For Iran the long term result will be a playground without any children playing in it.

Gulf oil exporters will move away from utilizing the Strait over the next few years due to this continued threat - what will it be next time? Give us more chocolate or we’ll close the Strait again! ? You offended our Dear Leader, Straight closed for 4 days! Nobody is going to tolerate that.

So eventually we will wind up with a Strait in which primarily Iranian oil would pass, except by then the US will, if it decides to, maintain control over the Strait and no longer allow Iran to push oil through while Gulf powers just use alternative means.

It’s not necessarily the win that Iran or its supporters seem to think it is.

▲

lokar 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

More than oil goes through the strait. And some of the producers don’t have another way out except via a neighboring country.

▲

ericmay 3 hours ago | parent [-]

For now but they can build pipelines and such. Iraq is discussing sending one through Syria.

I’m not sure what other products transit the Straight from memory but the only one that matters for America and the global economy too is oil and so as long as that’s flowing nobody really cares about Iran threatening ships in the Straight. Eventually the only ships they can threaten will be theirs, but they won’t be allowed to leave. Oh well.

▲

lokar 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Fertilizer. And imports for the gulf states.

▲

croes 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

LNG goes through the strait too and pipelines are an easy target for sabotage

▲

ericmay 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Sure I should have been more specific when I said oil. Those pipelines will have to be redirected or Iran will just have to leave them be. Blowing them up would result in reciprocal action of blowing up Iranian oil and gas facilities. It goes both ways.

▲

lokar 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

But isn’t that the situation we are in now? Both side can hurt the other, without much chance of a real military loss. So it’s a contest for who can withstand more pain for longer. It seems Iran wins that contest.

▲

ericmay 44 minutes ago | parent [-]

Well we hurt them much more. For Iran oil is by far their biggest economic activity, and it hurts the regime more. For the US it's higher prices. It actually screwed with the rest of the world quite a bit more, Asia in particular given that the vast majority of exports from the Strait go to to Asia.

Iran doesn't really win that contest. Is your day-to-day intolerable? No it's not. Is the day-to-day of the average Iranian intolerable? No but it's trending that way.

▲

lokar 34 minutes ago | parent [-]

Absolute pain is not the right measure. You have to look at the level of pain that will threaten the stability of the current government or group in power.

On that basis, it’s less clear. How close Iran’s to meaningful instability is debated, and I’ve not seen a convincingly definitive argument from any side.

▲

ericmay 26 minutes ago | parent [-]

It's also less clear because you aren't really getting much reporting in western media about day-to-day life in Iran (curious isn't it?).

You're certainly correct that the level of pain tolerance varies between countries and governments, but we tolerated a lot of oil and gas pain during Russia's invasion of Ukraine (I support Ukraine then and now), and if you take your thoughts here to their conclusion you're in my view implying Iran can take more pain than the US can.

What is the conclusion then?

The conclusion is that the US military is completely irrelevant because any activity which seems to affect some sort of consumer or industrial good means the US just can't stomach $5/gallon gas for the MAGA trucks and thus we are incapable of fighting a war to support Ukraine or Taiwan for example because gas prices will go through the roof.

▲

lokar 9 minutes ago | parent [-]

I think (based on reading people who seem well informed) that what matters in Iran is the commitment of the elites in power and loyalty of the security forces. Authoritarian governments can suppress popular will for a long time before collapsing.

For US military power, it seems like the lesson is we can do two things:

- inflict a great deal of physical damage quickly, without any domestic support.

- fight a sustained conflict for an extended period of, with domestic support.

It seems they planned for the first, not the second. Both world wars, the Korean and Vietnam wars all inflicted great costs (loss of life, costs to the government budget, and costs to consumers), but were maintained for quite a while. But they all had significant popular support.

	▲	ericmay 5 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Both Kora and Vietnam involved American ground forces, which is a significant factor in public war weariness. In the case of the blockade of Iran, aside from gas prices being too high, it's all rather abstract to the everyday American. Some ships somewhere are stopping other ships from floating in the wrong direction, the news said we bombed some thing and Iran bombed some other thing. We've been reading about bombings for more than 20 years - it's just routine now. You're again right, the commitment of the elites in power in Iran matter. BUT if things get bad enough their hand will be forced. And if not, oh well, we can just maintain a blockade. Either way countries in the gulf region will move away from utilizing the Strait due to war uncertainty.

▲

croes an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

So we learned nothing from Iraq and ISIS?

▲

lefra 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sure if they use strait closures the same way Trump uses tariffs, everyone will try to not use it. But if they just collect fees that are cheaper than alternatives, ships will keep on going through.

	▲	ericmay 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		We would just blockade it then as we are now. Iran gets no money and doesn’t get to sell oil. They’ve already demonstrated that they use the Straight in the same way Trump uses tariffs. As you know, businesses don’t like uncertainty and it’s uncertain what whims or random “fees” or demands Iran will have in the future.

▲

croes 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Easier said than done.

And it’s not only oil, it’s also LNG and Qatar is one of the world’s largest LNG exporters, and virtually all of its LNG currently has to pass through Hormuz.

That would be long and expensive infrastructure constructions.

The straight wasn’t a problem before the President of Peace

▲

ericmay 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Definitely easier said than done but necessary nonetheless.

> The straight wasn’t a problem before the President of Peace

I don’t think this is true. Iran has already mined the Straight before when something or another didn’t go their way, and they were already building up missile and drone capacity to make their shutdown even less manageable by regional powers and American forces.

Had they been granted say another 2-3 years of buildup we really couldn’t have done anything and would have probably had to accept Iranian control.

You also can’t divorce this specific issue from Iran’s general behavior: helping to kill Ukrainians, killing innocent people in the Middle East and creating wars in countries like Syria, and other things like murdering over 30,000 of their own people. They also still stone homosexuals to death. The Straight and their attempt to hold global oil production hostage is just another item on the long list of grievances.

▲

swat535 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> murdering over 30,000 of their own people

Iranian here, please give me the names of the 30,000 dead people so we can corroborate your claims with reality.

I have no lover for IRGC, my own family members were severly harmed by them but this claim is of 30k/40k dead is false.

Next, regarding the United State's ability to "block' the Strait: If the previous blockade was successful, it would have never been lifted.

Regarding the causalities: In this war alone, United State's have killed more than 3k Iranians, bombed schools, hospitals, bridges and other civilian infrastructure. IRAQ war resulted in 211k civilian deaths thanks to United States. I could go further back but I'll stop here.

I'm not saying Iran hasn't harmed anyone but simply on numbers alone, I would be more concerned about US as an adversary than Iran if I was a sovereign nation.

> The Straight and their attempt to hold global oil production hostage

Iran repeatedly warned everyone that if it is attacked, the Strait would be closed. TRUMP decided that we apparently needed to be "freed" and caused a global catastrophe. I like how you you shift the blame here.

Further, any attempts at diplomacy between US and Iran has failed because of US. United States attacked Iran during negotiations or reneged the deal.

Here is a reminder for you:

1. May 2018 - TRUMP wrecks the JCPOA that Obama negotiated (after 20 months of difficult talks from both sides)

2. June 2025 - Us attacks nuclear facilities, weeks after negotiations of April.

3. February 2026 - US strikes Iran during indirect talks in Switzerland

4. Multiple rounds of strikes by US during the 60 day "negotiation", US ignoring everything in the MOU, including trying to covertly move ships from the Oman side

I'm ignoring all other incidents of assassinating Iranian scientists and other diplomats.

Clearly, one side is not interested in peace.

	▲	ericmay 35 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Iranian here, please give me the names of the 30,000 dead people so we can corroborate your claims with reality. I can't since I don't have access to the information. But the BBC started doing some reporting [1] back in February about people being killed. Maybe someone you know? The 30,000 number is confirmed by the US and EU. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62v248xkl5o > Next, regarding the United State's ability to "block' the Strait: If the previous blockade was successful, it would have never been lifted. This is inaccurate for a couple of reasons. First there's the general case which is that the US does indeed want oil to flow from the Strait and is willing to lift the blockade to allow that. Hardliners in the IRGC as deals were being made began attacking ships, and of course the US responded, and thus the Strait was closed by both sides yet again. Second, the US is currently blockading the Strait now. The fact that it is doing it and doing it successfully is evidence that it can in fact do it and do it successfully. > I'm not saying Iran hasn't harmed anyone but simply on numbers alone, I would be more concerned about US as an adversary than Iran if I was a sovereign nation. Well of course. If you're a despotic regime, murdering people, and doing things like that there is only one country on the planet that is inclined to do anything about it. No other country has the will or capability, including Iran (that's not a criticism of Iran it's just a statement of fact). Countries around the world get along peacefully with the US - it's only certain countries that don't and you can tie US actions back to specific actions they continue to take, such as attempting to acquire nuclear weapons which the US, for the good of the world of all things, will not allow. > I like how you you shift the blame here. Well who is to blame, and when do we start deciding who is to blame and win? One can argue you start the blame in 2022 when Hamas (funded by and supplied by Iran) attacked Israel. Prior to that I don't recall too much else going on (relatively speaking). Certainly the US should bear its criticism, but by and large it has been forced into a position in which it must take action. The way you know this is true is this: if Iran stopped trying to build a nuclear bomb, stopped funding terrorist groups (Houthis, Hamas/Palestine, Hezbollah, various groups in Iraq and Syria), and left the Strait of Hormuz alone there's nothing for the US to be upset about. Nobody in America cares about Iran one bit except that your country keeps doing the 3 items I mentioned above and we're simply not going to accept those items, thus, conflict. > Here is a reminder for you: Why do we need to only go back to 2018? Why not go back further or pick a different point in time? Better yet, why do we need a JCPOA in the first place? Just don't build nuclear weapons. Why does Iran need this special treatment and monitoring by the ha perfect American intelligence apparatus to ensure that Iran doesn't build a bomb. Just stop trying to build bombs! > Multiple rounds of strikes by US during the 60 day "negotiation" Iran also conducted multiple rounds of strikes during the 60 day "negotiation" and unlike Iran, the US actually has a leash on its military and when they say stop shooting they don't shoot, unless shot upon, which Iran of course did start shooting at tankers during this period. Nevermind activities in Iraq... > Clearly, one side is not interested in peace. Yes, Iran.

▲

croes an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

The number of ships passing the strait before the war tells a different story.

Maybe Iran did something but it didn’t really bother anyone.

Trump made the strait Iran‘s only way of leverage. They will try to keep it by all means.

Desperation makes such things way worse.

▲

davidw 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Hopefully part of the long term effect is people accelerating the transition away from fossil fuels altogether.

▲

testing22321 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> except by then the US will, if it decides to, maintain control over the Strait and no longer allow Iran to push oil through

How exactly will the US do that?

They’ve been trying for months, and can’t because Iran have the literal high ground. It’s accepted that Short of a massive land invasion committing millions of US troops, they can’t control the strait.

▲

ericmay 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The US controls it right now in the same way that Iran does. No ships are allowed through without permission. You’re aware we have blockaded the Straight, right?

▲

adrian_b 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The problem is that USA does not have any more rights than Iran to declare a blockade.

If this will continue for too long, other countries may decide that they want to pass through the strait no matter what USA says. Then what will USA do, declare war on everybody? Threaten to use nuclear weapons against those who want to use the strait?

For decades, USA has used various blackmailing methods to force other countries to follow its policies, but nowadays most countries seek methods to free themselves from these constraints, so it is unclear if USA will be again successful in the future with such tactics.

	▲	ericmay 30 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> The problem is that USA does not have any more rights than Iran to declare a blockade. Ok so both countries are wrong for stopping maritime traffic then. > If this will continue for too long, other countries may decide that they want to pass through the strait no matter what USA says. Then what will USA do, declare war on everybody? Threaten to use nuclear weapons against those who want to use the strait? They won't for the same reason they don't do it in the Strait. Nobody is willing to risk their lives. The US has boarded multiple ships - you're aware of that right? So what exactly is the "world" going to do? If they can't come together and dislodge Iranian "control" of the Strait with what navy are they going to float over and dislodge the United States with? Be realistic. > For decades, USA has used various blackmailing methods to force other countries to follow its policies, but nowadays most countries seek methods to free themselves from these constraints, so it is unclear if USA will be again successful in the future with such tactics. Many countries engage in coercion where they can including China, the EU, and others. I don't think most countries are seeking methods to free themselves from any constraints here. Also what blackmail technique are you referring to that America is engaging in re: "future tactics"?

▲

testing22321 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

So the US has kind of stopped traffic on and off.

They certain don’t control the straight, because Iran can attack any ship passing through with ease and the US can’t stop them.

Notice how no US navy ships are going through? They know they’ll be sunk. That doesn’t sound like control to me.

	▲	ericmay 33 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> They certain don’t control the straight, because Iran can attack any ship passing through with ease and the US can’t stop them. Yes but that also means Iran doesn't control it. The US can attack any vessel passing through with ease and Iran can't stop them. > Notice how no US navy ships are going through? They know they’ll be sunk. That doesn’t sound like control to me. Well there's no reason to sail through and expose yourself to fire. Iran doesn't even have a navy anymore.