There's no insurance scheme the IRGC can concoct that protects against the US navy hitting your rudder with a 20mm gun.
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
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...
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.
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?
They probably won't.
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.
And sadly, $6 gas will collapse the U.S. Navy’s will and effort in weeks.
Guess who lost more?
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.