3 ms·

Blocking the strait is Iran's doing, not the US's. The US attacked them yes, but they were the ones who responded by threatening to blow up the ships of innoce

by Ajedi32 7mo ago

Blocking the strait is Iran's doing, not the US's. The US attacked them yes, but they were the ones who responded by threatening to blow up the ships of innocent third parties. They couldn't hurt the US, so they decided to hurt you instead. Why the world is tolerating this behavior as if it's a legitimate strategy and blaming it on the US is beyond me.

AngryData 7mo ago
What do you mean its not the US's doing? They knew 100% before going in that the straight being closed would be the result of attacking Iran. If the US didn't attack Iran, there would be no blockade. Its like going into a bar and you start beating people up and so the bar owner kicks everyone out and then you say "It's not my fault the bar closed, it's the bar owner's fault, I merely started the fight that caused the bar to close!"
- Ajedi32 7mo ago
  Iran doesn't own the strait. They don't have a right to close the bar in the first place. If one guy throws a punch and the other guy responds by throwing a molotov cocktail into the kitchen you don't charge the first guy with arson, even if he "should have known that second guy was crazy".
  - AngryData 7mo ago
    If the other guy is literally holding a molotov in his hand saying "If you attack me im going to throw this" and then you attack him anyways, then yes it is 50% your fault. You knew what would happen before you did it.
    - Ajedi32 7mo ago
      I disagree. Besides, if a guy is making threats like that you should have the police come in to remove him, or maybe even SWAT if it's a credible deadly threat. Threatening harm to uninvolved third parties is not a tactic that should be afforded any legitimacy, which capitulation certainly does.
      - AngryData 7mo ago
        There is nothing wrong with threatening harm against people who are threatening you with harm. Some might even say it is a moral imperative to fight back against those who will harm and kill you or your friends and family. Iran didn't start this off, the US did with an inept surprise attack. On top of all that, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
        Ajedi32 7mo ago
        Again, the issue here is not threatening harm against those threatening them, it's with threatening (and indeed, actively perpetuating) harm against uninvolved third parties. Punching back the guy who punched you? Understandable. Lobbing a molotov cocktail into the kitchen, pointing at the guy who punched you and declaring "Look what he made me do! You better stop him!" to onlookers? Completely unhinged.
        AngryData 7mo ago
        I don't see Iran attacking Europe or anybody else that they aren't already in or have been in conflict with. Is it inconvenient? Sure. But if don't want to block the hallway for everyone else you don't start a fight with a guy standing in the hallway. You think if Spain was attacked by a bigger and stronger adversary that they would just let the logistics traffic that feeds the enemy and the enemy's allies pass freely through the Gibraltar strait? Hell no.
        Ajedi32 7mo ago
        Traffic through the strait is certainly not "logistics traffic that feeds the enemy", unless Iran considers the entire world its enemy. Certainly high global oil prices affect the US just as they affect everyone, but these are not US ships being blocked, nor are they bound for the US. The US gets almost all the oil it imports from Canada, South America, and Mexico: https://www.voronoiapp.com/energy/Visualizing-Global-Oil-Trade-Flows-in-2024--6264 https://www.voronoiapp.com/energy/Visualizing-Global-Oil-Tra... The "blocking the hallway" analogy also fails because this isn't just unavoidable collateral damage; Iran is actively threatening to target ships from these uninvolved third parties.
jacquesm 7mo ago
This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read on HN and I've been here for a while. Iran was always going to blockade the strait of Hormuz if attacked, as would any other country in their position. What do you expect, to tell them to play by some imaginary set of rules while the US is setting the rulebook itself on fire? It's almost as dumb as expecting Ukraine to allow russian oil to transit their territory.
- Ajedi32 7mo ago
  I'm not sure what your point is. Everyone knew they were going to irrationally decide to threaten the ships of uninvolved third parties therefore it's not their fault for doing it? Ukraine is blocking Russian oil, not the oil of random uninvolved neighboring countries. And the strait is in no way "Iran's territory" anymore than you could say it's the US's territory just because they could also theoretically block traffic through there if they wanted.

by Ajedi32 7mo ago

AngryData 7mo ago

What do you mean its not the US's doing? They knew 100% before going in that the straight being closed would be the result of attacking Iran. If the US didn't attack Iran, there would be no blockade. Its like going into a bar and you start beating people up and so the bar owner kicks everyone out and then you say "It's not my fault the bar closed, it's the bar owner's fault, I merely started the fight that caused the bar to close!"

Ajedi32 7mo ago
Iran doesn't own the strait. They don't have a right to close the bar in the first place. If one guy throws a punch and the other guy responds by throwing a molotov cocktail into the kitchen you don't charge the first guy with arson, even if he "should have known that second guy was crazy".
- AngryData 7mo ago
  If the other guy is literally holding a molotov in his hand saying "If you attack me im going to throw this" and then you attack him anyways, then yes it is 50% your fault. You knew what would happen before you did it.
  - Ajedi32 7mo ago
    I disagree. Besides, if a guy is making threats like that you should have the police come in to remove him, or maybe even SWAT if it's a credible deadly threat. Threatening harm to uninvolved third parties is not a tactic that should be afforded any legitimacy, which capitulation certainly does.
    - AngryData 7mo ago
      There is nothing wrong with threatening harm against people who are threatening you with harm. Some might even say it is a moral imperative to fight back against those who will harm and kill you or your friends and family. Iran didn't start this off, the US did with an inept surprise attack. On top of all that, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
      - Ajedi32 7mo ago
        Again, the issue here is not threatening harm against those threatening them, it's with threatening (and indeed, actively perpetuating) harm against uninvolved third parties. Punching back the guy who punched you? Understandable. Lobbing a molotov cocktail into the kitchen, pointing at the guy who punched you and declaring "Look what he made me do! You better stop him!" to onlookers? Completely unhinged.
        AngryData 7mo ago
        I don't see Iran attacking Europe or anybody else that they aren't already in or have been in conflict with. Is it inconvenient? Sure. But if don't want to block the hallway for everyone else you don't start a fight with a guy standing in the hallway. You think if Spain was attacked by a bigger and stronger adversary that they would just let the logistics traffic that feeds the enemy and the enemy's allies pass freely through the Gibraltar strait? Hell no.
        Ajedi32 7mo ago
        Traffic through the strait is certainly not "logistics traffic that feeds the enemy", unless Iran considers the entire world its enemy. Certainly high global oil prices affect the US just as they affect everyone, but these are not US ships being blocked, nor are they bound for the US. The US gets almost all the oil it imports from Canada, South America, and Mexico: https://www.voronoiapp.com/energy/Visualizing-Global-Oil-Trade-Flows-in-2024--6264 https://www.voronoiapp.com/energy/Visualizing-Global-Oil-Tra... The "blocking the hallway" analogy also fails because this isn't just unavoidable collateral damage; Iran is actively threatening to target ships from these uninvolved third parties.

jacquesm 7mo ago

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read on HN and I've been here for a while. Iran was always going to blockade the strait of Hormuz if attacked, as would any other country in their position. What do you expect, to tell them to play by some imaginary set of rules while the US is setting the rulebook itself on fire? It's almost as dumb as expecting Ukraine to allow russian oil to transit their territory.

Ajedi32 7mo ago
I'm not sure what your point is. Everyone knew they were going to irrationally decide to threaten the ships of uninvolved third parties therefore it's not their fault for doing it? Ukraine is blocking Russian oil, not the oil of random uninvolved neighboring countries. And the strait is in no way "Iran's territory" anymore than you could say it's the US's territory just because they could also theoretically block traffic through there if they wanted.