Hacker News Reader

Comment by avereveard | Hacker News Reader

It seems there's a flawed reading coming from a single point in time analysis

Region instability had ben regularly threatening freedom of navigation in the last five years

And USA may not consider the individual country strategic, but cares deeply about freedom of navigation, because the single market is basically the pillar for their hegemony.

Sarah Paine lectures give overall better lenses to look at this engagement.

View on HN

As the article discusses in detail, if the US actually cares about freedom of navigation, the war was a massive own goal because it looks extremely likely to grant the current Iranian regime de facto control of the Strait.

Iran already had the strait in ransom, directly and indirectly with proxy receiving weapons. You don't get to ignore that part and call this a own goal, since inaction led to the same effective results.

The strait was navigable until three weeks ago. There are very few conceivable paths towards reestablishing this. This is absolutely not the same effective result.

What are you talking about? The strait was open, and tankers were not paying tolls as they do now.

They held the threat of closing it, as a deterrent of an attack, and once attacked, they did just that.

You either live in a parallel universe, or are just spewing here propaganda.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/19/politics/houthi-red-sea-a...

Lol there were routine attcaks every time things weren't going their way. Whos been in a parallel universe?

And never said closed. I said ransom.

You know the Red Sea is a different body of water than the Persian Gulf/Strait of Hormuz? Iran does not control the Red Sea directly, but most likely by funding the Houthis.

Same effective results as in it was causing constant global inflation and instability?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com