Iran starts Bitcoin-backed ship insurance for Hormuz strait
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
s/n/d/6
Hilariously the USS George HW Bush had to go the long way around Africa rather than risk transiting the Bab El Mandeb after the Houthis defeated the US Navy last year.
> Hilariously the USS George HW Bush had to go the long way around Africa rather than risk transiting the Bab El Mandeb after the Houthis defeated the US Navy last year.
Valuing the lives of your crewmen and avoid terrorists is bad how? USA not wanting their soldiers to die is weak? Would you want more deaths on US side to show strength?
USA can win this war with barely any casualties, why would you not do that? And USA being able to do this with barely any losses shows tremendous strength to me, Iran was more powerful than Ukraine but USA could establish aerial superiority immediately with no losses, this is so much stronger than what Russia displayed.
Rest of the world is quite pissed with USA. But that's just emotion. Unless it gets realised into something concrete it matters little.
What do you mean by "win"? What strategic goals can the US achieve in this war? We're at a point where merely achieving status quo ante bellum--i.e., Iran doesn't charge for passage through the Strait of Hormuz--seems to require giving concessions elsewhere.
In many ways, this looks like the American version of Pearl Harbor--a stunning tactical victory that is simultaneously a crushing strategic loss.
No, there is no reality where the world will let Iran take tolls here, no matter what happens that part wont happen. The world depends too much on straits being open and toll free, if you let that slide once it will be done by others and that will break down the entire world order.
The problem with the claim of nuclear weapons program is that the dominant assessment of the intelligence communities is that Iran didn't have a nuclear weapons program at all. Khamenei the elder was known to be against having a nuclear weapons program, and the US's achievement is to replace him with his son... who is known to be in the pro-nuclear weapons program. Considering that the nuclear enrichment centers were targeted in last year's strikes, it's not even clear that the strikes this year have had a meaningful effect in even a temporary delay in enrichment progress.
At this point, I suspect that Trump never had any strategic war aims in the first place, but was instead motivated by an operational aim (regime change in Iran, à la the Venezuela operation), and has been flailing about since then because the administration simply doesn't have anyone with the capacity to actually understand the strategic reality of the situation and is substituting operational and tactical goals for strategic ones.
Let’s be realistic, this was probably about Israeli domestic politics first and US domestic politics second, and maybe thirdly as a favor to the Saudis. It’s crooks running all three countries for their own purposes and issuing BS PR cover stories.
You should watch “Wag the Dog”, a 1997 movie about a president who starts a war to distract from a sex scandal. The real goals here have nothing to do with anything Iran has ever done.
But that doesn't mean that the timing of the current war, and the choice to start it, wasn't due to Trump's desire for a distraction.
Israel have wanted to do this for over 4 decades. Netanyahu has been spreading this “we can’t let them get a bomb” rhetoric much earlier than 2015.
The point is that this recent attack, Israel approached Trump with the idea and said they are going to do it with or without him. This isn’t speculation, this is what we know.
The ship went the long way around because why risk being attacked by missiles? It's less that the US Navy "was defeated", which itself is a plainly asinine comment which only serves a purpose of trying to incite others, and more so a practical safety concern.
But if you really want to argue that the US Navy was defeated, I would submit our next step should be to utilize nuclear weapons on Yemen and destroy the Houthis. That way you can't make these claims and we'll see who really is defeating who :)
It goes without saying that many are saying it was one of the greatest naval battles of all time.
You can't block the strait if we block the strait! lmao
[1] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-oil-trade-through-t...
The major thing they have in common is not respecting American trade embargoes against themselves, which, of course they don't.
You think a dangerous man at the helm with skeletons in his closet has no effect on national security?
I don't think these concerns are separable. If it weren't for Trump, we probably would not be at war right now. Russia might be more contained by diplomacy and sanctions. If it weren't for Trump's first term, Iran might have been less threatening right now.
And, in some sense, this doesn't matter, because like you say it's the real world and it's happening regardless of why or whose fault it is. I guess I don't want to sign on, even rhetorically on the internet, to destroying this axis that is effectively being created by vile and stupid men because Trump wanted to end the Epstein news cycle.
But there is certainly no future where China is somehow a junior partner.
Iran has been pretty clear that they'll open the strait if the USA lifts the blockade. How can we complain about fair passage while maintaining a blockade ourselves?
Not even for one hundred years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_...
In any case, the cost will be passed on to the markets. Which country claims the vessel doesn't matter much.
Same for the major airports, they keep working, people keep flying to the asia, albeit in less numbers.
Yesterday Iran stuck a nuclear plant with a drone, and launched them at other targets as well. And there is news on it even...
https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-uae-nuclear-drones-71e7e5...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-u-a-e-has-been-secretly-car...
The US can also fuck with Iran by getting slight cooperation from ships in the Gulf of Oman by getting some small inflatable boats with remote control and AIS transmitters on them. Put the boat in the water next to a ship, turn of the ship's AIS, turn on the boats AIS, and send the boat through. Send hundreds of them. IRGC won't know what to shoot at or will expose their positions by firing at a rubber raft.
1. US fucks up by engaging Iran, Iran closes strait.
2. US fucks up the negotiations and fails to reopen the strait.
3. US decides to try and rescue its initial war goals, through a mutual blockade with Iran, starts sinking the very vessels it demands Iran gives passage to.
Does Mutley get a medal?
The question is not about whether the US can blockade the Hormuz Strait but who gets blamed for the blockade. Iran is messaging that it is making serious attempts to reopen the strait, while China and Russia are probably reinforcing the message. When people around the world suffer from the consequences of the blockade, they are more likely to blame America for their troubles. Or at least that's what Iran is trying to achieve.
And cryptocurrency should be even better for deniability. In reality it would be a really good idea for certain governments that rely heavily on Middle Eastern oil (e.g. Philippines) to pay fees in the short term. More than a month ago the Philippines was already claiming to have "safe and preferential access", if that involves money they'll pay it. (https://www.rappler.com/business/philippine-flagged-ships-sa...)
A toxic mix of staggering arrogance, moral bankruptcy, a lack of strategic thinking, non-existing historical awareness and a desperate need to divert attention because of the Epstein files.
Try debating a MAGA supporter. The stupidity is astounding.
For Americans, not bombing something in Asia at least every couple of months is considered an isolationist tendency. And of course Central and South America don't even count, that's our "back yard" after all.
> The stupidity is astounding.
They "released the files" and handed out binders of Epstein documents to influencers. There was a ton of posting as though something monumental had happened. They were entirely comprised pre-existing publicly released information.
That's how much the admin respects the intelligence of its base and that's how much its loudest supporters think things through.
This is not true. This is in fact straightforwardly false.
There was an initial release of "binders" to known rightwing influencers in a choreographed photo event. It was a predominantly bullshit release that pissed off the conspiratorial wing of MAGA and the Epstein Republicans (Massie et al). This happened in early 2025.
The blowback from this event resulted in Congress passing the Epstein Transparency Act in Nov. 2025.
The biggest dump of files came after this (tho congressmen are claiming most files are still unreleased) , which is what you might be referring to.
But feel free to argue your point either way.
The truth will come out eventually. When the US finally realizes how cringe their awful leader is. Like when you finally realize how your friends thought about your partner after the breakup.
Do you not think horrible behaviors should be highlighted/called out/brought up? Or just that US leadership Epstein connections should be?
> Do you not think horrible behaviors should be highlighted/called out/brought up? Or just that US leadership Epstein connections should be?
If non-sequiturs are your best argument, then yes, you you have nothing to contribute by participating in good-faith speculation. Iranian child marriages do not reframe the "Tail that Wags the Dog" scenario in Washington. It's textbook whataboutism that you failed to elevate into meaningful commentary, making you look suspiciously disengaged.
Paul Graham is saying you should not call people you are in a discussion with names. If I called OP names your link would fit. Calling out a horrific regime that murders their people and rents out children under the sanction of their religious leaders is not that.
Calling the person you are in a discussion with names = bad. Call the subject of the discussion bad, when they legitimately are horrific, is normal discussion. Trump is awful. The Islamic Republic is awful. Both of those are normal and acceptable things to state in a discussion. You DeadFred are a <xyz negative statement>, not normal or acceptable.
However Hacker New's ACTUAL guidelines state reguarding comments "Converse curiously; don't cross-examine." which your post seems to explicitly violate. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Only if you don't care to read past bullet point 1. If you had cared enough to read at least one paragraph further, you would have found:
> DH1. Ad Hominem.
> An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. [..] It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though
From the article on ad homimen "Saying that an author lacks" again, I never went after the other posters here (until later in this reply in order to productively highlight points brought up by others). PGs article is about responding to posts and how speak civilly (the posters here being 'the author' he is referring to). I see quite a few posts replying to me speaking to me specifically contrary to the entire point of the PG article. For example "Only if you don't care to read past bullet point 1. If you had cared enough to read" of your own post.
But to your point, the original comment by spiderfarmer that I responded to initially must really trigger your 'ad hominem attack' concerns:
" the moronic US, their feeble leader as well as their utterly corrupt and incompetent politicians. A toxic mix of staggering arrogance, moral bankruptcy, a lack of strategic thinking, non-existing historical awareness and a desperate need to divert attention because of the Epstein files.
Try debating a MAGA supporter. The stupidity is astounding."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48199184 "The same UN that Pedophile Trump denounced as a "feckless institution"" - tremon
> DH1. Ad Hominem.
> An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. [..] It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though
Though this use appears to also being used as name calling in addition to just being used as an ad hominem.
>DH0. Name-calling.
>This is the lowest form of disagreement
Though again PG was specifically referring to situations where people within a discussion use this sort of discourse aimed at other people in the discussion whom they disagree with.
The question of "why would you post this" still hangs high above your comment. It mostly seems like you're concerned about the optics of this conflict and not any of the real-world consequences.
Israel too to be fair "They're 15, Married With Children: Inside an Israeli Hasidic Cult's Code of Silence" (the gov and the population knows it, but it's ok) : https://archive.is/v9Amc#selection-699.0-699.83
That said allowing child brides is horrific, I agree. Especially when it seems to be accepted by the highest levels of a religion or even worse when it's practiced by a religions leaders.
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/tens-of-thousands-of-pedop...
https://apnews.com/article/israel-gaza-war-palestinians-pris...
I agreed it is immoral when such actions occur, and is especially immoral/heinous when religious groups/religious figures are involved in sanctifying/justifying child marriage. I think we both agree a religious group looses it's legitimacy when it engages in defending such behavior just because it was/is done by the religious groups members/leaders and the they claim 'it's actually ok because...' trying to justify such horrific behavior.
The closest I come is in trying to understand Israel's relevance to my point and the discussion. There are many many countries that can and should be called out, but they aren't relevant to a discussion about Trump/Epstein/Iran. "I'm not seeing where they rent out their children via temporarily marriages as the Shia mullahs in Iran have given religious sanction/approval/doctrine of or like the similar behaviors highlighted in the Epstein files. Can you help me find that bit that relates to what I was speaking to?"
Israel is not a non-sequitur in the discussion of the Epstein files or attacks on Iranian leadership.
Its secondary blockade of the Strait seems to be driven by optics and PR rather than strategic value.
Now Iran is demanding money in exchange for the uranium which is the primary roadblock.
These are power plays to signal that world dominance is not decaying but in case of Iran it has backfired and pushes China’s narrative as a pillar of stability.
Saddam played the same game where they pretended they just wanted nuclear for energy, even though they were a petrol state... which is why in 1981 Iran helped bomb Iraq's reactors (where Iran teamed up with Israel to do so) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
If Iran didn't believe Iraq's peaceful nuclear intentions, I'm not sure why anyone would believe Iran then buying tons of uranium from Russia was any different. Not to mention building underground lairs to enrich it while also building ICBMs.
The JCPOA obviated the need for a nuke. It was a reasonable assumption that the US would honor its side of the agreement under the doctrine of continuity. Even in hindsight, you cannot have productive diplomacy without good faith
Iran really had no need for a nuke in the first place if they weren't constantly provoking the entire region, unless that need is destroying Israel.
> Even in hindsight, you cannot have productive diplomacy without good faith
Iran never really negotiates in good faith either, the JCPOA didn't really do anything at all to restrict their ballistic missile program and terrorist proxies.
I think Israel and probably the US interpreted this tactic as Iran stalling until they Iran had the technology to build a nuclear ICBM.
It's funny how he tore up a nuclear arms embargo / agreement and then acted as though they (Iran) were a threat that couldn't be tolerated.
Common saying: "They sell us the sickness and then sell us the cure."
How does one not see a problem with terrorists(i.e. the Islamic regime in Iran) getting nuclear weapons?
There are no "Israeli terrorists" in control of Israel's nuclear weapons, the government of Israel is certainly not controlled by terrorists like the Iranian government is.
Israel also does not have a policy of destroying Iran, while Iran does have a clear policy of destroying Israel[0].
There's a clear difference in their ideologies as well, the Islamic government of Iran clearly believes in dangerous ideologies like Martyrdom and Jihad(holy war), organizations with these sort of ideological beliefs should never be allowed to have nuclear weapons because typical deterrence strategies like mutually assured destruction are unlikely to be effective.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Israel_in_Irani...
Also, are you just patently unaware? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel
Also you didn't state why Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons.
There is certainly no genocide in Gaza, the destruction is clearly the end result of a war started by Hamas. In fact Hamas did have genocidal intent in their attacks on Oct 7th but did not have the military capability to carry out that intent. Israel on the other hand clearly has that military capability but not the intent.
> Cite your sources when you define terrorism, please.
There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism. Obviously that cause problems. [0]
> Also, are you just patently unaware? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel
It's a vague expression without a clear definition.
[0] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-49238-9_...
You said there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism. So let me use the official definition from the United States government.
The US State Department definition under 22 USC 2656f(d) defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents." [1]
The US domestic terrorism statute under 18 USC 2331(5) defines it as activities that "appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population." [2]
You say there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism, then said nothing to explain how you applied the term with such confidence to the Iranian government in your original post. By your own admission, you invoked a contested label selectively against one state while exempting another. That is a political preference dressed up as a principled argument, not anything of rigorous analysis.
Now apply that to Gaza. The same UN Commission found that Israel deliberately targeted civilians, deliberately destroyed healthcare and education infrastructure, imposed starvation conditions, and directly targeted children. That is premeditated. It is politically motivated. It is violence against noncombatants. By the U.S. government's definition, it fits.
On Greater Israel, calling it "vague" does not explain away the fact that sitting members of the current Israeli government have explicitly stated their intent to annex Palestinian territory.
Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said at a Jerusalem Day rally four days ago: "The time has come to finally erase the lines that separate Areas A, B, and C. The entire Land of Israel is ours." He also declared the war "must end with the expansion of the borders of the State of Israel" and called on Netanyahu to order the IDF to prepare for "full occupation of the Gaza Strip" and establish Israeli settlements there. [3]
National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir stated from the Temple Mount: "Conquer all of Gaza, declare sovereignty over the entire Strip, eliminate every Hamas member, and encourage voluntary emigration. This is the only way." [4]
These are not fringe backbenchers. These are cabinet ministers in the current Israeli government. This is declared policy, not a vague expression.
You still have not answered why Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons.
[0] https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/israel-has-c... [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2656f [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-11... [3] https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-896309 [4] https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/on-temple-mount...
The UN(which is itself a party that has perpetuated the conflict through mismanagement of the UNRWA) has essentially zero credibility in regard to anything involving Israel[0].
> You say there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism, then said nothing to explain how you applied the term with such confidence to the Iranian government in your original post.
The Iranian government is engaged in both direct and indirect terrorism throughout the region by virtually all commonly used definitions including the ones you listed. They have directly attacked virtually all countries in the region. They are driven by dangerous ideologies of Martyrdom and Jihad.
> The same UN Commission found that Israel deliberately targeted civilians, deliberately destroyed healthcare and education infrastructure, imposed starvation conditions, and directly targeted children. That is premeditated. It is politically motivated. It is violence against noncombatants. By the U.S. government's definition, it fits.
A highly biased UN commission claiming something doesn't actually make it true.[1] Israel does not have a policy of deliberately targeting civilians, although in a war there is often collateral damage. This is why properly analyzing intent is so important.
> These are not fringe backbenchers. These are cabinet ministers in the current Israeli government. This is declared policy, not a vague expression.
Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich are highly unpopular in Israel and have been largely excluded from making war related decisions, Israel has a parliamentary system of government which makes it easier for extremists to get elected than in a system of government like the United States, their statements should certainly not be taken as official Israeli government policy.
> You still have not answered why Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons.
Legally they are not a party to the NPT[2]. From a practical standpoint they are a small country facing existential threats to their existence so it's not surprising they would want to have nuclear weapons as a deterrence.
[0] https://unwatch.org/pillay-commission/
[1] https://unwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/UN-Watch-Rebu...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferatio...
Then why were they enriching uranium to levels well above what is needed for civilian purposes? You simply don't do that unless you intend to make nuclear weapons at some point.
> Iran had made it a fatwa against the Islamic law to develop such weapons and Obama had referenced that.
Iran obviously has the ability to lie, and regularly does so.
Looking on Wikipedia for NYT controversies it has them saying killing Palestinians may be bad and saying sex change ops for kids may be bad which don't seem especially terrible positions.
Tell that to Iran's former parliamentary deputy speaker who said 'When we began our nuclear activity, our goal was indeed to build a bomb. There is no need to beat around the bush.'[1]
[1] https://www.dailymail.com/sciencetech/article-15732615/iran-...
Iran funds terrorism and conflict that impacts nearly every Muslim country around them and also in US, europe, canada, australia etc
If you want to build a bomb for sovereignty's sake, don't become an international pariah that openly and explicitly attacks wealthier and democratic world powers while you're doing it.
Iran's has demonstrated some of the worst strategic planning over the past two decades. Their economic planning has been just as bad
Why you'd want to play this 'tough guy' game in the era of the Internet is wholly beyond me. You have a fantastically well outfitted military that in the absence of diplomacy stands a really good chance at getting us all killed.
Jingoism is a mind poison.
They probably won't.
Guess who lost more?
And sadly, $6 gas will collapse the U.S. Navy’s will and effort in weeks.
Given modern computer consumer hardware, I don’t see why they couldn’t even have built implosion lens based fission devices without testing. DPRK would probably provide them with all the data they needed for the simulations.
Iran has been a few weeks from having a few bombs for the last 30 years because they decided not to build it.
Which, when you think about it, shows that the 'Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb' argument for this war is not exactly the true motivation (not to say that the US and Israel really don't want them to have a bomb).
This war is about trashing Iran. Adding it to the string of other failed states in the area. It would be more honest for Trump and Netanyahu to say that the motivation for this war is to ensure that Iran becomes a state that is incapable of developing the bomb (i.e. a failed and fractured, or weak and compliant).
On the other hand, I'm not exactly sure why Iran doesn't give up all its nuclear capabilities. It would cost them nothing except pride, and would remove any excuse from the table for the US and Israel for their aggression and sanctions.
Or, for that matter, Ukraine giving up its nuclear capabilities.
Israel doesn't have much in the way of a credible defense against Iranians advanced hypersonic missiles. Iran could create a mess in Israel by obliterating their de-salinization installations. If they were the blood thirsty fanatics propaganda paints them to be, that would be exactly what they would do, even knowing that in that case Israel wouldn't have much choice than making Tehran a giant glass parking lot.
When the US violates the law of the sea in the South America, why not. Everybody complains but understands.
1) no one owns the strait, Iran has never owned it, its international waters.
2) Who says they keep it at $2 million? Due to the location they could say anything and people would pay it, that would have a massive impact in worlds economy. And any plans to bypass the strait would get heavy attention from Iran and their friends - because no one wants to lose their cash cow.
3) if Iran is allowed to do that, everyone starts to do that - you think oil is expansive now? Good luck when every country with similar bottlenecks nearby starts their tolls. Again, these are international waters.
As for the US breaking law of the sea in South America, I assume you mean blowing up boats? Has anyone proven that they have been civilians and that they have lied about the targets?
Much cheaper than participating in another endless war.
Yes, this may mean an end to international orders and more countries will take opportunities to charge tolls. But the US-led world order is fading away anyway no matter what.
The least worst option.
Let's see first if this ends as an endless war - although you could make the argument that there has been a "war" between those two nations for about 47 years, which yes seems like an endless war :/
> The least worst option.
Personally I disagree with that conclusion.
The rest of the world has another option. No outcome is good, but it's at least better than being dragged into this pointless war.
"However, the strait is governed by international law under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This grants international vessels and aircraft the right of transit passage, meaning coastal states cannot suspend this movement, provided ships transit continuously and expeditiously for the sole purpose of normal travel."
Which makes the blockade and asking for tolls illegal under the international law, though pretty sure most countries do not care about international law at all.
Very bold to use the UN as a source to defend US' actions. The same UN that Pedophile Trump denounced as a "feckless institution"?
US doesn't own the middle east either, yet it routinely acts like it does.
If they hadn't been tricked by Israel to attack Iran, none of this would've happened.
(not relevant question)
The United States is not legally allowed to use "shoot-to-kill" force or launch deadly military strikes on drug-trafficking boats in international waters. '
The Baseline Rule: Lethal force is restricted to self-defense or the defense of others if the suspects present an immediate threat of death or serious physical harm.
Disabling Fire: To stop a fleeing boat, law enforcement is permitted to use "disabling fire" (such as firing at the engines or using boat-trapping nets), but they must explicitly minimize the risk of injury or death to the crew. Carrying illegal narcotics alone does not carry a death penalty, nor does it justify lethal force.
The US has killed over 160 people illegally using airstrikes. so far.
What happens at that point? Can shipping companies manage to pay both US and Iran? Will companies and nations complain to the international court, and will UN step in and prevent either side from doing this? As noted the US did this already in south America and nothing happened, and Iran has already started extracting a toll.
I would not work on a ship going anywhere near that area, and I wonder if investors are that willing to put money on that kind of venture. That leaves nations that are dependent on exports to put military personal on ships (like what Russia is doing), but will that be enough to discourage either US or Iran?
They do that already. US destroyers have shot round into the engine room of many Iranian oil tankers. Iranian oil is not getting trough.
The baffling part of this is that nearly everyone was aware that Iran could close the straight if pressed hard enough. The fact that this outcome is surprising represents a very loud and public failure on the administration's part.
Also the Strait of Hormuz is an international strait not international waters. The entire strait lies within Iranian and Omani waters. Frankly it's a bit absurd to complain that your ships can't transit a country's waters while you bomb them.
Yes
> (and the world)
No
If it was just USA and Israel and Nato even then you'd see a ton of ships go through and the world wouldn't be very affected, since almost all ships that go through the strait are not Nato aligned.
The issue is they block all non-Iranian ships, not just American ships. Basically nobody would have complained if they only blocked American ships.
https://iranwire.com/en/news/152407-30-ships-passed-through-...
They likely didn't pay to move their goods through the strait.
You don't pay money to terrorists to make them not bomb your stuff, you eliminate the terrorists, otherwise you get more terrorists.
Everything is either what you hold by force, or have a friend who holds it by force for you.
There are now similar asymmetries emerging across war-fighting and even though warships can still be effective (and less vulnerable) in other scenarios, this specific one seems especially bad. The other factor is that most of what ships carry through the straight isn't going directly to the U.S. so the impact on the U.S. is mostly secondary, reducing the risk the U.S. is willing to take. Of course, all this was known beforehand by military strategists which makes this all look even worse for the U.S. administration.
Still the most powerful navy in the world, but spread increasingly thin (turns out "the whole world" is quite a big place).
This is no longer Reagan's (almost) 600 ship navy, and projecting power halfway round the world is no mean feat when your opponent can lob missiles and drones at you from their back garden
They don’t have enough ships to simultaneously attack Iran, defend US bases and their gulf “allies” and also enforce this blockade, so they’re forced to pick and choose and it is constraining them strategically.
Having twice as many ships wouldn’t solve the fundamental problem (they’re fairly screwed either way at this point), but it would give them more optionality
It's not the billion-dollar warships that transport oil, it's the much more fragile and unarmed tankers.
Even if the US Navy begins full escort duty, it can't remain on-station forever. What are shippers to do afterwards? One drone strike might cause a tanker to have a very bad day, yet it's extremely difficult to so permanently degrade an entire country that they become incapable of launching sporadic attacks.
Ultimately, the status of the Strait must be settled diplomatically, and the US and Iran are each betting that the other side will blink first.
The US began to patrol the strait with Destroyers and immediately stopped when the scared Saudis immediately realized that Iran was about to attack Saudi oil rigs.
--------
Iran has too many targets and the only thing that can stop them is the equivalent to an Israeli Iron Dome across the entirety of the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE, maybe more.
Wasn't Iron Dome coverage deteriorating due to low munitions? The cost asymmetry between drones and interceptors makes any drawn-out conflicts mutually punishing - unless someone on the future decides to gamble on another decapitation strike. The Iron Dome is great against improvised pipe-rockets, but less effective against ballistic missile salvos.
Another key issue is Iran's regional neighbors haven't invested significantly enough becoming credible military threats against Iran. Instead they tried to play an in-between game of being tacit frenemies because Iran and its proxies could be politically useful. But in the last 3 years, Iran lost most of its proxies through a series of catastrophic miscalculations, dramatically shifting regional dynamics. Iran now has less reason to cooperate regionally and its neighbors lack of credible offense is costing them dearly.
A contributing factor is that the direct customers for much of what passes through the strait are Western European countries who've failed to sustain any real naval power beyond ceremonial presence. In recent years, the U.S. Navy had to quietly ask the German navy to stay away from the Western Indian ocean due to the additional burden of guaranteeing the safety of the German "warships" if they were attacked by Somali pirates.
However, it can be simultaneously true that most countries in Western Europe and many in the Middle East have under-invested in their military readiness for so long, they've lost the ability to secure their own strategic interests. You're right to be annoyed other countries provoked a regional bully for their own misguided reasons. While Trump is our problem, relying on a bully like Iran not being a bully against the EU's global interests is Europe's problem.
Unfortunately, we live in a world of super powers including Russia, China and, yes, even the U.S. who at best have their own strategic interests which may not always align with yours and at worst will take from you whatever you can't defend. If you can't secure your own economic interests militarily, there will eventually be steep costs. Even if your own country carefully tiptoes around bullies for fear of provoking them, you can still be trampled under the feet of other countries fighting for stupid reasons which have nothing to do with you.
Note: I say this as an American who likes our European allies and who thinks Trump has been an idiot on almost everything. Even back when Trump was just a bad reality TV host, I could see the U.S. should stop trying to be "World Police." It was never going to be sustainable over decades and it was distorting the behavior of other countries, both enemies and allies. Since the end of the cold war the U.S. has subtly harmed our allies by enabling some of them to under-invest in their own military readiness.
The real problem is that there are too few such vessels to sustain convoy escort operations. Each destroyer can only provide area air defense for a handful of merchant vessels, and they can only stay on station for a few days at a time before they have to cycle out to refuel, rearm, and conduct critical maintenance. Some of the key munitions also appear to running low. And it appears that the other Gulf states are refusing to allow use of their facilities over fears of Iranian retaliation.
Other countries generally aren't really in a position to assist as part of a coalition either. They either don't have sufficiently capable warships at all, or lack the logistics train to sustain them in the Persian Gulf / Gulf of Oman region. After the Cold War a lot of countries like the UK and Germany essentially dismantled their navies so that they now exist only as government jobs programs.
Stop laughing for a minute because I do have a point.
As a software engineer, I typically build something and engineer it so I can iterate quickly and improve it. I know that the first version won't work.
Isn't this a perfect opportunity for Iran to iterate on sinking cargo ships? I'm struggling to believe that a regime that is (allegedly) weeks away from a nuclear bomb wouldn't be able to keep launching missiles at ships until they notice the right type of hole.
And, think of the apprenticeship opportunities.
Houthis closed their straight some years ago and US wasn’t able to do anything about that neither. And Houthis are nowhere near as capable as Iran.
US gambled on decapitation strike and failed.
You also have a lot more tries with cheap drones since the target is lower value, so you have hundreds of data points on how each iteration performs vs hitting a naval ship which is an extremely rare event, so it's hard to see whether your iteration on a rocket actually succeeded.
And large merchant ships, especially crude oil tankers, and quite tough to sink. When they take a hit it usually just causes some damage.
While there are religious, cultural and political aspects to this, the Iranian govt has primarily become a kleptocracy in recent years. It sustains power through the Revolutionary Guard (aka IRGC) which has grown into what's essentially a state-run, money-making commercial enterprise. It collaborates and colludes with various entities across the Iranian economy which it controls either directly or via bribes and coercion. While reasonable people can debate what the recent attacks on Iran accomplished, they certainly nerfed a large part of the IRGC's income. The new Hormuz extortion scheme isn't just retaliation or vengeance, it's replacing lost income which is urgently needed to prop up the Iranian government.
That's because the US has kept the surface combatants far back from the Persian Gulf for the duration of the war.
As far as we know, they have attempted to run the strait twice and had to turn back because they were under sustained attack.
I assume these ships can defend themselves for some period of time, but eventually the munitions run out, and they become sitting ducks. There is a reason the US Navy fled the Persian Gulf on Feb 26 and has not returned since.
Two US Arleigh Burke Class Destroyers transited Hormuz a couple of weeks ago without damage and are still there last I heard. The Iranians were really upset, but couldn't do anything to stop it.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2-us-navy-destroyers-transit-st...
Ships need a robust, sustained ceasefire.
The extreme narrowness of the strait right next to so much enemy-controlled shoreline is a unique problem. All of the destroyers and frigates from all the world's navies combined couldn't sustain protecting the massive number of merchant vessels wishing to transit the Strait of Hormuz on a daily basis.
The second crossing was conformed to be such an escort mission. They shot down everything Iran threw at them, but the cost assymetry still holds.
> All of the destroyers and frigates from all the world's navies combined couldn't sustain protecting the massive number of merchant vessels wishing to transit the Strait of Hormuz on a daily basis.
My point exactly: the argument that the "US Navy isn't as large as it used to be" is moot
Compare this to Iraq wars I and II. In Desert Storm, the US and its allies operated a half dozen carrier groups and hundreds of ships in the gulf.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/hc34dk/map_of_all_...
In Gulf War II, the US had three carrier groups inside the gulf. In between wars, the US fifth fleet was unchallenged in those waters, with its headquarters at the massive naval complex in Bahrain.
In the last 4 months, they have completely evacuated the gulf. They have attempted to run the strait twice and left immediately. The naval base has been severely damaged, and their long range radars destroyed. Even if the radars were somehow restored, it is unclear they would have the munitions to defend their fleet or bases for longer than a few days/weeks.
It is impossible to overstate what a strategic disaster this has been for the US military. In their wildest dreams, Iran couldn't have imagined this situation unfolding the way it did.
The UK's NHS is not why it's not taking part in this mess.
I believe the equation is a bit more complex than that.
(And health care sounds like a way more useful thing to fund, than the capability to wage war around the globe)
Maybe the US needs to learn that lesson, too? Right now all the US with all its might achieved is blocking a former free flowing transit.
Other countries are not volunteering to help prosecute more attacks on Iran, because they are already victims of those attacks, and it's bad enough that the USA and israel aren't even apologizing for hurting them, much less paying for the damages.
Thus, the offer to "help patrol the strait" once the USA and israel stop attacking is meant to persuade the USA and israel to stop attacking, not an indication of support for the USA and israel's attacks. Indeed, most countries do not support the USA and israel's attacks on Iran, were totally okay with the status quo, and would have preferred if the USA and israel had not attacked Iran.
This does seem to be true of israel, but as for the USA, it does not, hence the USA limiting their attacks.
> If other countries are going to make themselves dependent on fossil fuels from the Persian Gulf region then they'll either have to secure their own sea lines of communication or accept that supplies are unreliable.
This sort of rhetoric is why other countries do not support the USA and israel: the other countries already did that, then the USA and israel came and attacked those supply lines, thus attacking those countries.
It strikes me as gaslighting abuser language to attack someone else, then blame it on them for not protecting themselves better. It's better for the attackers to acknowledge their mistakes, apologize for them, and pay restitution.
It may mean that we'll have to pay tolls everywhere, but that's still better and cheaper than getting f*ked by the US now and then.
Nowhere near as much as the American extortion costs.
How is their support, or lack thereof, irrelevant to our discussion that is literally about whether they support the war? Here is a reminder of the topic, from the post you replied to:
> Assisting the US with regard to Iran is phenomenally unpopular. The increase in energy prices isn't outweighing people's desire not to have their country assist.
That poster and I are just explaining how things work. Seems like you might agree with us here? Indeed, since most other countries do not support the war, their ability to act is irrelevant.
Am I? No, I don't think so: Whether they support the war or not is literally the topic of discussion, so by definition it can't be irrelevant to the discussion.
> support doesn't count for anything
Whether or not you feel "support doesn't count for anything" is irrelevant to the discussion of whether the support is there in the first place.
It's also sour grapes: the USA tried to gain the support of other countries, and because it failed, the support it failed to get is suddenly "irrelevant". Lol. It sure wasn't irrelevant when the USA was begging and threatening countries to help them.
That's without taking into account other things like high grade helium or specific niche products.
The us does export more refined products than it imports but it’s highly dependent on crude imports for it’s significant refining capacity.
By the US not being reliant on imports I was saying that even with just local crude oil production the US can satisfy internal demand for petroleum products.
My wider point is that of course everyone knows that that's not how the economy really works and I was replying to nradov oversimplifying by pointing out that if it was that simple US petrol prices wouldn't have gone up as much as they did. Because even though it's only a few countries with specific refineries that are actually reliant on the straight being open to get their specific required flavour of crude it's everyone in the refined markets that are actually effected by the supply of that crude because it effects the supply those refined products.
Short of a nuclear strike (which isn’t on the cards thankfully) nothing short of a ceasefire can get shipping moving again. Sending more warships doesn’t help with that.
So it’s not just that helping Trump would be incredibly unpopular at home - there’s also no guarantee the huge expense would lower energy bills at all.
Yes, I know ww2 comparisons are tired but honestly the Lebensraum explanation makes more sense than what trump has said publicly, so here we are...
https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/news/breaking-news/w...
Back in WWII you could sail your navy up a river and expect positive results. In the 21st century, the idea of attacking an enemy-held strait with navy doesn't work
Even worse. They don't need to attack _warships_. They can just attack civilian vessels, especially tanker ships, that don't have any defenses.
A hit on a tanker and the subsequent oil spill would be catastrophic.
a rudimentary calculation then gives the probability of hitting (not sinking) the ship as 0.1^N per launched missile; so it seems that given enough budget to spend on independently developed missile interception systems allows to drive down the penetration success rate arbitrarily.
Multi-billion sounds like $ 10^10; so assuming an attacker can launch say a million missile attempts then the statistical loss would be 0.1^N * 10^10 * 10^6; so the statistical loss can be driven down arbitrarily say to $ 1 by developing ~ 16 independent interception systems.
16 independently developed intercept systems doesn't sound like unobtainium for a vested nuclear power.
furthermore, the development cost of 16 independent intercept systems can be amortized over many more installations than a single ship, it can be amortized over multiple ships, multiple bases, multiple strategic assets across the globe.
Unless your interceptor system is unobtainium laser system with unobtainium cooling system, backed-up by unobtainium power source, you are going to run out of interceptor missiles (or even Phalanx bullets) way sooner than 'million missile attempts'.
Quite possibly 100-200 Shaheds + half a dozen proper anti-ship missiles will cause you to turn tail.
there are so many options from coil guns, to lasers, to jammers, to non-nuclear EMP's, ... that don't involve the caricature of a million dollar missile intercepting it.
And the Ukraine war has demonstrated the issues with jammers.
The last time this happened the US opened the strait by accidentally shooting down an Iranian passenger plane after sinking a large chunk of Iranian navy. The Iranians assumed the US shoot the passenger plane down on intentionally as a war crime and assumed the US would was planning to escalate the conflict. This fear deterred further Iranian attacks on tankers.
This isn't going to work this time because the US started the war by performing of the most serious escalations possible, a decapitation strike against top Iranian leadership in a surprise attack using a diplomatic negotiation as cover. The US did this while the strait was open and Iran was considering a peace deal.
Threats of escalation are no longer effective at deterring Iran because Iran now believes the US will take such actions regardless of what Iran does. What does Iranian leadership have to lose by staying the course? Very little. On the other hand if Iranian leadership back down, they loose all their leverage, they look weak internally, they look weak externally and the US might decide to attack them out of the blue again.
This is why decapitation strikes are generally not done. They remove options and they undermine deterrence and paint belligerents into a corner.
You don't think autocrats have a strong incentive to not die?
But anyway, once they are dead, your option to target them is gone.
What does Iran still have to lose? Well, a lot. All their oil is exported through the strait that is now blockaded by the US. The regime while having survived so far and executing thousands of people is still vulnerable over the long term. Leaders can still be hit and potentially the penetrations that led to the success of the initial strikes is still there. Iran's energy sector which is what the regime needs to maintain control (pay salaries etc.) has still not been hit. Other strategic targets that are dual use have also still not been hit.
Iran is never going to capitulate, until it capitulates. Their rhetoric is going to remain that the US has no more levers and can't change anything, because admitting otherwise invites those levers to be engaged. There is some truth to certain individuals likely willing to pay a large price but it's far from clear how deep and wide that extends and what is the tipping point. It is possible that Iran can withstand an oil blockade and even a resumption of air strikes for a very long time but it's also possible they can't. I can't tell and I doubt many people can. There are analysts and various experts with all sorts of opinions.
EDIT: Some of you may remember the Iraqi rhetoric before the US invasion. Then when the US attacked Iraq it crumbled like a paper tiger. The US lost 139 people or so (the coalition lost a bit more) to take Iraq and the Iraqi army largely surrendered or ran away. Assad's huge army with tanks and fighter jets, supported by Russia, collapsed from a bunch of ragtag ex-ISIS guys on Toyotas. The Iranian regime is a lot weaker than what you'd think by listening to them talk because any projection of weakness is the end of them. Ofcourse the US Iraqi invasion ended up very badly after this tactical success and that's the actual problem. Defeating Iran on the battlefield - not so much.
Iran was considering a peace deal. I agree that the most plausible was they would reject it.
> What does Iran still have to lose? Well, a lot.
The US could do this, sure, but then Iran would have even less to lose. This might work if the US started small and threatened escalation to try to compel Iran, but the US started at massive escalation so any additional airstrikes are likely to be less escalatory and thus less of a threat.
Even worse, there is a fundamental problem with madman theory, if Iran believes they are dealing with a madman, then threats aren't effective because a mad man doesn't keep promises. If you think your opponent is not rational, then you should not expect them to follow cause and effect.
> Iran is never going to capitulate, until it capitulates. Their rhetoric is going to remain that the US has no more levers and can't change anything, because admitting otherwise invites those levers to be engaged.
I agree that we don't know exactly how much pressure is on Iran. Iran historically has been willing to suffer almost any cost. During the Iran Iraq war then sent enormous numbers of teenagers in human wave attacks over and over. It is my estimation that the current war with the US has helped to stabilize the Iranian government and that they benefit more from the war continuing than from a peace deal.
The only military lever the US has left on the table is an invasion of Iran. Maybe limited to the coastline or maybe complete regime change. Trump has not even attempted to bluff that he is doing this.
Iran does not think they are dealing with a madman. I don't believe for a second that they think that if all the demands made of them are met someone will harm them just for the fun of it. The maximalists demands. The problem is those maximalists demands run against everything this regime stands for. Not that those demands are bad for the Iranian people, they're actually good. What is true (and it's not a question of madman theory) is that the US and Israel will absolutely take some concessions and be willing to delay dealing with the rest of the problems. That is not irrational. That is 100% rational. And ofcourse the Iranians knows this as well. What the US and Israel want is a stop to the proxy wars, a stop to long range missiles, a stop to the nuclear program and a stop to "exporting the revolution". No workarounds or funny business.
I think the regime is very weak. Conditions in Iran are worse and a population that already wanted them gone now wants them even more gone. Their boisterous rhetoric is a sign of weakness that westerners misinterpret. The more they sound threatening and winning the more they are losing.
The "enemy of my enemy" concept suggests that even if the people hate their government, their immediate pain is being caused by the United States and Israel, so I'm less confident about that.
> Iran does not think they are dealing with a madman.
Iran does think they are dealing with a mad man, or at least a government practicing a policy (as the US administration's apologists have termed it) "intentional volatility".
A far more interesting issue here is the oil supplies available in the Pacific. Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Australia, and others are all ramping up production capacity. Non-OPEC oil production is increasing generally in response. This is likely to undermine the Middle East's ability recovery from current constraints as non-OPEC players gain clout in the markets.
Right now people are talking about China and California have limited supplies. But those are enormous, powerful entities that are deploying multi-pronged strategies to secure energy resources. Look at what they're doing and bet there. You also see developing countries retooling to support less oil-intensive economies, like increasing work-from-home options. Solar and wind are currently feeling weak without their subsidies but are exhibiting staying power as people look to move off more petroleum-dependent energy resources.
As for the tactical issue, the concept people seem to be trying to get at is "cost-per-kill". That needs to come down. Yes, we can kill drones with supersonic interceptors. But spending $6M to shoot down a $6K drone has terrible long-term economics.
We're going to agree to disagree. I know this is what "people" are saying about the US. But it's not what Iran thinks and it's not what the US is actually doing. This is what Iran wants you to think, as it weakens the US, and what it's going to say. Are you saying that the US will go to war with Iran if all the demands I listed were fully and transparently met? A by the way there is that Europe and Canada (e.g.) also don't think the US administration is "mad". Everyone is playing their little geopolitical and local political games.
I also doubt Iranians think their immediate pains are caused by the US and Israel. Some might but most don't.
I agree with you the energy crisis aspect is overblown (I think that's what you're saying). Supply increases in other places and alternative power sources can displace some usage- certainly over time. The other thing that's going to happen are more strait bypassing pipelines.
EDIT: So the problem isn't mad people or rationality. The problem now, as before, is simply that the Iranian regime is religiously and ideologically unable to give in. Giving in will likely result in their fall even if they were able to give in. This is what's driving the main dynamics here. It's not Iranian negotiation tactics or the US supposed not negotiating in good faith or being "mad". The "mad man" are those that believe that Iran is interested in giving in on its exporting the revolution and the destruction of Israel.
I think you need to provide some evidence for your claim. The US had a deal with Iran. A madman ripped up that deal, started a war with a decapitation strike, and is now attempting to negotiate a deal we already had before we spent billions of dollars killing school kids. The “People” you dismiss includes scholars, strategists, experts on international relations.
You could possibly explain trumps behavior as rational if you believe he is trying to avoid getting arrested for pedophilia, but that doesn’t build trust. In any case, the issue of competence comes up. Even if you could trust the person who renamed the Defense department to the War department, that person simply isn’t competent.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-kept-his...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/world/middleeast/trump-ir...
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/trump-...
Many including Trump have long said the deal was a terrible deal. You can disagree with that (and you'd be wrong) but I'm not sure how we get from that to your statements.
Enough evidence? What sort of evidence are you looking for? Can you provide evidence for your claims?
EDIT: Also can you prove that we are looking to get the "same deal" we used to have?
The JCPOA was set to expire on 18 October 2025 after which Iran would not have any limits on pursuing their nuclear program. Are you suggesting the US is seeking a deal now that Iran would pause their nuclear program until 2025? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal#Expiration
EDIT2: The JCPOA:
- Kept the Iranian regime in power with massive capital influx resulting in horrendous human rights abuse and 10's of thousands of deaths.
- Was being violate by the Iranians. Iran had nuclear sites at Turquzabad, Varamin, and Marivan, which they hid from the IAEA (something that was discovered after Israel stole documents about the Iranian nuclear program). Iran hasn't declared those sites and generally refused access to them for years after the fact. When the sites were eventually inspected years later (in 2020) there was evidence of undeclared nuclear material. https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1164291#:~:text=Iran%20...
- Was time bound and didn't address many other issues.
- Trump said he would withdraw from the agreement. That was his election promise. Trump also said on multiple occasions (and in fact it had been US policy forever) that Iran would never be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
Any rational person adding would agree that the US attack on Iran is in line with its long standing policy. They would also agree that Iran had no other reason for the amount of highly enriched Uranium they amassed other than the manufacturing of nuclear weapons. So I'm not seeing the irrationality here. Ofcourse if your position is that Iran should have nuclear weapons, should oppress their people, and should use proxies to attack others then from your perspective this is an unwelcome development. It's still rational though.
Sure, clearly not a madman if he tells you he's going to do it first. o_O
Whether or not actual mental deficiency is involved here is irrelevant; the strategy is the same whether performed intentionally or otherwise. Unfortunately, its track record is dismal in both cases.
Is Trump really trying to appear to the Iranians as being irrational here as a negotiation strategy? Is he saying "don't mess with me I'm crazy"? I would counter that he is aggressive and rational. He is saying I am willing to use force and he uses force. His use of force feels fairly rational within the stated goals of forcing Iran to give up their nuclear weapon program (as a minimum short term objective) with maximalists goals of either replacing the regime or removing their offensive capabilities.
If this is irrational, what does a rational use of force look like? Do we agree that without the use of force Iran wouldn't give up their nuclear weapons program? What is true is that the use of force has consequences and of course it would be better to accomplish your objectives without the use of force. Why can't we all get along sort of thing. But Trump (and not just him, many people around him) believe there is no path that doesn't involve the use of force. They tried a bit before and they seem to be trying now before using even more force. I happen to agree there was no path that doesn't involve the use of force and likely more force is going to be needed. The Iranian "we can't agree because we don't trust the US" is an obvious lie aimed at those who oppose US policy (both in the US and out of the US".
All that said, there is still a question of whether the US is willing to use enough force over a long enough duration to accomplish its goals. If the end result is force use, price paid, and a nuclear Iran with long range ballistic missiles, then it's a pretty bad outcome. This is the outcome many are pushing for.
EDIT: In terms of the Iranian lies. If they are saying we can't agree to "suspend our nuclear program for 10 years" because the US and Israel will promise not to attack us and then they will - they are absolutely right. The US and Israel will attack them. That's not a "trust" or rationality issue. We know the Iranians won't keep this agreement because they haven't kept any agreement. We know they won't allow the IAEA random inspections of any site and even if they did they're capable of hiding their activities. The problem is they are not sincere. If they were sincere they would offer and keep the conditions that ensure that they will not be attacked. If they actually suspend their nuclear program (doubtful) and instead build 100k conventional ballistic missiles that's a threat to Israel that is equal to the nuclear threat. And so ofcourse they would be attacked. For them not be attacked they need to actually give up on the religious/ideological ideas and they can't. You might say this is a very opinionated take but it's backed by evidence and with what Iran says on these topics.
It also doesn't work very well then either.
FWIW, I'm not arguing for either. I think it's pretty obvious this is 100% market manipulation and consequences be damned. In that light, this approach is working very well, just not towards an end that benefits most of us.
No one knows but the Iranian leadership. The Iranian leadership has been famously bad at modeling the intentions and motivations of other nations leaderships. A bolt of the blue decapitation strike, followed by the US having plan if Iran closes the straits which is the obvious response by Iran, does at face value appear to be the work of a madman. Now in the US we might conclude that Trump and Hegseth are just wildly incompetent and unprepared, but it seems likely to me that Iranian leadership see irrationality instead of incompetence.
Likewise the closing of the strait was no surprise. These sort of scenarios are planned for and there is zero doubt the closing of the strait was a scenario considered by the US and Israel military planners.
Not a ton we can say other than that. Maybe the US and Israel thought the blow would be so hard the regime would crumble. Maybe they thought Iran wouldn't dare. Maybe they thought that if Iran closed the strait they'd be able to reopen it by force. Indeed this could be where over-confidence, or incompetence, or inexperience, comes in on the US side. It's also that one can never fully predict how things would develop. There could have been over-optimism and under-estimation of the Iranians ability to withstand the air campaign or to effectively close the strait.
All that said, both sides are rationally pursuing their interests. Iran's regime wants to survive and it wants to keep building missiles and nuclear weapons and expand it's religious and political influence. The US and Israel want to put a stop to this before Iran has an arsenal of nuclear weapons mounted on long range ballistic missiles. Both sides will do their best to not tell you what they think or what their plans are (and the Iranians are definitely much better at this than the current US admin).
> I think americans have the false belief that US is some of kind of benevolent force acting for the good of the world and promoting freedom and democracy.
A state can still make mistakes without saying it is good in everyway
The first and second event are undeniably different than the third in at least one crucial respect, the third was never even claimed to be unintentional by anyone involved - while the first two were repeatedly claimed to be unintentional by everyone involved. Of course, that doesn't prove they were unintentional but not even mentioning the accused's claims of innocence as you assert guilt does prove you're not presenting the comparison honestly.
> I think americans have the false belief that US is some of kind of benevolent force acting for the good of the world and promoting freedom and democracy.
I haven't thought that since I was a teenager, quite awhile ago. At certain points in history the U.S. did sometimes promote the cause of freedom and democracy but it was usually when doing so also aligned with U.S. strategic interests. A notable example was Radio Free Europe (aka Radio Liberty) started in 1950. The U.S. wisely realized the best counter to internal propaganda and totalitarian repression was just telling the truth, so RFERL was (almost always) genuinely unbiased, helpful for the cause of freedom AND good for U.S. strategic interests.
It's also worth mentioning that the Nagasaki bombing is often used as a case study on the ethics of war. They use it as a case study because, once I understood the full historical context of the war and what the U.S. side knew at the time, the decision to drop the A-bomb wasn't as clear-cut as I'd always thought. After spending four weeks on it in an advanced ethics class, my eventual assessment changed from absolute certainty to feeling the Hiroshima bomb was probably reasonably justified but that the Nagasaki bomb was not. The class started out 100% opposed to both but after four weeks was nearly evenly split on Nagasaki.
In the full context I'm kind of surprised there was any kind of split twixt the two given the full context that both H & N were on a very long target list being systematically worked through and both were destined to be destroyed and effectively levelled regardless of whether untrialled prototype nuclear weapons were tested on those cities or not.
As were 72 other cities (including Tokyo) prior to either H or N being touched.
ie. In the full ethical context the deeper question is really about programs of total war / total destruction rather than the edge case of using two targets as test sites for novel weapons.
I'll note that it appears as if the events were framed to your class as two events predestined to have an excessive impact that deserved pause and consideration rather than as (in the context of contemporary events) two orthogonal weapon designs being field tested and squeezed into an already ongoing, months in the execution, campaign of systematic destruction of urban areas one after the other.
Eg: Was it stressed that had the Nagasaki bomb not been dropped the city would still have been destroyed to the same degree via heavy explosives and incendiaries?
The allies had good reason to believe much of the Japanese population would fight block by block without a formal surrender by the Emperor and the Japanese ambassador had privately conveyed that the Japanese high-command would die in honor before surrendering in shame (which he sincerely believed). This was supported by the number of kamikaze pilots which seemed endless and continued to shock U.S. commanders.
That's not something that's ever been in contention, it's very much the reason that was put forward to justify the ongoing and (relative to A-bomb) cheaper conventional weapons HE-I bombing missions.
Hence my pointing toward that bombing program as the real root of inspection re: ethics.
The nuclear program (put into motion by the Allied MAUD committee) was intended for the German theatre and after consuming vast resources was left hanging when Germany surrendered prior to the Trinity device test .. the argument to test the two weapon designs was (at that time) very much a zero friction zero consideration kind of thing that dovetailed into the existing targeting lists.
Worth bearing in mind that either or both weapon devices may very easily have failed in the field.
My interest in that event lies with it being a prime example of something that just flowed into happening at the time and was later retconned into being some kind of deeply considered a priori known to be significant and pivotal event.
Being a little pedantic, as per my knowledge, the Strait of Hormuz is not “international waters”. It’s territorial waters belonging to Iran and Oman. AFAIK, Iran hasn’t ratified UNCLOS either, and claims it is not subject to it.
> In 1959, Iran altered the legal status of the strait by expanding its territorial sea to 12 nmi (22 km) and declaring it would recognize only transit by innocent passage through the newly expanded area. In 1972, Oman also expanded its territorial sea to 12 nmi (22 km) by decree. Thus, by 1972, the Strait of Hormuz was completely "closed" by the combined territorial waters of Iran and Oman.
Claiming it does not make it so.
However, I believe Oman also collects fees. So in practice the distinction wrt shipping is moot
> Ok, so just de facto iranian.
No, the route is entirely outside of Iranian waters. They attacked ships that were in Oman waters and put mines in Oman waters and now shoot at anyone trying to removing those mines in Oman waters. Nobody, not even the Iranian government, claims that is their water.
https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-V...
Which isn't unique. Bunch of countries haven't ratified it and aren't legally bound by it but do follow it in spirit. US, Turkey, UAE, Israel etc.
But US law is not international law. Internationally you are at war, whatever you call it internally doesn't matter to me.
The trick is that it's still an 'international strait', or a segment of water that forms the only connection between two areas of high seas -- in this case the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. The principle of freedom of navigation establishes that innocent traffic (civilian traffic, and even warships in peacetime) have a right to use the strait to go from one body of international water to the other.
Iran may claim that it doesn't have to abide by that right, but international law is never self-executing. One question to be resolved by this war is whether Iran will ultimately recognize the right to navigation in any settlement (and then choose to abide by said settlement).
But when talking about international law in this instance, America started the aggression, which was a breach of International Law itself, so why should Iran abide by it?
They are shooting down neutral tankers outside of their territorial water, so stop with the bullshit. If they only shot ships in their own waters traffic in Hormuz would already have returned to normal.
> the idea that western powers would scrupulously adhere to international mores if subjected to a full-on kinetic attack by another nation state is absurd on its face.
We know they are, we have Ukraine as an example they don't start attacking neutral nations civilian vessels just because Russia attacked them. Only evil regimes do that, you don't "defend yourself" by committing terrorism against innocent neutral country ships that aren't shipping anything related to the country you are fighting.
There is no reason at all for Iran to start shooting ad Indian ships just because USA attacked Iran, no western nation would defend themselves that way, many western nations has been attacked and conquered in history so we know how they act.
> evil GMAFB, the US launched this war in a joint effort with Israel and smoked a school full of children on the very first day. Iran is pursuing its strategic interests by exploiting its geography and inflicting pain on countries on the other side of the Persian gulf who chose to ally themselves with the US and allow the US to bases from which to launch war.
As with other recent trade wars, the value of this kind of behavior goes down when other nations start to retaliate. A ship might be able to pay the insurance from Iran, but can they afford to pay the same fee for each time they pass some other nations territorial waters? At some point the US blockade won't matter and the profitability of the venture will be zero.
"freedom of navigation" seems to be from UNCLUS no? So why should a country (Iran) that didn't ratify UNCLUS care about the terms it binds it's signatories to?
1 - US oil and gas companies make money as oil proces rise. The US is the largest producer in the world.
2 - China loses it's major source of oil and gas.
3 - Iran gets neutralized. It may not look like it now, but it will probably end up that way.
Otherwise, 1) and 2) are true, Europe is bleeding through the nose with buying US oil and depending on its current antagonist, not smart long term situation that we need to move away asap.
Somebody in US government is making literal billions on shorts and various trade deals just before major announcements keep happening, those are not that hard to see in markets. Current top public bet on this is trumps family and his close coworkers, and their families. If you ever want a witch hunt on traitors and collaborators against US citizens and society, smart up, forget Wall street and just follow those money very directly to culprits.
Just a massive strategic blunder, one for the history books.
Any minor damage to China is tiny compared to the strategic loss America has undergone here
For one, this would be the end of the Petrodollar and with it the ability to have huge trade deficits siphoning more than 1 trillion in goods and services from the rest of the world in exchange for fancy green paper.
Its a win for me laughing at Americans spending more on oil based products.
>China loses it's major source of oil and gas.
Its like 12% of Chinas Oil. China is 90% of Irans oil market. I think people get this around the wrong way.
>Iran gets neutralized. It may not look like it now, but it will probably end up that way.
Why is death and economic destruction a good thing? Like 99.99999% of these effects are worn by iranian citizens, not their government.
From the writings at the time 'Muslim sources, however, sometimes refer to the "Islamic naval jihad"—casting the conflicts as part of a sacred mission of war under Allah'
These Islamic pirate/slavers are the SPECIFIC pirates that "The Barbary threat led directly to the United States founding the United States Navy in March 1794.". These are the specific type of pirates that the US Navy was founded to combat to protect ships being seized and their crews sold into slavery.
Pirates are many things, maybe even criminals under international law, but terrorists they are certainly not.
$300/launcher here: https://www.un.org/depts/los/nippon/unnff_programme_home/fel...
A decade ago it wasn't terrorist groups funding them.
Not if they seize a cargo ship it isn't. Criminals can afford the tools to commit crimes by using those tools to commit crimes.
"I have no evidence, but I can't think of other scenarios so it must be true!"
But seriously, if they were being funded by other groups, why pirate in the first place?
1. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Reagan_s...
I think it's much more likely it's just easy money and is relatively cheap to pull off.
Piracy has to be the canonical example of criminals under international law...
In a sense, this is the defeat of the US by bin Laden - it's been a steady slide until the trump cliff since then.
https://www.ft.com/content/eabadd1a-a712-4b44-99bf-bb50eb753...
All of the advisors in the room with Trump (Cheung, Caine, etc.) told him explicitly after the meeting with Netanyahu that attacking Iran was a horrible idea. His military advisors told him that Strait closure was the most obvious consequence.
The root cause here, is that all decisions are being made by a single biological neural network with a really high error rate, which is increasing.
The first star was intense civilian unrest, the months leading up to the strikes was marked by riots and protests.
The second star was the meeting of Iran's top brass in one spot at one time, both of which Israel knew about.
It was almost certainly sold to Trump as a domino event, where the US would blow the head off and the people of Iran would ravage the body. On paper it looks clean, and certainly he was riding on a high after the swift coup in Venezuela.
Of course though, that did not happen, and now he had to go to China to beg under a thin veil for them to pressure Iran to back off. Trump rolled a critical failure on what appeared to be a moderate-low risk attempt.
It looks like it appeared that way to Trump. But you make it sound like it appeared that way to most people. As one of those "most people", I can say that's wrong. The reaction of most people was "WTF is Trump thinking?".
It's been clear he's not the sharpest tool in the shed for a while. But he should be surrounded by very bright people for are able to provide frank and fearless advice. Looks like he fired most of those people, and whats left have been cowered into sycophants.
The chaos and stupidity narrative only mask and sustain the far grimmer reality of this operation.
Can you elucidate?
Talk of the chaos and stupidity of Trump just obfuscates this grim political reality. Ie, focusing the narrative on political and operational incompetency misdirects the citizenry from the fact that money from their labor that could go to healthcare, education, and building community is diverted to an aggressive foreign entity.
Is it? Depending on how far back into "prior administrations" you go, the modern US Navy is a shadow of itself.
Using conventional weapons only, what prior year's US Navy could beat the 2026 US Navy in combat?
It's fair to say the British navy is a shadow of the former British navy that more or less conquered the world. It's also obvious the current one with an aircraft carrier would beat the former one with wooden ships and cannons.
The same applies to the US navy even when the difference is the quality and quantity of integrated circuits and not the difference between a telescope and radar.
From most perspectives (civilian, political, financial), the "better" military is the one that wins. Your'e arguing that a navy can be a shadow of its former glory and still also be what is understood as "better" by most people. This doesn't make sense.
phil21 makes a relevant point that navies are used for different purposes, and the current US Navy is tuned for a different task than that which it currently faces in the Gulf.
It's probably even more powerful than peak cold war/WWII US Navy at force projection while adjusting for technology and adversary capability. Cruise missiles, much more capable aircraft, larger carriers, etc.
At securing the high seas or forcing open trade routes? Just the sheer loss in number of deployable warships available to surge into an area is nowhere comparable. That and logistical capability is nearly nonexistent and relies mostly on nearby basing vs. tankering/supply ships. Not to mention a much larger Merchant Marine they used to be able to fall back on.
There simply is not the ability for sustained operations at sea at any scale any longer, even if you had unlimited munitions to expend. You can certainly float a couple aircraft carriers 700 miles off some coast and keep them on station more or less indefinitely as you rotate them out, but that's really about it. And that's really the only sort of war the US Navy has had to fight for the past 30+ years.
It's not that I think any of these things are wise, but this is part of the risk calculus you make when you decide to wage war. It's more like a debate: if you don't have a plan for uncomfortable questions you're a poor debater. The US has the physical means to prevent the closure, but I think it's quite clear that this administration ignored known risks and acted recklessly. And more importantly, apparently had very little contingency planning if things didn't go their way.
The world already knew.
The real strength of the prior admins was in simply not needing the military force. The 2015 Iran nuclear deal is a relevant example here. It didn't cost the US anything.
This claim is not supported by evidence. The "best" we can say about the regime is that it persists. So far.
If the US military fails to keep international waters open, that harms everyone, and everyone more so than the United States. There's this continued misunderstanding that America did this or that, or securing global shipping is for America to do, or what have you. But you can't have your cake and eat it too here. If you accept American hegemony of the seas and the associated benefits, you have to also accept American action in places like Iran. It's a package deal - you get both or neither. There seems to be a misunderstanding about that, I hope it's a little more clear now.
> It would be quite stunning Iran defeated the united states in this sense.
To this second point, the US can just keep the Strait closed. No big deal. It isn't really possible for Iran to forcibly win here because while the US has higher gas prices, we're the #1 oil and gas market and we can stomach the pain much longer less you get complaints from MAGA/far-left anti-American types. Iran would simply watch their entire economy collapse, while Americans are paying a couple bucks more for cheeseburgers and milkshakes.
But the perspective that the US would be defeated is the incorrect one. In fact, what would be defeated here is that very American-led world order. For the US to be defeated here, as so many seem to rejoice at the prospect of, you would also lose American naval power and security, and instead each and every country would have to spend a lot more human capital and treasure to secure their own shipping and trade arrangements, because there would be no America to come help and save the day. No more NATO. No more caring about Taiwan or Ukraine (remember Iran helps Russians kill Ukrainians?) or getting involved in expeditionary affairs. You can not separate these things. Iran happens for the same reason NATO happens. The world will be much more transactional - pay to play and a global American security tax. A scenario like the one in Iran, in which a genocidal dictatorship that is all to happy to steal tribute from weaker nations simply becomes the norm, if not simply more common, and the EU or China or whoever can deal with it.
So I'd say, be careful to join other isolationists and smugly cheer for the US to "lose" to Iran, and in which case you can expect much worse as the US says "forget it" and only seeks to protect its own vital interests without regard to the rest of the world - the Trumpian and far left view which is a marriage of convenience.
When was the last time they actually did that?
> 'because there would be no America to come help and save the day'
No more American meddling would result in much saner and safer world. Wherever they stick their fingers, the instability and wars ensue.
> pay to play and a global American security tax That's the current world.
Imagination land.
>No more American meddling would result in much saner and safer world. Wherever they stick their fingers, the instability and wars ensue.
We need the USA to defend us against the results of the USA defending us.
Forcing Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, load up on missiles and drones and then use them to attack Gulf neighbors, destabilize Lebanon, Syria, or Iraq, or fund terrorists as recognized by both the United States and European Union (Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis).
Forcing North Korea to murder and starve its citizens and deprive them of medicine, food, and access to education and more. Nor is it forcing North Korea to go send Korean soldiers to die for Putin's war in Ukraine.
Speaking of - the US isn't forcing Russia to invade and murder Ukrainians.
The US didn't force Maduro to come to power and create a humanitarian crises in Venezuela resulting in 1/3rd of the population fleeing as refugees, nor did the US force their economy to be mismanaged for the enrichment of Maduro and his cronies.
The US isn't forcing China to threaten Taiwan.
There are plenty of other things. But without the US, China invades Taiwan, Ukraine falls (don't forget, it was the English and Americans who were flying in weapons and other equipment round-the-clock while Europe was having meetings to decide what to meet about), Iran obtains a nuclear weapon and seizes the Strait permanently or at least kicks off a nuclear arms race in the Gulf, and thugs like Maduro continue to kill and impoverish people throughout South America.
It is actually. Iran can see that their only viable path to stability is nuclear deterrence. This attack makes it more obvious.
>North Korea to murder and starve its citizens and deprive them of medicine, food, and access to education and more
No murder and starvation are US domestic policies.
>The US didn't force Maduro to come to power and create a humanitarian crises in Venezuela resulting in 1/3rd of the population fleeing as refugees, nor did the US force their economy to be mismanaged for the enrichment of Maduro and his cronies.
How far down into non sequitur are you at this point.
Only in the sense that the US has forgotten its a participant in trade. But that seems to be pretty standard at this point.
>There's this continued misunderstanding that America did this or that, or securing global shipping is for America to do, or what have you.
I honestly would be happy if the world implemented the total blockade on the US that it seems to desperately imagine would be the best outcome for its own economy. Like some giant north korea. Seal the US shut and watch its economy explode with amazing mercantilist economic forces.
It would be nice if they hadn't stuck their dick in this particular bee hive. Its not that we collectively expect the US to secure shipping, but that we would be happy if the US didn't take actions seemingly calculated to make life worse for everyone else on the planet.
>So I'd say, be careful to join other isolationists and smugly cheer for the US to "lose" to Iran, and in which case you can expect much worse as the US says "forget it" and only seeks to protect its own vital interests
I am just waiting for the EU\UK\AU to get its shit together and clean up Trumps mess, so we can move to the point where the global order works without the US. The US didn't provide these services just for the fun of it, its largely just a soft power move, to engender the willing support of other nations. We can and will have successful global trade without the USA. And we can and hopefully will just let the empire rot and seethe from behind its own closed borders.
>Iran would simply watch their entire economy collapse, while Americans are paying a couple bucks more for cheeseburgers and milkshakes.
Iran's economy wasn't exactly in the best position before this. I wouldn't underestimate them. At least not again.
>But the perspective that the US would be defeated is the incorrect one
The US losing decades of work on shoring up willing support and soft power is a massive defeat. And it comes off the back of several other similar losses. It used to be the case that a lot of the planet put "America first" but that's becoming an untenable position. Trump has successfully turned worldwide public opinion against the US. Its electoral suicide in a lot of countries to give in to his nonsense. Every ounce of good will towards the US bought since WW2 has been spent.
>No more caring about Taiwan or Ukraine
Not like a lot of this has been going on. Looks like France is supplying 2/3rds of Ukraines intelligence. Actually the reverse is true here. If the US wants to retain some shred of its predominant position, it needs to get stuck in. Otherwise honestly we will just manage without you.
>remember Iran helps Russians kill Ukrainians?
There's been US weapons in basically every war zone going back decades. ISIS loved Humvees. The US is helping Israelis kill a lot of people right now. If Israel doesn't have a plane capable of delivering the US ordnance, the US will step in to provide it. I don't think this is a glass house that any supporter of the US should be throwing rocks in. Heck I think the US bombed those F 14 Tomcats you supplied to Iran in the opening strikes of this war. "But but the arms sales" he cries as he sells arms to war criminals. This is exactly why the US developed soft power, so that it could say that certain arms sales were illegal and have people reliably agree with them. Those credits have been spent. Its crazy to me that you would expect people to treat you with the respect that you have demonstrated you don't deserve.
>you can expect much worse as the US says "forget it" and only seeks to protect its own vital interests without regard to the rest of the world
Literally current US foreign policy. Why warn people that what is currently happening, might happen? Only slight correction is that the US sees Israels interests as its own vital interests, or can be reliably fooled into doing so at everyone else's expense.
The US already has a navy and already can and will protect US shipping interests (which may include allies or other entities). What will the rest of the world do?
> It would be nice if they hadn't stuck their dick in this particular bee hive. It's not that we collectively expect the US to secure shipping, but that we would be happy if the US didn't take actions seemingly calculated to make life worse for everyone else on the planet.
You don't expect the US to secure shipping but the rest of the world does. Don't mistake your fantasies (let's blockade the US? Are you American? Do you hate yourself that much?) for what the rest of the world thinks.
> I am just waiting for the EU\UK\AU to get its shit together and clean up Trumps mess, so we can move to the point where the global order works without the US.
Not going to happen. More likely the UK and Australia will join the US. The European Union just is not capable politically to solve or address these sorts of problems. Does Germany even have a navy? What will France do, park their one aircraft carrier outside of some random country and yell very loudly? There's no will or ability to do these things.
And for what it's worth, I admire the EU in a lot of respects and love visiting various countries in Europe. Everyone is incredibly nice and happy to talk to Americans.
But while I'm being harsh here, it's the truth. Europe has no will or ability to do things that need to be done militarily. You cannot diplomatically solve every problem. Iran will be happy to meet you, sell you a story, then go build a nuclear weapon and seize the Strait and laugh at the stupid Europeans behind their backs. This is how they operate.
> The US didn't provide these services just for the fun of it, it's largely just a soft power move, to engender the willing support of other nations. We can and will have successful global trade without the USA. And we can and hopefully will just let the empire rot and seethe from behind its own closed borders.
It's a soft power and hard power move. You won't have successful trade without the USA - please stop these immature fantasies. They're not healthy for you.
> Iran's economy wasn't exactly in the best position before this.
Yes, and you can think the Ayatollah and IRGC for that. Instead of spending money on their people they spend them on missiles for no reason. But the oil trade is a lifeline for their economy. The blockade is working pretty well and now Iran is flailing around trying hare-brained schemes like trying to get ships to pay Bitcoin to get permission to pass through the Strait that the US has blockaded.
> I wouldn't underestimate them. At least not again.
We haven't underestimated them.
> The US losing decades of work on shoring up willing support and soft power is a massive defeat. And it comes off the back of several other similar losses. It used to be the case that a lot of the planet put "America first" but that's becoming an untenable position. Trump has successfully turned worldwide public opinion against the US. It's electoral suicide in a lot of countries to give in to his nonsense. Every ounce of good will towards the US bought since WW2 has been spent.
If it was so cheaply lost it wasn't worth much in the first place.
> Not like a lot of this has been going on. Looks like France is supplying 2/3rds of Ukraines intelligence. Actually the reverse is true here. If the US wants to retain some shred of its predominant position, it needs to get stuck in. Otherwise honestly we will just manage without you.
Ok if you'll manage without us I say we just stop altogether and lift sanctions on Russia. We can withdraw from NATO and move American forces from Europe. If that's what you want, of course. (It's not)
Oh and how conveniently you forget the US and UK were the ones actually delivering missiles and intelligence and more to Ukraine at the early stages of the war. The US even today is bombing Iran and taking out drone manufacturing capabilities so they can't supply Russia who turns around and bombs Ukrainians.
> There's been US weapons in basically every war zone going back decades.
You're so ready to defend Iran/Russia that you're twisting in circles saying the US didn't bomb Iran enough, and the US is also bad because we left some light trucks in Iraq, and coming to the moral defense of Iran building drones to sell to Russia to kill Ukrainians because US bad. You know European countries, China, and Russia and more sell weapons too, right?
> Only slight correction is that the US sees Israels interests as its own vital interests, or can be reliably fooled into doing so at everyone else's expense.
Maybe the US and Israel are just right and you're wrong. I certainly think so too.
What they currently do. There arent US armed escorts everywhere.
>You don't expect the US to secure shipping but the rest of the world does.
No they dont.
>More likely the UK and Australia will join the US.
They have already signed up to Frances plan. https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/statements/2026-05-13/de...
And rejected Trumps.
>You won't have successful trade without the USA - please stop these immature fantasies. They're not healthy for you.
Actually your ability for fantasy far outstretches anyone elses.
>We haven't underestimated them.
Now you are just telling jokes.
>If it was so cheaply lost it wasn't worth much in the first place.
Its been degrading for the last decade. It didnt disappear yesterday. It took more than a single administration of threatening and attempting to humiliate allies before you lost it all.
>Ok if you'll manage without us I say we just stop altogether and lift sanctions on Russia.
Ok bye.
>The US even today is bombing Iran and taking out drone manufacturing capabilities so they can't supply Russia who turns around and bombs Ukrainians.
I love how these retrospective justifications turn up when the original ones are completely destroyed.
1000 times as many US weapons are in hands of people dangerous to the world.
>You're so ready to defend Iran/Russia that you're twisting in circles saying the US didn't bomb Iran enough, and the US is also bad because we left some light trucks in Iraq, and coming to the moral defense of Iran building drones to sell to Russia to kill Ukrainians because US bad. You know European countries, China, and Russia and more sell weapons too, right?
No you just cant read.
>Maybe the US and Israel are just right and you're wrong. I certainly think so too.
Yes its clear you have gorged yourself on their propaganda.
You can reuse this line for most of things this administration has been doing.
More to the point, Iran has been preparing for war with the US for decades. The US prepared for _this_ war with Iran for a couple of weeks.
That's a little unfair, it would be more accurate to say that the US has war gamed the region for decades and had a good grasp of the pitfalls and requirements, and then to add that the current US administration ignored all that prior work and insight and simply blundered in on a whim.
What the US did was show it would make life uncomfortable for those who challenged the liberal trade order and politically-and-economically offer benefits for those who embraced this order.
What Trump has done is just attack Iran (during negotiations) with no real counter-offer. Iran has responded by attacking everything in sight because nothing was being offered by the US.
Clearly the result is indeed a serious failure on the part of the Trump administration but it's a failure that seems to come from not even understanding that "Pax Americana" has depended on the carrot and the stick.
That is the modus operandi of this administration.
All tactics, no strategy.
> The fact that this outcome is surprising represents a very loud and public failure on the administration's part.
You can't teach stupid!! The coward, sleepy, dementia ridden, pretentious commander-in-chief declared victory over Iran the next day after starting the war.
The US is now exporting more oil than it has in a decade.
Why can none of these supposedly smart people see this plan?
Trump thought it would go exactly as Venezuela and has no idea how to fix it. They tried to kill enough of Iran's leadership to get to somebody that would be subservient but it turns out nobody is left alive in Iran that is.
This only strengthens USA's oil sector and ideally we all know the perils of dutch disease. The weakening of every other american export for a dieing industry is not strengthing it.
Our Glorious Leader :: Their Wicked Despot
Our Great Religion :: Their Primitive Superstition
Our Noble Populace :: Their Backward Savages
Our Heroic Adventurers :: Their Brutish Invaders
Our Legal Embargo :: Their Illegal Blockade
Our Noble Boycott and Divestment :: Their Savage Blockade
Though to be fair, there is currently an actual oil blockade run by the USA. And the previous embargo imposed sanctions on international entities dealing with Cuba, so it was not exactly 100% open even though technically you could sail there.
E.g. about 2 weeks ago Russian tanker arrived to port Matanzas, Cuba (again this is searchable data). It didn't fight it's way though American cordons, it just arrived. Embargo can hit a trader's wallet hard, but it's still not a blockade.
I'm not aware of the details, but i was under the impression that an actual blockade is going on? That's at least what many media are claiming, as summarized in this wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Cuban_crisis
Do you have any resources explaining how that russian tanker would not be an isolated case but a symptom of widespread incorrect reporting on the issue? Or is the truth somewhere in the middle, that the USA would let through a tanker or two just to keep the pressure high but not explosive?
This completely ignores the MAD era and the Soviets taking over Eastern Europe by force. It also ignores the Korean war stalemate, the Vietnam war loss, as well the most recent Afghan loss.
Post-Soviet disintegration management, the successful integration of Eastern Europe, China, and India into the Western Bloc ways were genuine wins. That's post-1989, not post-ww2 (yes, I realize technically that's post-ww2). So there was not really a world-wide dependency between WW2 and 1989 on the American military. Western Bloc, yes, world-wide no.
The current stalemate is only a surprise to the unaware and folks listening only to American news channels. Before the beginning of the current conflict, even $20 chatgpt provided enough insight to accurately chart the course of the conflict in probabilities. Even without chatgpt, folks keeping track and keeping an eye on real news and past policy decisions and progress were able to predict that Ukraine had a very good chance of stopping Russia in its tracks.
The trouble isn't with the availability of this data, it's hubris. Time and time again. Caesar. Napoleon. Hitler. Korea. Johnson in Vietnam. Soviets in Afghanistan. US in Afghanistan. Ukraine. Iran.
But hubris exists because sometimes it works, and for quite some time. Genghis Khan. Pax Romana. Soviets in Eastern Europe. US in Western Europe. Europeans in the Americas. Russians in Eastern Asia. Europeans in Asia and Africa. Palestine. Tibet.
Why it works, and why it doesn't, is an active research topic. [1]
Analysts paid to predict the future will of course argue this vehemently from their pet PoV. And the decision-makers are too domain-challenged to know whom to believe*. They didn't have chatgpt :-)
[1] https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/phillips-payson-obr...
* Or they just don't care
A huge part of the reason sovereign nations built navies was to fight piracy. It’s not really true that waters were open historically.
The framing in general of “Japan only took military action and the US sank to attacking civilians” is wrong too. Take a look at what Japan did to the Chinese during that time period if you think they were only attacking military targets.
Japan also invaded an Alaskan island. https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2010/06/07/the-japanese-...
> Are you saying USA cared about the Chinese?
I’m saying it was not beneath Japan to commit horrific atrocities on civilians. You can’t pretend they were some high moral actor that was only performing a military action to defend themselves.
World war 2 was the war of 3 different evil ideologies, you had the fascists vs the communists vs the imperialist England and France. The war ended with both the Imperialists and the Fascists defeated so European imperialism ended there, England and France had to give up their colonies.
If not for USA likely Europe would still have colonies and just be as imperialist as they used to be, same with Japan. USA might not be as good as these defeated imperialists, but it was still USA that ended the age of European imperialism that was so much worse than anything USA has done since ww2.
(I'm a European)
“The American navy closed international waters.” Not in the Pearl Harbor context. Before Pearl Harbor the U.S. was not conducting a naval blockade of Japan that closed international waters. The U.S. cut off Japan from US oil in July 1941. That is not the same thing as the U.S. Navy closing the Pacific.
“The USA blockade was the reason Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.” False. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because it wanted to neutralize the U.S. Pacific Fleet while Japan seized the "Southern Resource Area”, especially oil-rich East Indies, Malaya and other regions in the pacific. The U.S. oil embargo might have played a small factor, but that wasn't a US-only thing; various countries were increasingly unwilling to sell oil and other resources to Nazi-aligned Japan while they were attempting to conquer China and most of the Southeast Pacific.
The United States formed our Navy because of Islamic Pirate/Slavers causing a lack of open waters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_corsairs
"The Barbary threat led directly to the United States founding the United States Navy in March 1794."
We weren't defeated in a attempt to "keep Hormuz open". Hormuz closed because we we started an entirely unrelated war. And lost. There's a difference!
problem is when your Commander in Chief is a Idiot In Chief who wants to surround himself with "YES" men.
actual solid pragmatic advice won't be listened to - i.e that Iran is a millennial empire with asymmetrical advantages.
if you have no strategy to counter that asymmetrical strategy - then don't fight the war.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1448330470095627
Thank you for letting me in!
Sol Roth
PS:
Hope you like the décor. I’m redecorating your thoughts permanently.
The problem is that Israel bombed their entire leadership structure and there's seemingly nobody to deal with now. It's fragmented between people who want to make deals, people who can even facilitate any kinds of agreement and the radicals who simply want the world to burn and will throw any human in the way to die for that end.
We can absolutely continue destroying their capacity to do things, but the terrorists do not care about their own people or the world. They will use human shields and continue seeking nuclear weapons. They do not value human life or rules. This is why they can never have a nuclear weapon.
At the same time, showing the vulnerabilities in getting oil from that region means China is now buying more oil in USD and even directly from the US via the Pacific which helps further deter World War 3. In the case that something did still happen as part of a global strategy by China, Iran no longer exists as a lever that can be pulled to expand the chaos of a war with the aim of further diffusing the US military away from the Pacific.
If we wanted to fully end this mess, we would probably have to send the military in on the ground, which nobody wants except Iran. They are extremists in general and willing to die over this nuclear issue.
Barring that, we've largely neutered their capacity to make war and reorganized oil trade further in favor of the US. We will have to wait to see if Iran's leadership structure sorts itself out and they come to the table. Until then, if Iran wants to prevent their neighbors from benefiting from international shipping, Iran can be denied that too. Countries are developing workarounds to rely less on the strait, so the longer Iran sticks with this strategy the weaker it will get over the years.
It's popular to say the US lost this or the US lost that and it's a ridiculous country, but it's usually some kind of political gymnastics or financial judgement as it pertains to cost vs benefit. We always lose fewer soldiers and generally come out of it better than if we hadn't done anything at all. We almost always go into something for many more reasons than are publicly stated. A lot of the benefits of intervening in Iran seem to be paying off right now.
Sometimes doing the right thing is unpopular, but you should still do it.
It's the US and Israel that are the "terrorists" and yet both have nuclear weapons. You literally say yourself that we can "continue destroying their capacity to do things", and like your definition of terrorists, the US/Israel are using us (US citizens) as human shields.
No they don't, that is ridiculous. In what way could US citizens take collateral damage in this war? They aren't in harms way at all. You could argue they use Israeli and Arab civilians as human shields since they are the ones taking the attacks, but not American ones. And even for the Arabs that has US bases there are no girl schools inside those US bases like Iran puts in theirs. (the girl school was inside the walls of an irgc base, probably an old repurposed house)
Why did Saudi Arabia attack Yemen? For fun? No, they were reacting to Iran-backed terrorist groups. Why did Iraq attack Iran, for fun? No, even back then they were reacting to Iran exporting their terrorism to Iraq.
Their strategy has been to try to look innocent by avoiding direct attacks from Iran and have diplomats that pretend Iran is a nice actor on the international stage, while using their country as a stable foundation for exporting terrorism. This isn't exclusively a strategy for achieving state power, it is a religious imperative to achieve a radical vision of global Islam.
The US has worked with the Middle East for many years to settle on some kind of peace after thousands of years of conflict (which was also the case for Europe). There can never be peace as long as Iran manufactures conflict regularly.
When the US does things, there is usually a strong and valuable logic behind it, even if it is not expressed publicly. For Iran, the reasons tend to be religious. Their goals and behaviors are not the same as you would expect from a rational state actor.
People will think all kinds of things and there are many people with different ideas. Not everyone can be right all the time. It often comes down to how you were taught, what kind of media you consume, whether you seek the truth and logic or prefer emotion, and what your emotions lean toward. All I can say is from a purely logical perspective, Iran is not on the right side of this, even if it is fair to say that Israel has been extreme in its own way in reacting to aggression.
This isn't only about Israel. Iran has rubbed all of its neighbors wrong for 40+ years. If this was only about Israel and no other country, then there would be more to dig into there, but it is more than that.
At least we are free to express our ideas in the US and Israel. In Iran, they do not have free speech. The government can and will punish you for speaking against the government. They can make anything seem true just by imprisoning anyone who says otherwise.
> At least we are free to express our ideas in the US and Israel. In Iran, they do not have free speech. The government can and will punish you for speaking against the government. They can make anything seem true just by imprisoning anyone who says otherwise.
Whether this is true or not, is none of my concern. What is my concern is a US backed invasion of other people's territory and Israel's influence on my government. Including Zionist attacks on free speech.
Israel doesn't control the US any more than the UK controls the US. We're all allies and countries that have shared interests can all influence each other in various ways.
There are some influential Jewish people in US culture and in politics and of course our countries share intelligence, but we have a shared interest in stabilizing the Middle East. Iran is the biggest destabilizer in the region, not Israel.
I, umm, disagree fairly wholeheartedly.
Maybe there's some long term <something> that has changed direction slightly as a result, but right now literally everything immediate is worse than it was beforehand.
True but unfortunately there are enough dumb people in the US to vote them in again so it doesn't matter.
Proof: https://apnews.com/article/us-iran-war-navy-blockade-strait-...
Shock of the unsavvy
I guess it might work if shipping company is non-Western (such as Chinese or Russian) - but I’m not sure what the advantage of bitcoin is in that case, as opposed to simply paying in yuan or rubles
I'm curious what makes your think these ships are unknown. There are 2 blockades in place and suspicion of mines in the conventional shipping route through Omani controlled waters.
Whereas if it's not traceable then all that others know is that your ship got through the strait and there's at least some plausible deniability of why it got through
Americans not understanding that half of the world says the same thing about them is the funniest shit ever... Propaganda is one hell of a drug
I do agree that ignoring the suffering you cause other people is pretty immoral, I just think most people tend to be kind of ok with that, especially in out of sight out of mind situations. Most people don’t mind if their enemies suffer, its just a balancing act of making sure that mostly it’s your enemies that you make suffer.
Not really any different than eating meat, another immoral act that almost everyone does anyway.
You're living in the past. There's a reason that European countries are rushing to increase their technology independence from the US.
The countries whose "values and incentives" align with the current US administration are countries like Russia, China, and a number of countries in the Middle East. Orban's Hungary was another but that's behind us now.
Toothless E.U. never came to anyone's defense.
Which is why Trump 2 promptly started bombing foreign countries.
The pure ironic inversion of our world is wild to live through.
We agree with them. Their regime needs to go.
In the US, we will be rid of the current administration in less than 3 years and MAGA will end with it. If the Iranian people had the same choice American citizens do, they would have voted their regime out and current events would be very different.
Here we are.
So is USA.
But of course Iran doesn't need mines to enforce the blockade. They have drones and missiles that can be operated safely from 100's of kilometres away. They have anti-ship sea-skimming missiles. Not to mention the very large fleet of small armed fastboats.
> Iran has started a Bitcoin-backed insurance service for Iranian shipping companies that want to transit the Strait of Hormuz, the semi-official Fars news agency reported, citing documents obtained from the country’s Ministry of Economy and Financial Affairs.
> According to a screen shot of the insurance company’s website, dubbed Hormuz Safe and shared by Fars news, it “provides Iranian shipping companies and cargo owners with fast, verifiable digital insurance.” Fars didn’t give a detailed break down of how the insurance works and whether it’s available to foreign shipping companies and vessels.
Using it to pay off a shipping protection racket is prettymuch par for the course.
Like, say, cash, or check, or wires, or any other payment mechanism?
I have read many comments that the regime wants to money launder the inflow. Bitcoin would be rather inconvenient for that.
It can be untraceable with CashFusion
For smaller amounts this is not a problem for the same coin and network.
Your volume might support $10k but not $10m.
You are not responding to the debunking of your "Value doesn't have anything to do with utility" claim.
The only relevant thing I can see here is that yes, the volume is too low to provide any sense of untracability for the scenario discussed. It might for paying your VPN subscription.
> You are not responding to the debunking Opinions don't debunk. Proof does.
https://www.reuters.com/investigations/how-trumps-crypto-ven...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/a-landmark-moment-fo...
https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA20wRuK...
It's quite the achievement, that the inventor(s) of Bitcoin have continued to stay anonymous to this day.
It seems like most newly built computing resources are at the disposal of a few companies and a few people...
there is a lot of examples on how to design it, and it doesn't really seem like this Iranian one for shipping is designed well if its just an insurance pool in bitcoin at all times
but if they are using the bitcoin blockchain to sign the insurance records of a policy and claim, and then the state administrator is acquiring bitcoin to pay out policies at time of claim, then that could work. that was one of the bullish cases theorized for bitcoin back in 2011, 2012, its a long list
So the few payouts for normal claims would be dwarfed by the war insurance premium currently being charged. They could even offer a discount to loyal clients and still have insane margins.
Yeah, I don't see how the US is coming out ahead in this conflict. Israel might have won some against their adversaries, setting them back a while or two.
[Hearsay, I don't actually know more than what has been reported in the news ...]
Corrupted but there's more I guess.
Maybe Trump should bomb them some more?
Geopolitics understands one language alone.
The main thing it resulted in is the Europe led coalition that aims to ensure the strait will never get blocked again, so Iran can never play this card again, that will lose them a lot of political power in the future since this card is now gone.
Second of all, it's also more likely the USA will back down as a result of widespread disapproval, than it is that USA will effectuate a full ground invasion (which would result in heavy losses).
Whereas if they had complied with the don's demand that they be a vassal state of the USA and israel, they would not be a sovereign country anymore.
This isn't exactly abnormal: for a USA analogue, look at Patrick Henry's comments on liberty.
"never get blocked again" just like when it was claimed by the U.S. it wouldn't be blocked in the first place, or that it would only be a few days...sure sure. I'm sure the IRGC is about to call the European and U.S. leaders and tell them how bigly they are and how scared of more bombing they are.
What Iran has learned from this is they don’t need sympathy, they need to exercise the leverage they do have, and there’s no way they’re ever going to willingly give that leverage up - they’ve seen what would happen.
This doesn't sound like the don to you? "hey Iran, nice country you have there..."
> Maybe Trump should bomb them some more?
If the USA is going to be bombing every country which doesn't give up their sovereignty and bend the knee to the don, then the USA is going to need more bombs.
Poe's Law in action, I guess. In general, sarcasm isn't a good way to have a good discussion. Better to just say what you mean, rather than the opposite of what you mean, with the assumption that everyone will know you didn't actually mean it.
What? I understand sympathy but I am not understanding what the path could've been to meaningful support against US aggression here.
From who?
There are protests against the war/against the US/against Israel in major capitals, the Lego videos go viral, news regularly mention EU heads of state talking to Iranian ministers. After weeks of the strait being shut, no EU country has joined US and Israel. Every EU opposition party is including the end of the war in their manifesto. Does any of that look like no support?
For most of the world, Iran is the victim of two dangerous countries. I bet you a tenner that when the US and Israel give up and the end of the war is officially announced, there'll be dancing in your streets.
Seriously dumb. And now this mafia-esque blackmail?
Germany can't launch or even operate and maintain them without the US.
The fact that many states are now using it for funding purposes to get around the banking system further adds proof to bitcoin's potential origin.
Also, it doesn't help that Satoshi Nakamoto means basically central intelligence in Japanese...
I'm not saying Bitcoin was created by the government, but if it was there are signs...
This kind of thing explains in part why despite being an obvious scam, the government allowed cryptocurrencies to grow so large that eventually they formed their own feedback loop so strong that crypto bros were the biggest funders the 2024 presidential campaigns.