Hacker News Reader

Comment by ericmay | Hacker News Reader

Oman isn’t the only country in the region, and any country should expect their ships to sail peacefully. Last I checked it’s the US and Israel at war with Iran, not others - no justification for charging transit fees.

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.

View on HN

>and any country should expect their ships to sail peacefully

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.

They’re still not getting money from the US. Those aren’t American ships sailing through the Strait. Striking military bases is legitimate morally though Iran’s “government” should just surrender and turn themselves in, but it doesn’t provide justification for launching indiscriminate strikes against other countries.

> 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

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.

Fairly self contained is an understatement. They proved time and again over the course of the past few years that they were not only pragmatic, but also a much more rational actor than Israel and the US.

> They proved time and again over the course of the past few years that they were not only pragmatic, but also a much more rational actor than Israel and the US

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.

Who directly in this war has conducted them rationally at at all times? Did Iran drip feed missiles to Hezbollah and Yemen, perhaps. That sort of tactic was used at a much larger scale when US provided arms to Iraq against Iran in their war in the 80s. Israel attacks against it’s neighbors and caused mass refugee flows is also mostly a result of UK, US and France’s foreign policy in the early 20th century when Israel was being established. Israel funded by US of 300 billion dollars is also a kind of proxy.

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.

> Who directly in this war has conducted them rationally at at all times?

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.

> 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.

> 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.

Iran is liked about as much as the US and certainly more than Israel.

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.

> But proxies aside (which is a big aside), they were fairly self contained until we started hitting them.

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”.

Oh absolutely. But being an idiot with proxies isn't really reason to threaten total war. You go after the proxies and maybe hit ports and production facilities in Iran that arm them. Then commit to keep doing that every time the proxies act up. Nobody needs to liberate Lebanon or Yemen. And nobody needs to try and change the regime in Tehran.

>Nobody forced Iran to build all these missiles

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.

And if Sadam did, then by proxy the US did.

I mean sure the US provided intelligence, financial assistance, conventional weapons, and the ingredients for chemical weapons to Saddam for this war, but the US was also the one selling Iran missiles in response to Saddam. Though admittedly we weren't doing this to help Iran, we just needed the money to help narco terrorists.

First, look at a map. The strait is entirely contained by Omani and Iranian waters.

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.

> First, look at a map. The strait is entirely contained by Omani and Iranian waters

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.)

I am not talking about stakes; I am talking about territory.

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?

> I am talking about territory

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.

Just came back to this. In what world is Musandam mostly controlled by the UAE? Can you point this out on a map?

>"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"

Sounds exactly like the US with the exception that they prefer to kill other people, not their own.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com