Bill O’Reilly says Pentagon did not war-game Strait of Hormuz, calling it a “major error”

Bill O’Reilly, a television commentator who has frequently addressed national security issues, said Monday that he believes the Pentagon made a “major error” in planning for conflict involving Iran by not war-gaming the Strait of Hormuz, a critical shipping chokepoint between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.

Speaking in the context of the broader debate over how U.S. strategy would respond to an Iran-linked confrontation, O’Reilly said he “can’t explain it” and that “nobody knows why they didn’t” consider scenario planning in which Iran could close or restrict the strait. He framed the omission as a strategic mistake in how the defense establishment prepared for escalation.

O’Reilly’s comments were reported by The Hill as part of his ongoing public discussion of U.S. defense decision-making and its implications for conflict risk in the Middle East. The report attributes the claim directly to him rather than to an official assessment or document.

The Strait of Hormuz is a key route for global oil and shipping, and the question of how U.S. forces would respond to possible Iranian maritime disruption is a recurring focus in policy debates, especially around maritime security and deterrence. However, Monday’s report does not provide evidence of a specific Pentagon internal review or a detailed description of what war-game scenarios were, or were not, included.

Because the claim is presented as O’Reilly’s assessment, the practical stakes discussed in his remarks center on the importance of contingency planning for high-impact scenarios during national security crises. Scenario design can affect readiness requirements, logistics planning, rules for potential maritime interdiction or protection tasks, and how leaders evaluate escalation risks.

O’Reilly’s comments also come amid broader public scrutiny of how U.S. defense planners anticipate Iranian actions and how quickly the government can adapt if maritime routes are disrupted. The report does not cite a new Pentagon policy shift or a change to existing planning processes, and it does not name any official or office responsible for scenario selection.

The Hill report functions primarily as a record of O’Reilly’s view, not as an official finding. Absent additional documentation or an on-the-record response from the Pentagon, the statement remains attributable criticism from a commentator rather than a confirmed account of internal defense war-gaming practices.