Iran will impose fees on subsea internet cables in Strait of Hormuz
cnn.com
cnn.com
(I say this with no sympathy to the Iranian government, just looking at reality.)
I feel like we have enough examples to be clear on this now, would you rather your country be treated by the major powers like Libya, Ukraine, Iraq... Or like North Korea.
You could easily argue that the dictatorship is in a stronger place after getting nukes, but the act of building nukes have destabilized many regimes, including Iran. Iran could have been wealthy like UAE and the Saudis, with regional influence similar to Turkey, instead of being the punching bag of US and Israel.
The years leading up to and immediately following successful acquisition were tenuous and it seemed like they were destined to become a global pariah if not a failed state. And yet now, they are a regional power.
So if anything maybe Iran just missed its window. Now with the US seemingly ready to enter a forever war with no defined objectives other than nuclear deterrence it's presumably too late, but maybe a more competent regime could have pulled it off in time.
It was an active choice not a missed window
If we look at reality we see China is very active in Africa, and so also has undersea network cables (PEACE & 2Africa). If China allows this precedent to occur, they encourage any African nation nearby such cables to pull the same tricks on them. Hence a rational player in the shoes of China wouldn't allow this to happen. China should hint Iran that perhaps it should start addressing its real problems instead of making their problems someone else's problem again.
It seems like a wild claim to me to make that no, Iran can't make some small/medium underwater drones to go harass and destroy underwater cables. Protecting miles of lines splayed out across a big hard to get to area seems like a hard challenge.
(Big years for pests everywhere. Really really coming out in legion force.)
Iran's exports down 90% (you want to laugh? Ukraine claims half of what remains is Iran selling oil to Russia to export to Europe, especially to Spain)
Inflation somewhere between 60% and 140% (the higher number is for food).
Population complaining about massive layoffs everywhere.
There is a domestic oil shortage now in Iran.
Iran was in a continuous recession for over a decade, economic activity reducing 10% per year for a decade BEFORE the war started.
Obviously, they cannot last very long like this.
What prevents them from pooling together the funds for 2 decades of relentless cyberattacks on Iran, unless twice the same fee is payed in reverse to compensate for just the threat?
(currently unaffected network operators have an incentive to chip in, lest political factions local to or neighboring their cables start imitating Iran)
(unlike conventional warfare, cyberattacks can be highly directed to regime players, elites, etc. so targeting a network operator seems like the dumbest move one could make: conventional warfare can sometimes generate new supporters for the regime, hitting the elites or regime elements much less so)
I thought it was clear to everyone that this is _exactly_ what the U.S. and Israel have been doing to Iran for literally 20+ years [0] [1]. In addition to economic warfare, other types of espionage, and acts of terrorism - e.g. blowing up a bunch of people's mobile devices and pagers (in before someone accuse the children and civilians harmed in the attack of being terrorists themselves).
Bad actors have been extracting all kinds of concessions and actions out of Iran for many decades now under all kinds of threats, tactics, and attacks.
This war was literally started by the U.S. and Israel blowing up peace talks in Iran.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_and_Iran
You changed my proposition to a different one by equating
US & Israeli cyber warfare, with
US & Israeli & worldwide telecom sector cyber warfare.
I ask why risk that step? worldwide telecom sector is highly networked (by profession obviously) and is probably already picking up phones and coordinating a common response, together they stand, divided they fall, none of them look forward to potential normalization of nation states charging fees unilaterally.
Its an error to confuse big problems with even bigger ones than they already face.
Telecom sector might collectively demand public payment of twice the threatened fee (however small the actual demanded fee is) plus a public statement by Iran that they publically repeal the threat just to make clear this type of precedent won't be tolerated.
If operators are going to pay up anyhow, they might prefer chipping in for NATO support than publically rewarding such behavior...
"chipping in" could range from symbolic to substantial, as the alternative would be facing a never-ending stream of unilateral fees worldwide, in fact even all unaffected operators of internet cables are hereby motivated to organize a collective crowd-funding for military support of these cables: the future affected party could otherwise be themselves!
Presumably because they will attempt to destroy them if the fees are not paid.
Iran is in a vicious circle of generating self-fulfilling prophecies: persecution complex -> hostage politics -> more enemies -> persecution complex.
They show leadership on almost no front, they are not credible on a world stage. Try and picture some kind of future version of the current regime in Iran becoming a bigger and bigger world player, how will they start addressing real problems, like global warming? They only have experience in making their problems also someone else's problem. Suppose they continue and eventually achieve nuclear power status, will they blackmail the trees in the amazon rain forest to do photosynthesis faster, or else?
The strait is not and has never been Iran's sovereign territory. Or should the UAE and Oman start trying to charge fees to ships trying to cross the strait too?
About half of it is, yes? Wikipedia has a nice map [1] which shows the agreed-upon maritime boundaries and there's also some disputed islands where there's no agreed up on boundaries listed. Wikipedia isn't absolutely correct, but where a body of water separates two sovereign states, the territorial waters tend to meet around the middle, with specific definition by treaty.
There's also a pretty detailed US state department report [2] on the boundaries in the Persian Gulf, Straight of Hormuz and Gulf of Oman that lines up with the wikipedia map by my eye.
I'm not sure if the TeleGeography [3] maps are supposed to be representative of where the cables are laid or more of a general picture idea like a subway map. Anyway, looking at the two maps at the same time, it seems like at least some of those cables are in Iranian territorial waters.
It would seem that, with care, new cables that don't land in Iran could be placed in the Persian Gulf and avoiding Iranian waters; although the Iranian waters in the Persian Gulf are quite a bit deeper, than waters on the other side; which is why the shipping lanes tend to be in Iranian waters. This reverses at the straight where the (depicted) lanes are in the deeper Omani waters.
> Or should the UAE and Oman start trying to charge fees to ships trying to cross the strait too?
Now seems like a good time to raise fees? Both countries have a chokepoint if Iran is going to play hardball.
[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Strait_o...
[2] https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/LIS-94.pdf
That's international law, as it stands.
Iran passed its own law in 2003 claiming 12nm. They can only assert that claim through violence.
The UNCLOS Part II Section 2 Article 3 [1] states:
> Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention.
It does not restrict this to member states or signatory states or etc. I don't know that the UNCLOS is binding on member states while operating in the territorial waters of non-member states, but I don't think there's a compelling reason to think territorial waters of non-members are limited to 3 nautical meters, given the consensus is territorial waters are 12 nautical meters.
> Iran passed its own law in 2003 claiming 12nm. They can only assert that claim through violence.
As a member state of the UN, they can assert a claim about territorial waters against another state at the International Court of Justice. It would seem to be a question of international law. If they were a member state of the UNCLOS, there are additional dispute resolution mechanisms available. Of course, violence is always an option for dispute resolution.
[1] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_...
Seriously, though, other regional powers that have something on the line will have to decide whether this is worth action.
In terms of raw capabilities and ability to actually damage these cables as an entity. Yes they have them today, they don't need special naval craft for such an endeavor, you can drag a hook behind any vessel large enough for the conditions and damage the cables repeatedly. This has been happening in other parts of the globe for some time, with Russia using cargo ships, I believe. Other parties could try and prevent this, possibly with some success but it would either involve sinking those vessels at a distance (hope they're right about what those vessels are doing), or putting your own assets in danger of missile or drone strikes.
They’d simply tell whoever’s crying to start using dynamic routing protocols and accept the few more ms in latency.
The question for us is, do you side with the small bully, or the big bully?
Look, I’m all for the Iranian gov to cease. But don’t pretend that the US and it’s scoundrels aren’t the mafia and criminals in this matter.
Now, she added, Tehran “has discovered the impact.”
The thing that mystifies me is that U. S. war planners "theoretically knew" this, too; at least, I would assume. The whole war strikes me as the current administration finding out the hard way why previous administrations all the way back to Reagan didn't commit to warfare against Iran, even if they wanted to. "FAFO", as the kids say, I guess.
OTOH, I do have theory floating around in my head that someone got one of the letters wrong and confused Iran with Iraq: "we kicked their ass before, we'll do it again!"
"Uh, different and much better-armed country, sir."
Or, as has been famously said, "Don't confuse me with the facts." [0]
They would have, because this has been wargamed and written about for decades. It's playing out exactly as expected, which is why no US administration until this one was willing to go to an outright hot war with Iran. Unfortunately, this war dept and admin has a staggering amount of hubris, incompetency, and a strange devotion to carrying out every whim of a certain semi-allied state I won't name directly but can be inferred.
From a think tank simulation from 2012:
> The simulation’s second move principally focused on the Iranian team and how it would respond to the various American actions in the first move. The Iranian team chose to respond in several ways: […] It decided to create a threat to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz by ordering IRGC small boats to harass American naval ships passing through the strait, and—of far greater importance—laying a relatively small number of mines there. […]
* PDF: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/us-iran...
Interview at the time with the organizers:
* https://www.npr.org/2012/09/24/161706698/simulated-war-betwe...
Israel. The White House is willing to sacrifice American power and prestige for Israel. We have to stop tip-toeing around the elephant in the room.
The other administrations you mentioned operated on the principle that the President should listen to his advisors and was ultimately accountable to the American people should his decisions result in poor outcomes.
This administration operates on the principle that the executive branch of the US federal government is now the Trump Organization but with access to taxpayer funds and the state's monopoly on violence. Since DJT was the undisputed leader of the Trump Organization, he was never questioned there, and he's not questioned now, whether it be about decisions to bomb Iran or about anything else.
These people wanted to do things like "keep their jobs" and "be able to receive a pension", so they went through with the orders from a man who is almost 80 years old and shows both declining cognitive skills and personality disorders.
Ideally, you have a judicial and legislative branch that would punish this behavior, but those people also want to keep their careers/lives. So the majority party, his own, cows to him as well.
Personally I disagree war was inevitable; time can change a lot of things and it doesn't seem like there was any imminent threat, but I also don't see why you would find it so hard to believe others might disagree with that assessment.
Again, not saying I agree with a preemptive strike in this case, but it's pretty easy to understand why others might think it necessary even if the short-term economic consequences of that are unpleasant.
There was no imminent threat and per international law, that war is illegal. And even worst, situation where Iran does not have those anti-nuclear agreements was created by the very same people who started the war.
And even worst, they shown themselves ao untrustworthy, that no one can trust their future promisses. The only rational expectation Iran can have is that USA lies in negotiations and dont keep word. And attacks at will regardless of whether Iran keeps word or negotiates.
And note that it does not matter one bit that Iran has psychopatic goverment on its own right. Whatever irational paranoia they had was now validated.
And I don't see how "existing agreements" make a difference if those existing agreements allow them to build nukes.
If Iran stopped building nukes and stopped threatening their neighbors the US would have no reason to intervene. (Other the usual reason of Iran's human rights abuses of course, but historically the US generally lets those slide as long as the country isn't threatening to impose those abuses on its neighbors.)
American Foreign Policy Is Being Run by the Dumbest Motherfuckers Alive
(Daniel W. Drezner https://danieldrezner.substack.com/p/american-foreign-policy...)
Netanyahu told Trump they wouldn't block the strait. The US military said they would. Trump went with Netanyahu.
They knew.
But all it takes is Trump and Hegseth YOLOing past them and all that institutional, historical knowledge counts for nothing.
All the previous wars got lost the exact same way.
Trump is losing the same way the US lost in Afghanistan, Irak, Vietnam, Korea... Just faster than any anybody else.
This is a country with enough nuclear warheads to end intelligent life on this planet. It has bombers that, even with conventional payloads, could wipe most cities off the map once air superiority is achieved - and it almost always is.
Instead, there's a tendency to try and move the nation into the American sphere of influence and let it defend itself under its own power, and that's where things fail, because that requires lots of ground troops over a period of years while the local allies in the conflict get ready to do the fighting.
The interesting wrinkle with Iran is that The World's Best Negotiator(TM) has essentially painted himself into a corner. Could the US do more to break Iran? Of course. Would those things be politically popular in the US or receive the support of the international community? Hell no. So he has to keep puffing his chest up. It'll be interesting to see what happens post-midterms.
On Iran's side, no death will really matter to the regime, it's a political hydra which is capable of doing and sustaining lots of damage to stay in power.
On the US side though, the war is highly unpopular, every single death and every single side effect of the war is politically painful.
But I don't agree about the first part, there's definitely a "we're the biggest military in the world, we will win no matter what" mindset in the US military, which is the reason why they lost so many wars.
Having a military so large is a blessing and a curse, they are too confident and then trip on strategy.
- there is a concerted effort to target and topple oil producers which China relies on as a form of containment of the Chinese economy. Venezuela, Iran, eventually Russia in a more direct way. The current administration is willing to accept economic pain for just about everyone because they see the transition from petroleum to green energies as the death knell for US superiority. They see this as their last chance to derail China, so they are taking it. It provides incidental value (like giving pre-text for increasing domestic repression).
- they thought it would be easy after Venezuela and Trump was flattered by Netanyahu and pressured by evangelicals into doing it.
High oil prices only accelerate China's transition to renewables, and rewards them for all the investment they've made so far, both in national energy production and in selling panels and EVs to the world.
It hurts the US far more, especially with this admin's anti wind and solar policies.
This will take a long time to play out. Discount every short term prediction as both Iran and the US are forced to play a long game.
I drive an EV so I gain. Though most lose more than they gain, this isn't a complete loss for anyone.
The too-big-to-fail companies and Trump's cronies, you mean?
You can't do things like "make plastics" or "run entire industrial districts" off of them, at least not yet. Both are incredibly important to China for the time being.
You also can't run most blue-water naval ships off of them, but that's a bit less impactful.
If you know your enemy’s position strengthens with time while your position weakens with time, under a certain mentality, you attack now.
Israel talked him into it, just like he has no interest in anything until the last person in the room whispers ideas into his ear
Lindsey Graham is this term's Rudy Giuliani and he was flying back and forth to Israel briefing their version of the CIA on what to tell Trump to get him to do this
Personally I think another aspect is once he realized American oil companies became massively profitable overnight for months now at $100+ a barrel, he just took a cut somehow
Remember it took Obama's team YEARS to get Iran to sign something, this is not ending this year or next for any number of bombs killing their innocent civilians, Iran doesn't care, executions are at an all time weekly high there
It's death-cult vs death-cult at this point, we all lose
With the blackmail they have on him provided by Epstien and associates, trump is exactly the type of person that our enemies love. He is a useful idiot at best.
Surely making Iran stronger and an even bigger menace wasn't the plan.
Trump has hated the Iranian regime since the hostage crisis. He called for Ronald Reagan to invade Iran in a 1987 TV interview. He's been remarkably consistent on this issue.
yes billioanires participated in crazy unethical parties with human traffiked hookers, water is wet.
to be a billionaire you have to have an inherit evil inside you, otherwise your concious would simply never allow you to build up wealth to that point without redistributing it to employees, people who helped you get where you are, improving your community and so on.
"human trafficked woman and children turned into hookers"*
But what can they do when potus gets manipulated into war by netanyahu with quick win promises, despite many people around him telling him its a bad, bad idea. US has a weak president now and parts of the world are using it to the fullest.
Persians are and always were smart, not some sheep herders you can bomb into oblivion without a worry, rather educated engineers and similar level. I went there cca decade ago during more quiet times, and stroke random conversations about physics, chemistry or philosophy in parks. Not probably going to happen in say US.
https://lite.cnn.com/2026/05/17/middleeast/iran-hormuz-under...
Why Russia goes along with it is debatable. Maybe they hope that the EU buys again from them, maybe that whole scenario was discussed in Alaska between orange man and Putin. Who knows. We only get lies and the real plans unfold years after.
The EU should however stop guessing what goes on between the dictators in secret and simply pursue its own interests.
So it gives us a bit of a glimpse of what would the world would look like with a more isolationist US, or a multipolar world.
So if I punch somebody in the face and they respond by pulling out a gun and shooting an innocent bystander, I can be punished for murder?
That's not even remotely how moral responsibility works. People (and nations) are responsible for their own actions, not the actions of others.
And for Iran it seems "countries it opposes" is basically everyone...
Meanwhile, every other nation in the world with a navy should be putting pressure on Iran to stop blocking their ships.
Trump was certainly warned that this would be Iran's response, and started bombing anyway. Trying to absolve the US administration of this is just propaganda.
The US has been forcing on Latin America whatever some US corporation wants for more than a century. We've had coups over bananas!
I'd be with you here if the US CIA wasn't the one who overthrown the democratically elected Mosaddegh and replaced him with their puppet Shah, triggering the Islamic revolution.
But I'll give you a pass since I heard they don't teach this part in american public school history curriculum.
It's just as ignorant to cherry pick one event in the history of Iran as the source of all it's problems as it is to say Americans don't know their own history. It's not that simple.
B. 25 years earlier and
C. Less of a revolution as Shah had always been around, they just supported him in kicking out his own prime minister (and exerting autocratic rule as a result)
I mean, yay?