| ▲ | Cyph0n 8 hours ago |
| > Freedom of navigation is a core global principal And Iran has been respecting that principle for decades. So why exactly did the US and Israel (and GCC countries) think that the status quo would remain even if they keep antagonizing Iran? Imagine getting bombed during negotiations - not once, but twice in a single year! Their sovereignty was being disrespected, so now they're understandably establishing a new status quo. And btw, if Iran and Oman cooperate, there is no threat to "freedom of navigation" under international law. In a nutshell: play stupid games, win stupid prizes. |
|
| ▲ | adrian_b 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Moreover, USA has been the first who has stopped respecting the freedom of navigation, by implementing a blockade of Cuba and preventing the oil tankers to reach Cuba, already since February, before the Iran war. USA does not respect any international law, but it demands from others to do this. |
|
| ▲ | nostrebored 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Iran has been funding and arming groups which threaten maritime security for a while now. They also have been obviously attempting a nuclear weapons program while saying if they achieve their aim that they will do crazy shit. I guess the games you think are stupid depend immensely on your priors. |
| |
| ▲ | Cyph0n 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Are you referring to Ansar Allah? Do you know why they decided to shutdown Bab Al Mandab? So we are going to ignore the JCPOA? Also, the rumor is that there is another player in the region who has undeclared nuclear weapons and refuses IAEA inspections. Should we bomb them next? | |
| ▲ | 8note 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | is that really reason to go to war though? the US has been doing that in the gulf of mexico; should we be destorying the american civilization as a result? | | |
| ▲ | bawolff 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > is that really reason to go to war though? Funding armed groups to essentially make war on your behalf does seem like a valid reason for the person being targeted to go to war. As a general rule, if you shoot someone they will shoot back if capable. | | |
| |
| ▲ | zoklet-enjoyer 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Israel and the US are both nuclear armed and are doing crazy shit. |
|
|
| ▲ | ericmay 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Oman isn’t the only country in the region, and any country should expect their ships to sail peacefully. Last I checked it’s the US and Israel at war with Iran, not others - no justification for charging transit fees. Second, you’re ignoring decades of history and picking an arbitrary point to say that’s when some animosity started. Nobody forced Iran to build all these missiles and to try and build a nuclear weapon or kill their own people or fund actual terrorist groups as designated by the United States and European Union. If you drag out negotiations long enough you never get bombed! What a thought lol. |
| |
| ▲ | modo_mario 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >and any country should expect their ships to sail peacefully Tbf the US seized plenty of theirs, others and such. >Last I checked it’s the US and Israel at war with Iran, not others The US bases and provided landing spots and ports, etc kind of speak otherwise and they don't have other ways of getting money from the US I believe. | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Nobody forced Iran to build all these missiles and to try and build a nuclear weapon or kill their own people or fund actual terrorist groups as designated by the United States and European Union Iran has absolutely run its strategy as a basket case. But proxies aside (which is a big aside), they were fairly self contained until we started hitting them. At least this time around. | | |
| ▲ | Cyph0n 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Fairly self contained is an understatement. They proved time and again over the course of the past few years that they were not only pragmatic, but also a much more rational actor than Israel and the US. | | |
| ▲ | oa335 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Iran is liked about as much as the US and certainly more than Israel. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iran/america-has-lost-arab-wo... Iran has fomented discord in a number of countries, most notably Syria and Lebanon. I think they are “rational” in the sense that they are pursuing their goals of eliminating US influence over the Middle East - but many other states in the MidEast would see that goal as “irrational” in itself. | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > They proved time and again over the course of the past few years that they were not only pragmatic, but also a much more rational actor than Israel and the US When? When they drip fed Hezbollah's missiles into Israel's air defences? When they left their ships in port to get bombed? When they convened an in-person meeting at the Supreme Leader's residence? When they didn't even reprimand Hamas after October 7th? Iran has acted according to its regime's interests. But I wouldn't say they prosecuted their goals rationally, pragmatically or even particularly effectively. | | |
| ▲ | kaveh_h 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Who directly in this war has conducted them rationally at at all times? Did Iran drip feed missiles to Hezbollah and Yemen, perhaps. That sort of tactic was used at a much larger scale when US provided arms to Iraq against Iran in their war in the 80s. Israel attacks against it’s neighbors and caused mass refugee flows is also mostly a result of UK, US and France’s foreign policy in the early 20th century when Israel was being established. Israel funded by US of 300 billion dollars is also a kind of proxy. It’s hard for most people to have actual objective views and see things from multiple perspectives and your statement is showing clear bias in this regards. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Who directly in this war has conducted them rationally at at all times? At all times? Nobody. Until last summer, the most strategically buggered was Hamas. Their miscalculations directly lead to a weaker position and a negative return on their goals. That changed following last year’s airstrikes—then it was Iran. (Though in relative terms, probably still Hamas.) Since this war, it’s might be the U.S. > That sort of tactic was used at a much larger scale when US provided arms to Iraq against Iran We didn’t maintain Iraqi arms as a deterrent against Iran. Drip feeding arms into a war of attrition to be a pest has strategic rationale. Drip feeding arms, arms meant to intimidate through the prospect of overwhelming force no less, into air defenses below replacement rates is just dumb. |
| |
| ▲ | Cyph0n 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [dead] | |
| ▲ | lolcopedope 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | mamonster 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >Nobody forced Iran to build all these missiles Saddam did. Their missile program is a direct response to the section of the Iran-Iraq war where Saddam flew long range bombers for terror raids (hmm who does this remind me of?) and Iran had no answer beyond shelling border cities with 155m. | |
| ▲ | yellowapple 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > But proxies aside (which is a big aside), they were fairly self contained until we started hitting them. That “big aside” is an understatement, on par with ”but CIA-funded death squads aside the US has been pretty hands-off with Latin America”. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Oh absolutely. But being an idiot with proxies isn't really reason to threaten total war. You go after the proxies and maybe hit ports and production facilities in Iran that arm them. Then commit to keep doing that every time the proxies act up. Nobody needs to liberate Lebanon or Yemen. And nobody needs to try and change the regime in Tehran. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Cyph0n 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | First, look at a map. The strait is entirely contained by Omani and Iranian waters. Second, I don't have much else to say to you if you actually think that assassinating a head of state in the middle of active negotiations is anything but vile & uncivilized behavior unbecoming of a "civilized" superpower. Ultimately, this is going to be a major strategic loss for the US and Israel. They have achieved none of the goals stated at the outset of this "operation", outside of perhaps diminishing the Iranian missile manufacturing capabilities & stockpile. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I guess Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Iraq, and Qatar don’t exist lol. They’re not just attacking ships in one tiny area - ships have to pass through bidirectionally which affects trade for everyone. Stop trying to defend this stuff. > Ultimately, this is going to be a major strategic loss for the US and Israel. They have achieved none of the goals stated at the outset of this "operation", outside of perhaps diminishing the Iranian missile stockpile. It has been like 5 weeks and the US and Israel can destroy whatever they find in Iran at their convenience. You are severely over-indexing on Iranian and MAGA anti-war news because the US and Israel don’t go around just announcing everything they’re doing. They don’t need propaganda, bombs work and settle the issue. Why do you think Iran was loading up on all these missiles in the first place? Make it painful to stop them from getting a nuclear weapon and then what? Charge even more to cross the straight. If these guys were benevolent actors they wouldn’t be doing all this stuff and we wouldn’t be having this conversation. There’s no world in which we can have another North Korea - we have seen that movie and it is an awful one where the bad guys win. No imagine North Korea with control of 20% of the world’s oil supply. Can’t happen. Period. | | |
| ▲ | amluto 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > bombs work and settle the issue If you want evidence that bombs do not settle the issue, you can consider the current Iran war. The US and Israel have dropped a rather impressive number of bombs on Iran. As far as I know, most of them worked. But whatever issue the leaders of the US and Israel thought they were going to settle is most definitely not settled. The regime has changed from Ayatollah Khamenei to Khamenei, the US’s military position is dramatically worsened, and, while Iran has a lot of rebuilding to do, they are arguably in a strategically stronger position than they were before. Maybe you think Iran’s continued existence “can’t happen period”, but Iran still exists and the US’s ability to anything about it is very much in doubt. | |
| ▲ | dante54 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is very rich given that the US, is the only country to use nukes, and Israel has illegal nukes and wont even accept inspection. Nobody charged anyone to cross a strait until your pedophile leaders decided to kill a head of state and bomb a school full of children | | |
| ▲ | bawolff 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Israel has illegal nukes They aren't illegal. The nuclear non proliferation treaty is an optional treaty. The nukes are only illegal if you sign it. Israel hasn't. Most countries sign the treaty because it comes with a lot of benefits, but you don't have to take the carrot. | | |
| ▲ | adrian_b 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Therefore Iran and North Korea and any others have the right to make nukes. USA has lost long ago the moral authority to demand from others to not make nuclear weapons. USA were supposed to be the "good guys", who will not abuse their monopoly on having the most advanced weapons, so that the weaker countries should feel safe enough that they do not need such weapons themselves and that they should respect the non proliferation principles. However, with all the unprovoked wars started by USA during the last quarter of century, which have caused not only huge damages to the attacked countries, leaving them in a much worse state than before, but which have also irreparably destroyed important parts of the cultural heritage of the entire humanity, nobody can believe any more that it is fine to be helpless against USA, by not having nuclear weapons. Nobody has done more against the non-proliferation treaty than USA. | | |
| ▲ | herewulf an hour ago | parent [-] | | Exactly. 39 days (so far) of bombing will only convince Iran and other countries around the world of why they need to obtain nuclear weapons at any cost. It is existential. This current US administration is incredibly shortsighted. | | |
| ▲ | lostlogin an hour ago | parent [-] | | Being shortsighted implies you aren’t looking that far ahead. Even the shortsighted could see that the straits would get closed. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | nixon_why69 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > I guess Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Iraq, and Qatar don’t exist lol All of those countries except Iraq facilitated this war, the weapon launches were overwhelmingly from land bases on their territory. If they want to talk with Iran about discounts for expelling american airbases, I'm sure they could find an audience. | |
| ▲ | 8note 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | they can destroy whatever they want, but are unwilling to move ships in, and unwilling to put boots on the ground. if the US/israel believed their own propaganda, they'd be doing both of those things. | |
| ▲ | lostlogin an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > US and Israel don’t go around just announcing everything they’re doing. They don’t need propaganda Why does Trump talk so much then? It would be lovely if stopped. | |
| ▲ | thaumasiotes 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I guess Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Iraq, and Qatar don’t exist lol. They’re not just attacking ships in one tiny area - ships have to pass through bidirectionally which affects trade for everyone. Stop trying to defend this stuff. You must have a real problem with the concept of the Panama Canal. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | The Panama Canal is a man-made construct and costs money to operate. How is that comparable? | | |
| ▲ | thaumasiotes 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's comparable in that it's a nearly-identical construct that functions in an actually-identical way. Constructing the Strait of Hormuz was cheaper than constructing the Panama Canal.† That doesn't change anything about the fact that it exists. † Cheaper in an abstract sense. In a more literal sense, the tolling authority, Panama, didn't have to pay for the canal; it was built by the United States. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > First, look at a map. The strait is entirely contained by Omani and Iranian waters The UAE has a stake, too. > don't have much else to say to you if you actually think that assassinating a head of state in the middle of active negotiations is anything but vile & uncivilized behavior unbecoming of a "civilized" superpower This statement weakens your argument. (It's also not in line with this forum's guidleines around arguing in good faith.) | | |
| ▲ | Cyph0n 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | I am not talking about stakes; I am talking about
territory. Uh if you say so. Can you point me to the rule stating that I need to keep engaging in a discussion I am not interested in having? | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I am talking about territory Yeah. As you suggested, "look at a map." The UAE controls most of the Musandam Peninsula. > that I need to keep engaging You don't. But you also don't need to storm off. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | FpUser 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >"Nobody forced Iran to build all these missiles and to try and build a nuclear weapon or kill their own people or fund actual terrorist groups" Sounds exactly like the US with the exception that they prefer to kill other people, not their own. |
|
|
| ▲ | theonething 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Iran has been respecting that principle for decades May 2022: two Greek Tankers seized by IRGC commandos 2023: Tankers Advnatage Sweet and Niovi seized by IRGC commandos Jan 2024: St. Nikolas seized by Iranian Navy Apr 2024: MSC Aries seized by IRGC commandos During the Tanker War 1981 - 1988: Iran was responsible for approximately 168 attacks on merchant ships July 1987: Kuwait tanker MV Bridgeton struck by Iranian mine April 1988: USS SAmuel B. Roberts nearly sunk by Iranian mine. 2019 Limpet Mine Attacks July 2021: Iranian drone strike on MT Mercer Street Nov 2022: Pacific Zircon struck by Iranian drone |
| |
| ▲ | adrian_b 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | You forgot: February 2026: USA blocking all oil tankers from going to Cuba, which has caused much more damage to the ordinary citizens of Cuba, than isolated incidents have done to other countries. |
|
|
| ▲ | unyttigfjelltol 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Yeah, the game Iran is now trying to play is called “Pipelines and Pirates”. There’s actually a ship deployed to the region right now named after the standard US response to this game, the USS Tripoli.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War |
| |
| ▲ | Cyph0n 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Any idea why they decided to shutdown the strait for the first time in decades? Or did they just suddenly wake up one day and decide that piracy is their calling? And that deployed ship will do nothing. The only way forward is a negotiated agreement. | | |
| ▲ | amluto 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I’m no expert, but I think this is a matter of international politics. Imagine if Iran had closed the strait last year. I suspect a rather large coalition would have shown up, quite quickly, to do their best to reopen it. But instead almost every relevant player is pissed off at the US and Israel and has no desire to join in the hostilities. Not to mention that Iran did not want to have thousands of fancy missiles and bombs lobbed at them, but since that happened anyway, why not close the strait? | |
| ▲ | lolcopedope 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | No dude you don’t get it, Iran == bad, USA == good |
| |
| ▲ | lolcopedope 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] | | |
|
|
| ▲ | BobbyJo 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | bryanrasmussen 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | from the outside it seems getting bombed is more antagonizing than propaganda. | | |
| ▲ | BobbyJo 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | WaxProlix 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Weird, from the outside it seems like bombing civilians and infrastructure is more inflammatory and antagonizing than some words/propaganda. | | |
| ▲ | BobbyJo 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | donkeybeer 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Let me summarize the argument more cleanly: Words are violence!!! Hearing death to America hurt me badly!! vs actual invasions and bombings of your mainland from two hyperviolent countries with a long history of the same | | |
| ▲ | BobbyJo 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Who's argument are you summarizing? Is this about the repeat comment? | | |
| |
| ▲ | tovej 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ask the same dumb question, get the same answer. | | |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Hikikomori 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sorry but US has created this b roll since the 50s. | | |
| ▲ | BobbyJo 31 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The US creates "death to America" b-roll? | | |
| ▲ | vrganj 23 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The US creates "Red Menace", "Terrorist", "Axis of Evil" or "whatever the imperialist excuse of the day" b-roll. |
|
|
|