cardoso Reis said.
"The economy is still very globalised" and crises "in a region that is so important for the energy market and, for example, for fertilisers, have a global impact", he said.
He also noted that Iran is "preparing" to charge fees for ships passing through the strait, which is "illegal under international law".
Lessons from history?
Cardoso Reis said Washington's "basic problem" is that "unlike Afonso de Albuquerque, the US president didn't assess the geostrategic reality properly" and "exaggerated his own military power".
Trump "underestimated the enemy" and particularly "the issue of the Strait of Hormuz, and the ease with which it can be used" to threaten navigation, while "confusing the overwhelming military superiority of the United States with a kind of omnipotence", he said.
However, technology favoured Portugal in the 16th century, with European powers having advantages in "naval technology" that "greatly facilitated the conquest".
Today, "military technology has a series of levellers that make it easier for a much weaker power to create these kinds of problems", Cardoso Reis said.
Despite the US technological advantage, "much simpler, much cheaper technologies" give Iran the possibility "with a much lower level of military power, to continue to be effective militarily", he said.
The social media post contains accurate details about Portugal's 1515 conquest of Hormuz, including troop numbers and ships deployed.
However, claims about 150 years of Persian Gulf domination, a commercial monopoly between the Arabian Peninsula and India, and 500 years of European dominion in the Indian Ocean are exaggerated.
The comparison between Portugal's focused island conquest and the US operation against continental Iran involves fundamentally different strategic objectives and technological contexts.
