[flagged]
Is this not the war they're currently losing? the US is their military.
This little school yard fight was just Trump trying to get a peace prize. He miscalculated, so as soon as things are back to normal, he will declare victory, ignore all facts to the contrary and go home.
As always I thank Trump for the amazing investment opportunities he is always creating! =)
While the US is capable of levelling all settlements, let alone cities, in Iran, it would be an extremely Pyrrhic victory. Like, oil would rise to $200 as a baseline, with occasional spikes at $300, US general inflation would gain 3-7% over baseline (food in particular 25% or so), and piss off all other trading partners worldwide, which amongst other things will make European nations transition even faster to renewables and nuclear using stuff they buy from China and make locally rather than from the US because they actually export useful hardware while the US mostly exports end user licence agreements and what little hardware it exports is itself heavily dependent on China and we can cut out the destabilising middle-man.
Given how many European nations rejected US requests for base/airspace use even with this conflict, a total war against Iran would probably have the US asked to vacate all existing bases in Europe. Even if the US doesn't leave NATO it will become a redundant organisation due to all other members making a new club without inviting the US.
And that's even if the US military obey illegal orders rather than their oaths, given the end of the Iranian civilisation would necessarily involve war crimes.
Disgusting.
I think you need to examine your head, and try to understand how stock markets work, before jumping up on your high horses.
Contrarians have probably together, helped more people on the planet, than you sitting at home hating on "capitalists" online.
Bombing civilians is despicable, so obviously bad to buy.
Bombing legitimate targets is accepted warfare, but there are always civilian casualties in war, so war in general must be bad to buy.
Other causes for dips?
Insane tariff policy drives small companies to the ground and leaves low income families struggling, must be bad to buy.
Global recession hits due to a pandemic which claims innumerable civilian lives, must be bad to buy.
Global recession hits due to some other factor, lots of civilians die from depression or violence, must be bad to buy.
A huge market dip hits and causes millions of leveraged investors to lose most of their principal to margin calls, companies go bankrupt, people lose their jobs, lots of civilians die from depression or violence, must be bad to buy.
Is there a scenario where ”buy the dip” is not immoral by these standards?
A defect in a series of automobiles causes hundreds of deaths, causing the manufacturer’s stock price to plummet. Is it bad to buy?
Thousands of people die in car crashes every day and it barely registers.
Civilians die and are killed in horrible ways every day.
Is it genuinely always bad to buy the dip?
To use a slightly hyperbolic example: A company that makes body bags is always going to be making cash when a massive amount of people die in a tragedy. That's fine, without that we wouldn't have body bags which is a thing we need. But they're not gonna do a press release on September 12th 2001 about how their sales volumes have spiked and are expected to continue to rise as victims are being pulled from the rubble. I would hope their execs are not watching CNN and rubbing their hands in eager anticipation when they see the second plane hitting the towers.
Like not attacking civilian infrastructure?
No. I'd actually say freedom of navigation [1] is almost the definition of a Pax. It's precedented across millenia in a way prohibitions on total war are not.
Let me be clear, prohibitions on total war are good. But they're also a new concept and one clearly the world's powers don't agree on to one iota. Freedom of navigation, on the other hand, benefits everyone but autarkies, and has for, again, millenia.
Right, and “Pax” are rare enough that we actually name them. I.e. Pax Romana etc. what we are seeing here is the end of Pax Americana.
Fair enough.
The strait of hormuz is NOT international waters.
UNCLOS states that "straits used for international navigation" shall allow transit with impedance, which would include the strait of Hormuz, but Iran has never ratified the treaty (and neither has the USA).
like, say, across a civilian bridge?
Cute. But no cigar. Point is if you put a random assortment of countries in a series of rooms, more of those rooms will agree on freedom of navigation than they will on what bridge can be blown up when. In part because the former is a bright line in a way deciding what is and isn't a military target cannot be.
Before starting the war with Iran, USA has instituted a blockade of Cuba, intercepting the oil tankers going there and causing thus a severe fuel shortage in Cuba.
Iran blocking the Strait of Hormuz was just doing the same that USA has begun doing. So USA has no moral authority to say that Iran should respect "the freedom of navigation", which is a thing that USA does not respect.
When a properly flagged Russian tanker came through it was left alone.
My impression is that the situation with Cuba is much more complex than the mass media portrayal of a straightforward blockade. Not that I believe the US is free of guilt here; clearly harm is being caused and the motivations seem suspect at best.
Then there's also their participation in what's been termed a shadow fleet, the associated falsification of origin of sanctioned oil, the accessing of ports where they otherwise wouldn't be permitted berth, the lack of insurance in case of environmental damage, etc. As I said previously, much more complex than the mass media portrayal.
As I understand it (but I'm certainly no expert) the insurance paperwork isn't in order and the fleet not properly registered as a result of the general state of the vessels involved. The US is hardly alone in this - the UK has also recently taken to seizing such vessels that pass too close to them. But generally yes, if due to the risks no country wants to officially register a vessel and no insurance provider want to cover it then it seems entirely justified to seize it in order to protect the commons. These aren't pleasure boats we're talking about here, they're ridiculously large merchant vessels. There's approximately zero legitimate excuses for them to be flying a fraudulent flag.
Ponder for a moment why it might be that the countries involved don't want these vessels flying their own flags and don't want to extend them insurance policies themselves.
The various treaties about freedom of passage exist precisely because, before the last 200 years, everyone did whatever they wanted with straits and other natural chokepoints, including closing them at will. Freedom of navigation is not an obviously natural right nor one universally accepted, before colonial powers effectively invented it and enforced it with guns. If somebody shows up with bigger guns, it might well disappear again.
Also, I wish the expression "close but no cigar" could be banned on the internet. Unless you're a professor of international relations at a renowned university, you simply don't get to gatekeep what reality is - particularly when making up arbitrary principles like these.
“In both Roman law and Islamic law, notions of a commonality of the seas were firmly established” (Id.). (It’s also weird to describe a custom of commons as colonial. European colonialism was about the opposite, turning historic commons into private rights.)
As a normative concept, you’re right, it’s new. But the notion that a great power would protect sea access for a variety of groups is old. More as a practical matter, granted—it’s hard to project enough power onto an ocean to control it.
Roman and Islamic law were also pretty much "colonial", even though the term is used of modern European empires, Rome was also an Empire, and the Arab Empires were also aggressively imperialist and maritime traders.
— "The Right of Navigation" <https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/cambridge-history-o...>
> Roman and Islamic law were also pretty much "colonial", even though the term is used of modern European empires, Rome was also an Empire, and the Arab Empires were also aggressively imperialist and maritime traders.
The difference between European empires and Islamic/Roman ones would be what JumpCrissCross advanced + the extent to which the conquered inhabitants are incorporated into the state, no?
> The difference between European empires and Islamic/Roman ones would be what JumpCrissCross advanced + the extent to which the conquered inhabitants are incorporated into the state, no?
Is it not rather more complex than that? The Roman Empire eventually granted citizenship to conquered people's but after centuries and gradually - all free men getting citizenship was 3rd century. When initially conquered a lot of people were incorporated into the state as slaves. AFAIK the Islamic empires were similar, and the price of being treated equally was to adopt the conquerors culture and religion.
The European Empire I am most familiar with (the British) only wanted the ruling class of its colonies to adopt its culture (with consequences such as speaking fluent/native English being a class marker that last to this day). It also (at least later on) gave colonies increasing autonomy.
I'm uneducated on Corpus Juris Civilis and have a basic familiarity with Islamic law/history but I'm inclined to think that any similarities between the two would be less a product of diffusion than the result of the tangential relationship between Christianity as understood by the Romans of the time and Islam as understood by classical Muslim jurists.
> Is it not rather more complex than that?
Ha! For sure.
I need to do more thinking about this part, re: colonialism/imperialism.
What I had in mind was the distinction between
a) A state/power that conquers a land without integrating the land and its peoples into it
b) A state/power that conquers a land and integrates the land and its people into it
The Islamic empires I'm most familiar with implemented the second form of conquest.
The concept of equality is an interesting one to think about because I'm not sure whether how we envision it today was common anywhere in the pre-modern world. But non-Muslim subjects were afforded their own set of rights and were not incorporated into the state as slaves (the practice of slavery not withstanding, my point is that it wasn't the same case as how you've described Roman civil integration). Additionally, the land was subsumed into the Islamic state.
But I think we are splitting the main argument into two separate (very engaging!) discussions.
The original argument alleged that "colonial powers effectively invented [freedom of passage] and enforced it with guns". Freedom of navigation in the seas was common to both Roman and Islamic law. Whether Roman and/or Islamic empires qualify as "colonial" or "imperialist" is one thing, but they cannot be the colonial powers that the user who made that argument had in mind.
When you point at a resource under my control and force me to share it (or else), it's not "a custom of commons" - it's a classic colonial appropriation.
Which is also how Rome and (initially) the Islamic kingdoms saw the sea when they were upstarters - Rome was very much not a naval power to begin with (or ever, really) and Islamic kings resorted to piracy to match Italian and Spanish powers.
Beyond lofty words, when they finally ended up controlling the straits, both empires definitely treated them like personal possession ("mare nostrum", Ottomans closing the Bosphorous...). Like everyone else, in practice.
What ? The U.S. themselves don't respect this. They only expect OTHER nations to follow it. UNCLOS has been MOCKED by U.S. Presidents all the time. Not just Trump. Reagan & Bush did too. And so do all the neocon U.S. Senators. In their view, the U.S. has a fundamental right to block traffic and setup embargoes.
Thanks
And Iran has been respecting that principle for decades. So why exactly did the US and Israel (and GCC countries) think that the status quo would remain even if they keep antagonizing Iran? Imagine getting bombed during negotiations - not once, but twice in a single year! Their sovereignty was being disrespected, so now they're understandably establishing a new status quo.
And btw, if Iran and Oman cooperate, there is no threat to "freedom of navigation" under international law.
In a nutshell: play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
USA does not respect any international law, but it demands from others to do this.
May 2022: two Greek Tankers seized by IRGC commandos
2023: Tankers Advnatage Sweet and Niovi seized by IRGC commandos
Jan 2024: St. Nikolas seized by Iranian Navy
Apr 2024: MSC Aries seized by IRGC commandos
During the Tanker War 1981 - 1988: Iran was responsible for approximately 168 attacks on merchant ships
July 1987: Kuwait tanker MV Bridgeton struck by Iranian mine April
1988: USS SAmuel B. Roberts nearly sunk by Iranian mine.
2019 Limpet Mine Attacks
July 2021: Iranian drone strike on MT Mercer Street
Nov 2022: Pacific Zircon struck by Iranian drone
February 2026: USA blocking all oil tankers from going to Cuba, which has caused much more damage to the ordinary citizens of Cuba, than isolated incidents have done to other countries.
I guess the games you think are stupid depend immensely on your priors.
So we are going to ignore the JCPOA? Also, the rumor is that there is another player in the region who has undeclared nuclear weapons and refuses IAEA inspections. Should we bomb them next?
the US has been doing that in the gulf of mexico; should we be destorying the american civilization as a result?
Funding armed groups to essentially make war on your behalf does seem like a valid reason for the person being targeted to go to war.
As a general rule, if you shoot someone they will shoot back if capable.
I don't approve of war (and Trump didn't handle it well). However I also don't approve of what Iran has been doing.
Yeah, the game Iran is now trying to play is called “Pipelines and Pirates”.
There’s actually a ship deployed to the region right now named after the standard US response to this game, the USS Tripoli.[1]
And that deployed ship will do nothing. The only way forward is a negotiated agreement.
Not to mention that Iran did not want to have thousands of fancy missiles and bombs lobbed at them, but since that happened anyway, why not close the strait?
Almost correct, but days ago there was an UN meeting where a resolution to bring forth a naval response from many countries to reopen the Strait by force was voted, and it was vetoed by China and Russia (IIRC also by France).
That news became old very quickly, but it was a move done to force USA to concede a ceasefire because it made the US the only player who could make an offer with Iran to reopen the Strait, even if in undesirable terms.
The fact that this meeting happened and a resolution was blocked made Trump and the US incapable of blaming the EU of not helping reopening the Strait.
Second, you’re ignoring decades of history and picking an arbitrary point to say that’s when some animosity started. Nobody forced Iran to build all these missiles and to try and build a nuclear weapon or kill their own people or fund actual terrorist groups as designated by the United States and European Union. If you drag out negotiations long enough you never get bombed! What a thought lol.
Tbf the US seized plenty of theirs, others and such.
>Last I checked it’s the US and Israel at war with Iran, not others
The US bases and provided landing spots and ports, etc kind of speak otherwise and they don't have other ways of getting money from the US I believe.
Iran has absolutely run its strategy as a basket case. But proxies aside (which is a big aside), they were fairly self contained until we started hitting them. At least this time around.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iran/america-has-lost-arab-wo...
Iran has fomented discord in a number of countries, most notably Syria and Lebanon. I think they are “rational” in the sense that they are pursuing their goals of eliminating US influence over the Middle East - but many other states in the MidEast would see that goal as “irrational” in itself.
When? When they drip fed Hezbollah's missiles into Israel's air defences? When they left their ships in port to get bombed? When they convened an in-person meeting at the Supreme Leader's residence? When they didn't even reprimand Hamas after October 7th?
Iran has acted according to its regime's interests. But I wouldn't say they prosecuted their goals rationally, pragmatically or even particularly effectively.
It’s hard for most people to have actual objective views and see things from multiple perspectives and your statement is showing clear bias in this regards.
At all times? Nobody. Until last summer, the most strategically buggered was Hamas. Their miscalculations directly lead to a weaker position and a negative return on their goals.
That changed following last year’s airstrikes—then it was Iran. (Though in relative terms, probably still Hamas.) Since this war, it’s might be the U.S.
> That sort of tactic was used at a much larger scale when US provided arms to Iraq against Iran
We didn’t maintain Iraqi arms as a deterrent against Iran. Drip feeding arms into a war of attrition to be a pest has strategic rationale. Drip feeding arms, arms meant to intimidate through the prospect of overwhelming force no less, into air defenses below replacement rates is just dumb.
That probably depends on the cost of the arms, the cost of the interceptors, and any number of other externalities or indirect goals. If you can reliably induce high end interceptors to fire against cheap rockets (granted, that's a big if) you are definitely winning the immediate economic exchange.
Tactically sensible. Strategically foolish.
The deterrent value of Hezbollah’s arsenal was in overwhelming Israeli defenses and causing loss of life. That is what democracies, first and foremost, respond to. (Second being cost of living.) Spending a potent deterrent to play economic attrition with Israel, a rich country with a richer friend, was stupid.
Saddam did.
Their missile program is a direct response to the section of the Iran-Iraq war where Saddam flew long range bombers for terror raids (hmm who does this remind me of?) and Iran had no answer beyond shelling border cities with 155m.
That “big aside” is an understatement, on par with ”but CIA-funded death squads aside the US has been pretty hands-off with Latin America”.
Second, I don't have much else to say to you if you actually think that assassinating a head of state in the middle of active negotiations is anything but vile & uncivilized behavior unbecoming of a "civilized" superpower.
Ultimately, this is going to be a major strategic loss for the US and Israel. They have achieved none of the goals stated at the outset of this "operation", outside of perhaps diminishing the Iranian missile manufacturing capabilities & stockpile.
The UAE has a stake, too.
> don't have much else to say to you if you actually think that assassinating a head of state in the middle of active negotiations is anything but vile & uncivilized behavior unbecoming of a "civilized" superpower
This statement weakens your argument. (It's also not in line with this forum's guidleines around arguing in good faith.)
Uh if you say so. Can you point me to the rule stating that I need to keep engaging in a discussion I am not interested in having?
Yeah. As you suggested, "look at a map." The UAE controls most of the Musandam Peninsula.
> that I need to keep engaging
You don't. But you also don't need to storm off.
Sounds exactly like the US with the exception that they prefer to kill other people, not their own.
All other problems with the Iran war aside, there's absolutely nothing unusual about this, this is standard. Countries that go to war with each other are almost always mid-negotiations. Usually negotiations of some level go on throughout a war as well.
That's totally different from war continuing while negotiations take place. That's more like something the bad guys would do in a Game of Thrones plotline.
The US is stopping other countries from trading with Cuba and Iran. The US doesn’t have the “right” to do that, but it doesn’t need the “right”. It only needs power.
Iran has power over the Hormuz and is exerting it for what it deems is in its interest.
> Gulf States themselves will go to war over it
Maybe? But I doubt it - $1 per barrel amounts to like 1-2% of the price of oil. They may not like it but it’s not going to affect their bottom line nearly as much as closing the strait for 1 week will. A war with Iran would mean utter destruction of all oil infrastructure in the region, so probably better to pay 2% to avoid that.
The Gulf States aren’t going to pay a tax to Iran. It’s a matter of principle - can’t live as a hostage and this is the weakest that the Iranian regime has been in quite some time. Better to keep the straight closed and make it painful for everyone else too.
Yes, that’s exactly my point. any country can do whatever they want … within the limits of their powers.
What is currently stopping US/Israel from forcing Iran to open the strait of Hormuz?
I don’t believe they have the ability to take out enough of Iran’s missiles/drones to prevent Iran from exerting its control of the Strait.
> It’s a matter of principle
“ Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”
Thucydides
—Thucydides
You can't honestly attribute that quotation to Thucydides. The idea appears in his work, but he specifically attributes it to other unnamed parties. It receives this immediate response:
As we think, at any rate, it is expedient — we speak as we are obliged, since you enjoin us to let right alone and talk only of interest — that you should not destroy what is our common protection, the privilege of being allowed in danger to invoke what is fair and right, and even to profit by arguments not strictly valid if they can be got to pass current. And you are as much interested in this as any, as your fall would be a signal for the heaviest vengeance and an example for the world to meditate upon.
The arguments the Melians use against Athenians reasons for conquest end up going unheeded though - Athens conquers Melos and enslaves its inhabitants.
> I think it’s appropriate to attribute the quote to Thucydides.
Sure, just as appropriate as attributing "Somalis should go back to where they came from" to NBC.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-calls-il...
Unlike Bosporus & Suez (similar choke points in the region), there's no international arrangement for the Hormuz bottleneck, nor has Iran ratified UNCLOS ("Convention on the Law of the Sea").
so... maybe we should go back to the pirate days yarrr?
If only the comment you're replying to had included another example.
And yet they haven't gone to war (or joined in the war) to open up the SoH so far.
And folks it has been just over a month. Give it time. The Gulf States are already placing orders for military equipment from countries like Ukraine - the one that has experience fighting drones that Russia buys from… you guessed it - Iran!
US was a guarantor of peace for monarchies, but seems like not anymore