Hacker News Reader

Comment by tehjoker | Hacker News Reader

You realize that America "in theory" wants ships to transit the strait right? The US blockade is self-defeating.

You can't block the strait if we block the strait! lmao

I think this is incorrect. The point is to show that if Iran does this, then they will not be the only ones that can do it. The last thing that should happen is to reward Iran for rent seeking on the Strait. Others can also seek rent then, and the whole strait gets shut down..which encompassed around 90% of all Iranian oil exports, which in turn was about 90% of their economic exports.

There is truth to this but it's basically we'll hurt ourselves to hurt you more. This is a lose-lose strategy.

I am not sure if in the long term it is our interest to allow Iran to extract rent from this trade route, which would only strengthen China. It seems to me that the hurt is spread around the world quite widely, with inordinate impacts on Iran and China, not the U.S. or Europe [1].

[1] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-oil-trade-through-t...

It's not really in my interest for a cabal of pedophiles to win this one. I dispute the conflation of the interests of the capitalist class with the american people.

Wow. You know, I think Trump is dangerous to our Republic, almost certainly committing graft and fraud using the Office of the President for personal gain, probably a rapist and maybe a pedophile. I don't know. But that has nothing, I repeat, NOTHING to do with our national security and the geopolitical reality of the Russian-Iranian-Chinese-North Korean Axis and the threat that axis poses to the democratic free-world. Separate your concerns, walk and chew gum, and face the real world.

Those countries are all very different with very different interests in their respective regions. China doesn't care about Ukraine, Russia doesn't care about Taiwan, and both were very muted in their reaction to the attacks on Iran.

The major thing they have in common is not respecting American trade embargoes against themselves, which, of course they don't.

They had muted (visible) reaction because they could do little about it.

An axis would have shown a lot more solidarity. Hezbollah/Hamas/Iran for example.

Their muted reaction is a tacit approval.

> NOTHING to do with our national security

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.

The most dangerous thing to your republic is that belief that the whole world needs to be under the boot for its security.

I have nothing against china, and I have no interest in the companies operating from our soil. They certainly view us with contempt.

I am talking about geopolitical security.

The entire idea that we exist in opposition to china is silly. Geopolitically we stand to thrive in mutual partnership. What other option is there?

But there is certainly no future where China is somehow a junior partner.

Why is it so bad that countries want rent over the areas they control?

It's not a matter of good or bad. Innocent passage through national waters (including straits) without paying tolls has been a fundamental principle of maritime law for a long time. Allowing Iran to charge a toll for passage through the Strait of Hormuz would set a bad precedent and encourage other countries to do the same. Iran might be able to get some of the weaker countries to pay up but the USA has no incentive to agree; more likely they would just continue the blockade, and possibly impose secondary sanctions against any entities that send money to Iran.

What's your point? Innocent passage never applied to artificial canals. You seem to be unclear on the basics of maritime law.

Yeah, and "don't launch wars of aggression or bomb girls' schools on a whim" has been a principle for about the same amount of time.

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?

Straits have always been points of local control. This isn't new. We will have to pay if we want to play. For all people bluster about the US being exempt, I don't see what leverage we can use that isn't more expensive than just paying up. Marinetime law is only as meaningful as can be enforced.

Bullshit. The right of innocent passage has long applied to straits. But as a practical matter very few US flagged merchant vessels even go through there, so if anyone actually pays it's going to be someone else.

> The right of innocent passage has long applied to straits.

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.

I think US established a naval blockage against Cuba and other countries multiple times in history, blocking passage of ships in international waters.

The US is blockading the Iranian coast, not the entirety of the Strait.

The reason the US is blockading is because Iran is only partially blockading it. If Iran wasn't blockading at all then America wouldn't either. But it's pretty clear that "only shops whose countries pay a lot of money to Iran" would help Iran.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com