8 ms·
> Freedom of navigation is a core global principal And Iran has been respecting that principle for decades. So why exactly did the US and Israel (and GCC count
by Cyph0n 6mo ago
> Freedom of navigation is a core global principal
And Iran has been respecting that principle for decades. So why exactly did the US and Israel (and GCC countries) think that the status quo would remain even if they keep antagonizing Iran? Imagine getting bombed during negotiations - not once, but twice in a single year! Their sovereignty was being disrespected, so now they're understandably establishing a new status quo.
And btw, if Iran and Oman cooperate, there is no threat to "freedom of navigation" under international law.
In a nutshell: play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
- ericmay 6mo agoOman isn’t the only country in the region, and any country should expect their ships to sail peacefully. Last I checked it’s the US and Israel at war with Iran, not others - no justification for charging transit fees. Second, you’re ignoring decades of history and picking an arbitrary point to say that’s when some animosity started. Nobody forced Iran to build all these missiles and to try and build a nuclear weapon or kill their own people or fund actual terrorist groups as designated by the United States and European Union. If you drag out negotiations long enough you never get bombed! What a thought lol.
- Cyph0n 6mo agoFirst, look at a map. The strait is entirely contained by Omani and Iranian waters. Second, I don't have much else to say to you if you actually think that assassinating a head of state in the middle of active negotiations is anything but vile & uncivilized behavior unbecoming of a "civilized" superpower. Ultimately, this is going to be a major strategic loss for the US and Israel. They have achieved none of the goals stated at the outset of this "operation", outside of perhaps diminishing the Iranian missile manufacturing capabilities & stockpile.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago> First, look at a map. The strait is entirely contained by Omani and Iranian waters The UAE has a stake, too. > don't have much else to say to you if you actually think that assassinating a head of state in the middle of active negotiations is anything but vile & uncivilized behavior unbecoming of a "civilized" superpower This statement weakens your argument. (It's also not in line with this forum's guidleines around arguing in good faith.)
- Cyph0n 6mo agoI am not talking about stakes; I am talking about territory. Uh if you say so. Can you point me to the rule stating that I need to keep engaging in a discussion I am not interested in having?
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago> I am talking about territory Yeah. As you suggested, "look at a map." The UAE controls most of the Musandam Peninsula. > that I need to keep engaging You don't. But you also don't need to storm off.
- Cyph0n 6mo agoJust came back to this. In what world is Musandam mostly controlled by the UAE? Can you point this out on a map?
- ericmay 6mo ago[flagged]
- thaumasiotes 6mo ago> I guess Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Iraq, and Qatar don’t exist lol. They’re not just attacking ships in one tiny area - ships have to pass through bidirectionally which affects trade for everyone. Stop trying to defend this stuff. You must have a real problem with the concept of the Panama Canal.
- ericmay 6mo agoThe Panama Canal is a man-made construct and costs money to operate. How is that comparable?
- thaumasiotes 6mo agoIt's comparable in that it's a nearly-identical construct that functions in an actually-identical way. Constructing the Strait of Hormuz was cheaper than constructing the Panama Canal.† That doesn't change anything about the fact that it exists. † Cheaper in an abstract sense. In a more literal sense, the tolling authority, Panama, didn't have to pay for the canal; it was built by the United States.
- ericmay 6mo ago> Constructing the Strait of Hormuz Who dug it up?
- thaumasiotes 6mo agoThink of it as reflecting the will of God.
- dante54 6mo agoThis is very rich given that the US, is the only country to use nukes, and Israel has illegal nukes and wont even accept inspection. Nobody charged anyone to cross a strait until your pedophile leaders decided to kill a head of state and bomb a school full of children
- FpUser 6mo ago>"Nobody forced Iran to build all these missiles and to try and build a nuclear weapon or kill their own people or fund actual terrorist groups" Sounds exactly like the US with the exception that they prefer to kill other people, not their own.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago> Nobody forced Iran to build all these missiles and to try and build a nuclear weapon or kill their own people or fund actual terrorist groups as designated by the United States and European Union Iran has absolutely run its strategy as a basket case. But proxies aside (which is a big aside), they were fairly self contained until we started hitting them. At least this time around.
- Cyph0n 6mo agoFairly self contained is an understatement. They proved time and again over the course of the past few years that they were not only pragmatic, but also a much more rational actor than Israel and the US.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago> They proved time and again over the course of the past few years that they were not only pragmatic, but also a much more rational actor than Israel and the US When? When they drip fed Hezbollah's missiles into Israel's air defences? When they left their ships in port to get bombed? When they convened an in-person meeting at the Supreme Leader's residence? When they didn't even reprimand Hamas after October 7th? Iran has acted according to its regime's interests. But I wouldn't say they prosecuted their goals rationally, pragmatically or even particularly effectively.
- lolcopedope 6mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- Cyph0n 6mo ago[dead]
- kaveh_h 6mo ago
- modo_mario 6mo ago>and any country should expect their ships to sail peacefully Tbf the US seized plenty of theirs, others and such. >Last I checked it’s the US and Israel at war with Iran, not others The US bases and provided landing spots and ports, etc kind of speak otherwise and they don't have other ways of getting money from the US I believe.
- ericmay 6mo agoThey’re still not getting money from the US. Those aren’t American ships sailing through the Strait. Striking military bases is legitimate morally though Iran’s “government” should just surrender and turn themselves in, but it doesn’t provide justification for launching indiscriminate strikes against other countries.
- unyttigfjelltol 6mo ago> play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Yeah, the game Iran is now trying to play is called “Pipelines and Pirates”. There’s actually a ship deployed to the region right now named after the standard US response to this game, the USS Tripoli.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
- Cyph0n 6mo agoAny idea why they decided to shutdown the strait for the first time in decades? Or did they just suddenly wake up one day and decide that piracy is their calling? And that deployed ship will do nothing. The only way forward is a negotiated agreement.
- lolcopedope 6mo agoNo dude you don’t get it, Iran == bad, USA == good
- amluto 6mo agoI’m no expert, but I think this is a matter of international politics. Imagine if Iran had closed the strait last year. I suspect a rather large coalition would have shown up, quite quickly, to do their best to reopen it. But instead almost every relevant player is pissed off at the US and Israel and has no desire to join in the hostilities. Not to mention that Iran did not want to have thousands of fancy missiles and bombs lobbed at them, but since that happened anyway, why not close the strait?
- fernandopj 6mo ago> But instead almost every relevant player (...) and has no desire to join in the hostilities Almost correct, but days ago there was an UN meeting where a resolution to bring forth a naval response from many countries to reopen the Strait by force was voted, and it was vetoed by China and Russia (IIRC also by France). That news became old very quickly, but it was a move done to force USA to concede a ceasefire because it made the US the only player who could make an offer with Iran to reopen the Strait, even if in undesirable terms. The fact that this meeting happened and a resolution was blocked made Trump and the US incapable of blaming the EU of not helping reopening the Strait.
- BobbyJo 6mo ago[flagged]
- bryanrasmussen 6mo agofrom the outside it seems getting bombed is more antagonizing than propaganda.
- BobbyJo 6mo ago[flagged]
- WaxProlix 6mo agoWeird, from the outside it seems like bombing civilians and infrastructure is more inflammatory and antagonizing than some words/propaganda.
- BobbyJo 6mo ago[flagged]
- donkeybeer 6mo agoLet me summarize the argument more cleanly: Words are violence!!! Hearing death to America hurt me badly!! vs actual invasions and bombings of your mainland from two hyperviolent countries with a long history of the same
- BobbyJo 6mo agoWho's argument are you summarizing? Is this about the repeat comment?
- donkeybeer 6mo agoThe persons you were talking to.
- nostrebored 6mo agoIran has been funding and arming groups which threaten maritime security for a while now. They also have been obviously attempting a nuclear weapons program while saying if they achieve their aim that they will do crazy shit. I guess the games you think are stupid depend immensely on your priors.
- Cyph0n 6mo agoAre you referring to Ansar Allah? Do you know why they decided to shutdown Bab Al Mandab? So we are going to ignore the JCPOA? Also, the rumor is that there is another player in the region who has undeclared nuclear weapons and refuses IAEA inspections. Should we bomb them next?
- zoklet-enjoyer 6mo agoIsrael and the US are both nuclear armed and are doing crazy shit.
- 8note 6mo agois that really reason to go to war though? the US has been doing that in the gulf of mexico; should we be destorying the american civilization as a result?
- bawolff 6mo ago> is that really reason to go to war though? Funding armed groups to essentially make war on your behalf does seem like a valid reason for the person being targeted to go to war. As a general rule, if you shoot someone they will shoot back if capable.
- fuck_google 6mo ago[dead]
- bluGill 6mo agoWhat other option is there? I don't approve of war (and Trump didn't handle it well). However I also don't approve of what Iran has been doing.
- theonething 6mo ago> Iran has been respecting that principle for decades May 2022: two Greek Tankers seized by IRGC commandos 2023: Tankers Advnatage Sweet and Niovi seized by IRGC commandos Jan 2024: St. Nikolas seized by Iranian Navy Apr 2024: MSC Aries seized by IRGC commandos During the Tanker War 1981 - 1988: Iran was responsible for approximately 168 attacks on merchant ships July 1987: Kuwait tanker MV Bridgeton struck by Iranian mine April 1988: USS SAmuel B. Roberts nearly sunk by Iranian mine. 2019 Limpet Mine Attacks July 2021: Iranian drone strike on MT Mercer Street Nov 2022: Pacific Zircon struck by Iranian drone
- adrian_b 6mo agoYou forgot: February 2026: USA blocking all oil tankers from going to Cuba, which has caused much more damage to the ordinary citizens of Cuba, than isolated incidents have done to other countries.
- corimaith 6mo agoWhataboutism doesn't save your argument about Iran "respecting international law" being proven wrong.
- adrian_b 6mo agoMoreover, USA has been the first who has stopped respecting the freedom of navigation, by implementing a blockade of Cuba and preventing the oil tankers to reach Cuba, already since February, before the Iran war. USA does not respect any international law, but it demands from others to do this.
- frrlpp 6mo agoPanama's canal, anyone?
- Amezarak 6mo ago> Imagine getting bombed during negotiations - not once, but twice in a single year! All other problems with the Iran war aside, there's absolutely nothing unusual about this, this is standard. Countries that go to war with each other are almost always mid-negotiations. Usually negotiations of some level go on throughout a war as well.
- ZeroGravitas 6mo agoThey bombed the negotiators who were in a third country who were hosting negotiations. That's totally different from war continuing while negotiations take place. That's more like something the bad guys would do in a Game of Thrones plotline.
- hattmall 6mo agoIran has been keeping it open to avoid attacks. Their first order of business if they get nuclear weapons would be closing the strait and implementing a far more massive toll. They already have ICBM capable of hitting Europe. This isn't really America's problem though, the price of oil won't go parabolic, it will fracture. That's what the current price action is leaning towards. So cheaper oil in the Americas and vastly more expensive oil in Europe.
- greedo 6mo agoOil is fungible, so the cost will find an equilibrium regardless of source (excluding quality differences).
- hattmall 6mo agoWell that depends on a supply of tankers to transport the oil though. The tanker availability is already constrained. If hundreds are trapped in the strait and transit there is slowed you lose a lot of capacity. So the fungibility drops. It's possible we see demand destruction in areas that maintain their price due to export.
- peebee67 6mo agoAbsolutely none of that would happen. It's in Iran's interests to keep the oil flowing at a fee that everyone can stomach and that doesn't offend the sensibilities. $1 a barrel for a year of unprovoked war crimes costing them hundreds of billions of dollars, with the cost effectively shared by all, fits this description. Nor has Iran responded with the kind of zero-sum, suicidal, totalitarian foreign policy that is always attributed to them by their enemies. Serious commentators have all remarked at how restrained they've been during this war. It's almost as though sane people who intend to come to a realistic agreement that everyone can live with are running their foreign and defence policies.