The popular answer I've seen over the past few weeks is to just blame everything on the US, but that kind of thinking and lack of agency is exactly why countries like the UK are in the position they are.

Just constant burying heads in the sand, and believing in models where the prior assumptions are from a bygone era.

▲ OgsyedIE 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not only do those particular prior assumptions date to 1957 in a way that makes deviating from them structurally dangerous, they involve very low military spending in a way that makes deviating from them politically dangerous.

Fixing the budget hole to pay for that spending without resorting to giving many people living in Monaco the Eichmann treatment as a side effect (which is untenable on account of French security guarantees to Monaco) would need some kind of government of hardcore believers who could also do math.

▲ ceejayoz 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why would one not blame the US for this situation?

▲ bawolff 39 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

The way i read the parent post, is that the uk decided to invest in other things than military. As a result they are at the whims of USA foreign policy and can't really do much about it. In an alternate world where UK spent more on hard power, they might not be subject to the whims of america to the same extent.

[To be clear, i dont 100% agree with this argument. I think there is a little truth to it but also things are much more complicated than that and it ignores the geopolitical tension in the region that was going to explode one way or another even without usa]

▲ credit_guy 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think the OP is saying that it's ok to blame, but it is not ok to just blame. It is preferable to also act in some sort.

	▲	ceejayoz 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		For decades the world has very reasonably operated on the assumption that the world’s primary superpower wouldn’t be dumb enough to do this without a proper plan. Everyone except the Iranians and maybe the Israelis were flat-footed by this, and the things that can be done about it are largely on the years/decades scale.

▲ mrcsharp 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because a competent country/government should plan ahead for shortages of any vital resource it depends on.

▲

ceejayoz 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Within reason.

Until quite recently, “the US sticks its dick in the chainsaw” wasn’t a “within reason” scenario.

▲

mrcsharp 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Within reason

Reason dictates having redundancy in place. Having prepared scenarios for what to do. A lot of countries clearly don't have that and they are operating on the assumption that no major disruption is going to happen.

Depending on resources coming from historically unstable locations and not having plans to prepare for such instability is just foolish.

	▲	ceejayoz an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> Reason dictates having redundancy in place. The UK doesn’t have a strategic oxygen reserve in case the atmosphere disappears. It’s both implausible and not really something they can do much about. Trump is that sort of scenario.

▲

bawolff 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The middle east explodes is an eventuality that is within reason to prepare for. Its famously a geopolitical powder-keg.

▲

testing22321 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

To be fair this is not the first time a US President stuck their dock in something and got bitten

▲ mothballed 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

USA is proximally to blame, but Iran in its current borders is an entity that is largely the brain child of Britain. It ended up encompassing the Baloch and Kurds, who could have helped check Persian power and make Persian borders more penetrable, which was probably a geopolitical mistake.

▲

fsckboy 2 hours ago | parent [-]

the Baloch and the Kurds are ethnic Persians, they speak Persian languages.

	▲	mothballed 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>the Baloch and the Kurds are ethnic Persians, Wut > they speak Persian languages As a lingua franca, sure. By some very twisted semantics maybe, but really, no.

▲ hughlomas 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The only state preventing free commerce through the strait is Iran.

▲ ceejayoz 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The only reason Iran is playing that sole card they hold is their two core enemies launched a war of aggression.

▲ 3eb7988a1663 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The US is running a blockade of their own in the strait.

▲ mpyne 2 hours ago | parent [-]

That only applies to Iranian traffic. It would in fact be an act of war for the U.S. to blockade maritime traffic of countries it's not already at war with.

▲ 3eb7988a1663 2 hours ago | parent [-]

So, where does that leave Cuba?

▲ ceejayoz 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Cuba is sanctioned, not blockaded.

▲ 3eb7988a1663 2 hours ago | parent [-]

  Cuban tankers have hardly left the island’s shores for months. Oil-rich allies have halted shipments or declined to come to the rescue. The U.S. military has seized ships that have supported Cuba. And in recent days, vessels roaming the Caribbean Sea in search of fuel for Cuba have come up empty or been intercepted by the U.S. authorities.

  Last week, a tanker linked to Cuba burned fuel for five days to get to the port in Curaçao but then left without cargo, according to ship-tracking data. Three days later, the U.S. Coast Guard intercepted a tanker full of Colombian fuel oil en route to Cuba that had gotten within 70 miles of the island, the data showed.

  While President Trump has pledged to halt any oil headed to Cuba, the Trump administration has stopped short of calling its policy a blockade.

  But it is functioning as one.

Sure, economic sanctions have been in place for a long time, but the US has started seizing full ships.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/20/world/americas/cuba-oil-b...

▲

ceejayoz an hour ago | parent [-]

Not presently. They relented back in March.

https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/30/americas/us-russian-oil-tanke...

▲

3eb7988a1663 an hour ago | parent [-]

So just a limited duration war and breaking of international law. Barely counts for those impacted.

	▲	ceejayoz an hour ago \| parent [-]
		An act of war is not necessarily a war. They happen all the time.

▲ stavros 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes, as retaliation of a US/Israel invasion that is against international law.

▲

bawolff 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Which in turn is also against international law (international law would let them retaliate against israel & usa. It doesn't let them target neutral shipping [edit: to clarify i mean neutral shipping going to neutral ports]).

Of course international law is not worth the paper its written on.

▲

ceejayoz 2 hours ago | parent [-]

No, defensive blockades are explicitly permitted under international law, including neutral parties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade

> Blockades restrict the trading rights of neutrals, who must submit for inspection for contraband, which the blockading power may define narrowly or broadly, sometimes including food and medicine.

▲

bawolff an hour ago | parent | next [-]

To clarify, i meant shipping to neutral ports (article 99 of San Remo: "A blockade must not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States" https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/san-remo-manu... ). Oman seems neutral in all this but nonetheless affected.

They would be allowed to blockade neutral ships going to enemy ports (e.g. Israel) subject to a bunch of rules but that doesn't seem to be what they are doing.

I dont even think Iran is claiming this is a blockade. They are claiming its part of its territorial waters, and they are claiming that they dont recognize the UNCLOS which would give vessels transit rights (but at the same time they are claiming they recognize the part of UNCLOS that allows claiming 12 miles out as territorial waters). At least that is what i got from https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-legality-of-irans-closure-of-th...

▲

ceejayoz an hour ago | parent [-]

There are no neutral ports there. Every other country past the strait is a US ally with US military bases hosted on their territory.

Oman is before the strait begins.

	▲	bawolff 26 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> There are no neutral ports there. Every other country past the strait is a US ally with US military bases hosted on their territory. I dont think hosting a US base would necessarily make them non neutral unless that base was used offensively. According to international law, Iran would also have to justify their exercise of self-defense rights was porportional, which even if you accept hosting a us base made that state non neutral, i think it would be difficult to justify their response against states simply hosting a us base met the porportionality requirements of int law. However even if they were enemy states, Iran would have to declare all of these countries as being under blockade, which they haven't as far as i am aware. > Oman is before the strait begins. How is the Oman port of Khasab before the strait begins?

▲

mpyne 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Did you miss the part about contraband? You quoted it, after all.

Firing on neutral shipping is not the same as intercepting it and inspecting it for war materiel or other contraband. Preventing shipping from reaching or leaving Kuwaiti ports is not the same as inspecting it for war materiel or other contraband.

	▲	ceejayoz 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Iran has been requiring shipping to submit to inspection and tolls via an adjusted route through the strait. And they can certainly deem oil contraband if they are allowed to do food and medicine, as quoted. Ships that don’t stop get fired upon. That’s what happens in a blockade. Kuwait is a US ally and hosts American military bases. Stopping shipping to there is very clearly legitimate.

▲

unethical_ban an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm very concerned about people downvoting the observation that this war is illegal and unnecessary even to achieve its stated goals.

	▲	stavros an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I guess nobody likes hearing that their country is unethically invading other countries. As much as I hate defending Iran, I don't think there's much of a difference between what the US is doing to Iran and what Russia is doing to Ukraine.

▲ vrganj 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

We in Europe negotiated the JCPOA. Read its terms. Understand its lead negotiatior was the EU representative. That was our codified relationship with Iran. Now compare that to the best case after what you geniuses started.

Own up to it. This is solely on the US. The rest of us had it handled until you came along.

▲ varispeed 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You have Russian asset as president who acts like chaos monkey for the Putin's entertainment.

One thing is correct though that UK security services have not anticipated such outcome and politicians have not done anything about it.

	▲	OgsyedIE 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The Soviet Union gave the equivalent of about 80-100 million USD in support to the ANC in South Africa in the 1970s and 1980s. As soon as they got power, the ANC turned around and aligned with the west, wasting every rouble Moscow spent. Since the inauguration Trump has supported physical seizures of many different kinds of Russia-aligned merchant shipping and the economic degradation of Russia's allies. Given all of this, we can assume that the Russian asset angle is a much less accurate explanation for Trump's behavior than the alternative theory where he is highly suggestible to the most recent person to heavily compliment him in-person which used to be Putin and has subsequently changed to some mix of Rubio, Vance, Hegseth, Netanyahu and the Trump family.

▲ FridayoLeary 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Couldn't agree more. Our Navy is a joke. We can barely muster a single destroyer. Burning goodwill with Trump is foolish when europe is completely dependant on the US to defend them from Russia. I don't know what the strategic thinking is here. Demonstrate to the entire world that we are pathetic weaklings and the us that we're useless dependants?

This war might be dumb but it was also predictable. Why were these no contingencies? Or to quote Churchill "If you want peace you have to prepare for war".