I don't know enough about the current state of naval warfare but I've assumed this is related to the asymmetry that's emerged around protecting capital warships, especially in the scenario of a very narrow strait and a long enemy-controlled coastline. They can shoot relatively low-cost, short-range guided missiles from anywhere along the coast. Even if a warship stops the vast majority of them, only one has to get through to sink a multi-billion dollar ship that takes a decade to replace.

There are now similar asymmetries emerging across war-fighting and even though warships can still be effective (and less vulnerable) in other scenarios, this specific one seems especially bad. The other factor is that most of what ships carry through the straight isn't going directly to the U.S. so the impact on the U.S. is mostly secondary, reducing the risk the U.S. is willing to take. Of course, all this was known beforehand by military strategists which makes this all look even worse for the U.S. administration.

> United States using its military to keep international waters open

Being a little pedantic, as per my knowledge, the Strait of Hormuz is not “international waters”. It’s territorial waters belonging to Iran and Oman. AFAIK, Iran hasn’t ratified UNCLOS either, and claims it is not subject to it.

The power wasn't there in the first place if the administration couldn't defend Hormuz. It's all the same capital and resources that prior administrations had. The actual blunder was exposing that weakness to the world. We could have done nothing and reputation would've carried the idea that we could.

Seems like piracy is more about the land than the sea. I can't think of any major american military action against piracy aside from actions against somali terrorists. Seems piracy as it was known historically died out as the old historic pirate havens of say Tortuga or Outer Banks went from places of anarchy to places that were controlled by some government in some capacity. And that is exactly where we see the somali piracy today: here is a state that is unable to govern its land mass and thus there is piracy, even with the american navy directly taking action against this piracy. Seemingly this has nothing to do with the american navy at all, even though that is supposedly one of its mandates and it takes actions in the spirit of advancing these anti piracy goals. The fundamentals of why piracy does and doesn't occur don't really change. It seems it comes down to government capacity on land, not from projecting naval power.

The gamble, which was certainly egged on by Israel, was that two stars aligned and it was high time to strike Iran.

The first star was intense civilian unrest, the months leading up to the strikes was marked by riots and protests.

The second star was the meeting of Iran's top brass in one spot at one time, both of which Israel knew about.

It was almost certainly sold to Trump as a domino event, where the US would blow the head off and the people of Iran would ravage the body. On paper it looks clean, and certainly he was riding on a high after the swift coup in Venezuela.

Of course though, that did not happen, and now he had to go to China to beg under a thin veil for them to pressure Iran to back off. Trump rolled a critical failure on what appeared to be a moderate-low risk attempt.

The plan was ostensibly to distract and insider trade. Winning would be counter productive anyway.

Say what you want but it seems like Iran are the ones playing 4D chess here.

I would amend that to be that everyone thought Iran could close the straight, but now they _know_ they can close the straight.

Side note that the US offered the same plan as Iran. Selling insurance (in USD) to shippers to transit the Strait. They have done $0 in business.

https://www.ft.com/content/eabadd1a-a712-4b44-99bf-bb50eb753...

This outcome is still favorable for nethyanandu and he used trump and USA as tool.

Ironically the US has never ratified UNCLOS. The American professed interest in maintaining right of passage does not appear to require them to be held to the same standards.

Also the Strait of Hormuz is an international strait not international waters. The entire strait lies within Iranian and Omani waters. Frankly it's a bit absurd to complain that your ships can't transit a country's waters while you bomb them.

Iran defeated the US the minute trump was sworn in.

In a sense, this is the defeat of the US by bin Laden - it's been a steady slide until the trump cliff since then.

there is only one man who is surprised and he is Orange and Extremely Ignorant

The post-WW2 American-led world order was, at times a shared world order between the United States and Soviet Union. Free trade, perhaps, was enforced by the United States Navy but that was for the benefit of all nations and it seems to me to have been something pretty widely understood.

If the US military fails to keep international waters open, that harms everyone, and everyone more so than the United States. There's this continued misunderstanding that America did this or that, or securing global shipping is for America to do, or what have you. But you can't have your cake and eat it too here. If you accept American hegemony of the seas and the associated benefits, you have to also accept American action in places like Iran. It's a package deal - you get both or neither. There seems to be a misunderstanding about that, I hope it's a little more clear now.

> It would be quite stunning Iran defeated the united states in this sense.

To this second point, the US can just keep the Strait closed. No big deal. It isn't really possible for Iran to forcibly win here because while the US has higher gas prices, we're the #1 oil and gas market and we can stomach the pain much longer less you get complaints from MAGA/far-left anti-American types. Iran would simply watch their entire economy collapse, while Americans are paying a couple bucks more for cheeseburgers and milkshakes.

But the perspective that the US would be defeated is the incorrect one. In fact, what would be defeated here is the very American-led world order. For the US to be defeated here, as so many seem to rejoice at the prospect of, you would also lose American naval power and security, and instead each and every country would have to spend a lot more human capital and treasure to secure their own shipping and trade arrangements, because there would be no America to come help and save the day. No more NATO. No more caring about Taiwan or Ukraine (remember Iran helps Russians kill Ukrainians?) or getting involved in expeditionary affairs. Much more transactional - pay to play and a global security tax. A scenario like the one in Iran, in which a genocidal dictatorship that is all to happy to steal tribute from weaker nations simply becomes the norm, if not simply more common, and the EU or China or whoever can deal with it.

So I'd say, be careful to join other isolationists and smugly cheer for the US to "lose" to Iran, and in which case you can expect much worse as the US says "forget it" and only seeks to protect its own vital interests without regard to the rest of the world - the Trumpian and far left view which is a marriage of convenience.

The administration knew this very well. They've been swinging the markets wildly and intentionally several times and they and their buddies have made billions from it.

> this administration clearly had no idea what they were getting themselves into

All of the advisors in the room with Trump (Cheung, Caine, etc.) told him explicitly after the meeting with Netanyahu that attacking Iran was a horrible idea. His military advisors told him that Strait closure was the most obvious consequence.

The root cause here, is that all decisions are being made by a single biological neural network with a really high error rate, which is increasing.

Or is it posible this administration just took a win-win-win position?

1 - US oil and gas companies make money as oil proces rise. The US is the largest producer in the world.

2 - China loses it's major source of oil and gas.

3 - Iran gets neutralized. It may not look like it now, but it will probably end up that way.

It is bigger news indeed. I think previously China and Saudi were settling their account deficit with gold, a big airplane load every now and then.

The US allowing Iran to levy a toll on Hormuz would completely discredit the US and set the precedent for other countries to levy their own shipping tolls . It's a non-starter.

If anything we hand them tons of cash near 0% to rebuild and they join the Eurodollar cartel pushing our hegemony further. Politicians would need to do a better job explaining deficit spending and Keynesianism more generally.

It lets people not look up. And given the slightest opportunity an awful lot of people will take the don't look up answer.

Military history is full of quotes like "war is too important to be left to the generals". When you put people who focus on technical matters in charge, they often make poor decisions, as they are not looking at the big picture.

The question is not about whether the US can blockade the Hormuz Strait but who gets blamed for the blockade. Iran is messaging that it is making serious attempts to reopen the strait, while China and Russia are probably reinforcing the message. When people around the world suffer from the consequences of the blockade, they are more likely to blame America for their troubles. Or at least that's what Iran is trying to achieve.

Sure, but when it happens it's no longer Iran's problem - it's your problem. (And maybe America's problem, unless America gains anything from the global trade burning down.)

Just wait for CENTCOM bulletin with their USDC blockade insurance address

A Iran drone then bombing UAE's oil infrastructure as payback?

A combination of enough insurance to make it worth the time of the owner + offer the workers a generous amount to their next of kin could make it worth it. Being turned into minced meat might be worth it for some people if it means their families become rich.

Exactly. The US just announces that they will take any vessel that pays for transit. So, what happens then? Any vessel that goes through and the IRGC doesn't shoot them, the US seizes. So, no one pays since they can't pay for successful transit. The fun game is that all the vessels just go at once. Any that the IRGC doesn't shoot the US takes. Any that it does shoot sink. So, no transit. Unless IRGC doesn't shoot at all, in which case everyone gets out of there with just one vessel paying the ransom. Ultimately this doesn't work for the IRGC as the US is far more capable of closing the strait than Iran is.

The US can also fuck with Iran by getting slight cooperation from ships in the Gulf of Oman by getting some small inflatable boats with remote control and AIS transmitters on them. Put the boat in the water next to a ship, turn of the ship's AIS, turn on the boats AIS, and send the boat through. Send hundreds of them. IRGC won't know what to shoot at or will expose their positions by firing at a rubber raft.

US Navy has shown particular strength in this conflict against Iran, sitting in the international waters many (many, many) miles away and chillin :)

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

Oh they are well aware and using bitcoin for years. Nobitex is an Iranian exchange and they have been processing billions using crypto networks:

https://www.reuters.com/investigations/how-trumps-crypto-ven...

It's not about traceability, it's about not having to use the dollar as currency.

> Bitcoin does make the transaction publicly traceable

It can be untraceable with CashFusion

What difference does it make?

I mean, kind of. If I give you an address to use to send me money, and I don't tell anyone else that address, and you don't tell anyone else that address, then nobody else can be sure who is behind the transaction.

We know they are just going to spend it all on polymarket.

The volatility is only an issue if you need to convert the bitcoin in the near future. If you are willing to wait, volatility goes in your advantage. Bitcoin is volatile enough that if you wait for maybe a few years you will probably hit a pump that will far exceed the growth of most other investments. You don't even need to sell at the high to do this, the run up is often plenty enough gain.

They were charging 0BTC per ship before, so they come out ahead no matter the current value of the coin. They can change their fees by the day as well.

Using bitcoin to pay extortions or ransoms is very common. What ransomware doesn't use bitcoin?

Is the US or Israel asking for blockchain payments for access?

"terror state". I would have hoped that HN users would be smarter than to parrot FOX news propaganda.

It's a lot easier to carry bitcoins than suitcases full of foreign cash or gold bars too. In China, they moved to digital currencies in part I believe to defeat CIA bags of cash (no point in getting stacks of paper money you can't use...). However, censorship resistant digital currencies allow them to continue their sneaky tricks.

This kind of thing explains in part why despite being an obvious scam, the government allowed cryptocurrencies to grow so large that eventually they formed their own feedback loop so strong that crypto bros were the biggest funders the 2024 presidential campaigns.

How do you ban bitcoin? It’s not hosted or supported by American financial rails or any entity like swift which can be influenced by the USA in any meaningful way.

How do you ban this? It’s not part of swift or any us govt. backed global financial rails. If Iran(a sanctioned entity) supports this then this is more proof that the thing works.

> ... we can just ban this thing forever.

I don't give a f--k about Bitcoin but I wouldn't want governments to start banning it.

Because then why not ban VPN forever too? And require a digital ID for anyone going on to the Internet?

And why not also mandate cameras operated by the state in every room of your apartment/house to make sure you behave?

And backdoor in every cryptographic protocol.

I mean why stop at banning Bitcoin komrade?

BTW the EU is thinking about creating an EU-wide registry of every single asset owned by every single EU citizen, down to every gold coin (oh btw maybe we should ban individuals owning gold coins too?), every jewel, every painting, sculpture, old car, watch, pokemand and Magic the Gathering card: they literally have a plan to make an inventory of every single asset. When asked, by a member of the EU parliament I think, if they could promise this would never be used as a basis for confiscation the EU Commission answered they couldn't promise that.

Where do you draw the line? Is there one point at which you start saying that freedom shouldn't be taken away?

Kicked out?

If the Dems don't win the Senate, nothing will change until maybe February 2029 but pretty sure the same people that gave him this power of insanity are just going to vote for the next nightmare, there's no lesson learned, not even with $5 gas and $6 diesel

I don't even think a full blown recession would change anything

And now they are bringing the warships back to Cuba so get ready for next distraction from this distraction from the other distraction while they crime-spree away

Syndicated here: https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/crypto/articles/iran-start...

Sympathy gets you Gaza, West Bank and a few refugee camps.

Geopolitics understands one language alone.

Well the strait was open and freely navigable before trump bombed them.

What Iran has learned from this is they don’t need sympathy, they need to exercise the leverage they do have, and there’s no way they’re ever going to willingly give that leverage up - they’ve seen what would happen.

Ukraine also gave up its nukes. Look how that worked out for them and Europe.

yeah right, lets kill some more Iranian schoolgirls!!

"Iran could easily have garnered a lot of international sympathy and support"

What? I understand sympathy but I am not understanding what the path could've been to meaningful support against US aggression here.

Well it worked to get USA and Israel to stop attacking.

International law, much less "international sympathy", is a meaningless phrase in 2026.

Iran was attacked by the US and Israel (the state committing genocide right now). International law, rules and agreements don't seem to matter when it comes to the US and Israel. Fortunately, the world is becoming more and more multi-polar, and the decline of the US (which to a certain extent is probably caused by how Israel is dragging them to wars) is necessary to have some world peace. I do have to note that I feel sorry for the bulk of Americans who are just trying to live their lives.

This is an incredible 180 degree misinterpretation of who attacked whom. Iran is garnering incredible international sympathy and support. There is no just war theory that can support what America has done to Iran. It is immoral, illegal aggression.

> [Iran] now are basically asking for blackmail money: "nice ship you have there..."

This doesn't sound like the don to you? "hey Iran, nice country you have there..."

> Maybe Trump should bomb them some more?

If the USA is going to be bombing every country which doesn't give up their sovereignty and bend the knee to the don, then the USA is going to need more bombs.

Iran knows hard currency is better than soft power