The US 'forced' them to do this by agreeing in principal that Iran could charge that toll (along with 9 other points).

The question isn't whether the US can destroy Iran, it obviously could(as evil as that would be). The question is does the US want to pay the price of continuing the war more than the price of agreeing to those points, and would Iran pay the price required to fight back if it does not get the US to capitulate on those points.

I can tell you what will happen to any boat that doesn't pay the extortion (toll) and enters the straight. So realistically it doesn't matter if it's in breach of maritime norms, who's going to restart attacks on Iran to enforce those norms if the US capitulated on it?

▲

15155 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> I can tell you what will happen to any boat that doesn't pay the extortion (toll) and enters the straight. (sic)

Whatever "might" happen won't be happening for very long when the entire country at large is in the stone age.

	▲	herewulf an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The Iranian regime doesn't care what "age" their people are living in and have been stockpiling weapons for enough decades to follow through on their threats. And every time I read "we have destroyed 3000% of Iran's weapons capability", I read about more missiles and drones flying.

▲

toyg 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It should be remembered these points have not been agreed - they are the basis for the Iranian negotiation over the next two weeks. There is no guarantee that the US will not simply reject it and start bombing again - in fact, considering the model for Trump's strategies (comrade Vladimir Putin and his "special military operation" in Ukraine), that's probably what they'll do.