6 ms·

> Gulf States themselves will go to war over it because they sure as hell aren’t paying Iran so that they can sell oil on the free market. Is this not the war

> Gulf States themselves will go to war over it because they sure as hell aren’t paying Iran so that they can sell oil on the free market. Is this not the war they're currently losing? the US is their military.

ericmay 7mo ago
[flagged]
- jcranmer 7mo ago
  Before today, only ships Iran deigned to let pass the Strait of Hormuz could go through without risking attack from Iran. As a result of the ceasefire, Iran must let any ship through the Strait... unless Iran objects to its passage. There does not appear to be an actual meaningful change in the status of the Strait of Hormuz, which does not make it a win. Of course, there's a broader loss which is that the US is strategically in a much worse position than it was a month ago. Reopening the Strait with free passage of ships would be a return to status quo ante bellum, but the US can't even manage that... which means that it's a major loss for the US, quite possibly the worst strategic loss in its entire history.
  - ericmay 7mo ago
    Iran would close the Straight later. That’s why they were building all these missiles. Then when they are loaded up with thousands of more missiles the US wouldn’t be able to do anything about it or stop them from pursuing a nuclear weapon because they have too many missiles and the cost would be too great. The US is preventing a geopolitical (> strategic) defeat by acting now. The US also lets the ships through because it’s just more oil on the market to keep prices low. Iran being able to shoot missiles doesn’t mean they control the straight. Otherwise the US also controls the straight because it can lob missiles at tankers. It’s been 5 weeks, let’s hold off on “possibly the worst strategic loss in all of American history” for a few weeks eh?
    - direwolf20 7mo ago
      There's nothing the US can do any more to stop Iran developing a nuclear weapon. They have just proved that peace talks don't work, negotiations don't work. The only way to defend yourself from America is to have the actual capability to nuke Washington DC from afar. And Iran has a right to defend itself, so it will develop that capability. What would be the consequences? The same thing that already just happened? America punished them, killed their head of state as revenge for not having a nuke yet.
      - k33n 7mo ago
        The US could do pretty much whatever it wants with Iran tbh. Iran’s entire navy is sunk. They have no functional air force. There’s also the obvious way to straight up finish them off, but the cost to Iran’s civilian population would be enormous and it would be unprecedented.
        direwolf20 7mo ago
        Then why did the US surrender just now instead of finishing the job? They have agreed to all of Iran's terms and imposed no terms of their own. And ships still aren't passing the Strait of Hormuz - why is that, if Iran has no military capabilities?
        ericmay 7mo ago
        The US just forced Iran to stop launching missiles at ships in the Straight in exchange for halting bombing operations.
        locknitpicker 7mo ago
        > The US just forced Iran to stop launching missiles at ships in the Straight in exchange for halting bombing operations. Interesting choice of words. Let's try this again: the US implored for a ceasefire in exchange for Iran to stop destroying the economic base of US vassal states in the region and allow ships to go through the strait to mitigate the impending economic disaster this will have on the US economy. Which one explains Trump abandoning all original demands regarding regime change and even threats to destroy civilian infrastructure?
  - 8note 7mo ago
    the meaningful change is that ships can move with volume through the strait again, no? ships could register and pay the toll without having to take a stroll by iran's toll booth, so the volume of ships can go back up
    - bilbo0s 7mo ago
      I'm likely misunderstanding what you're trying to say. Can you elaborate on how, exactly, ships would be able to evade the toll booth, if they have to pay the toll in any case? Because on the surface of it, it sounds to me like Iran is tolling the straits. Which is fine. The fee is small enough that I'm not opposed to paying it given the alternative. I understand why the world is willing to pay. Ok. I get it. But it's hard for me to view this as a win for us. So I'm probably missing something? (Or at least, I hope I'm missing something.)
    - eqvinox 7mo ago
      Change relative to before the war… where ships could just pass freely. So that's a loss.
      - ericmay 7mo ago
        Ships would have not been able to pass freely at a later point. That’s why Iran was building and buying these missiles. Folks look around and say wow they did so much damage - yea now imagine 2x-5x the number of missiles and launchers and by the way why not build a nuclear bomb to really make sure the rest of the world pays them for oil and energy. Of course Iran wasn’t going to close the straight yet, they didn’t have the ability to inflict enough pain to deter US, Israeli, and/or Gulf State strikes to prevent them from closing it.
        bilbo0s 7mo ago
        But everyone still pays them right? I mean that's the deal. Why would I want to be paying them if you're, at the same time, telling me they don't have the muscle to make me pay? Why is anyone paying Iran anything if we won? Someone's gonna need to explain that to me.
- runako 7mo ago
  US didn't achieve any of the goals it stated during any part of the war. The "goals" it achieved were largely a restoration of the status quo ante, modulo an enormous new revenue stream for Iran. US spent vast amounts of money on not achieving any meaningful objective, while at the same time granting the opposition items from their long-term wish list (removal of sanctions). That's a loss. If Iran's leaders' brains are not made of rotten oatmeal, they will massively accelerate their nuclear weapons program with their windfall.
  - ericmay 7mo ago
    We blew up most of their military, and killed a lot of their leadership. > If Iran's leaders' brains are not made of rotten oatmeal, they will massively accelerate their nuclear weapons program with their windfall. How can you possibly arrive at this conclusion? Besides Russia, China, Pakistan, or North Korea giving them money and expertise they aren’t going to just be able to “accelerate” their nuclear weapons program after being so thoroughly damaged. If Iran (remind me why are they pursuing nuclear weapons again?) continues their program we will just blow it up again. They’re simply not going to be allowed to have nuclear weapons. There is no possible acceleration here. If they start loading up on missiles again to try and close the straight and use that as leverage so they can build nuclear weapons and then really close the straight and hold oil shipments hostage we will blow those up too.
    - runako 7mo ago
      According to the White House, the Iranian nuclear weapons program was totally destroyed 8 months ago. And in under 8 months, the Iranians were able to reboot it and make enough progress that it was an imminent threat again. (More to my point, "accelerate" does not imply any given velocity. It means move it fast-er. Notably, one must accelerate from a complete stop to move at all.) Every state that feels threatened must see acquisition of nuclear weapons (or acquiring a nuclear-armed protector) as Job #1. Maybe they buy using the new windfall from the toll on the Strait, maybe they use their own know-how. Maybe a combination. But yeah, every leader needs to get their country under a nuclear umbrella. Any leader who is not will be replaced for delinquency. It's abundantly clear that we are entering an age of nuclear proliferation. Ukraine, Venezuela, Iran, Cuba are just the earliest examples. Entirely possible US didn't invade Greenland due to its nuclear protection. Would Israel be cleansing (ethnically) large swathes of Lebanon if there was a risk they could lose Tel Aviv this afternoon? But now it is clear that we are (again) in a geopolitical environment in which the strongest can take whatever they want from the weak. Demonstrated nuclear capability is the only clear deterrent.
abc123abc123 7mo ago
The war hasn't even started. What you have seen is the amuse-bouche. What you would see, if there was a real war going on, is the end of the iranian civilization. This little school yard fight was just Trump trying to get a peace prize. He miscalculated, so as soon as things are back to normal, he will declare victory, ignore all facts to the contrary and go home. As always I thank Trump for the amazing investment opportunities he is always creating! =)
- master-lincoln 7mo ago
  > As always I thank Trump for the amazing investment opportunities he is always creating! =) Disgusting.
  - cluckindan 7mo ago
    How so?
    - michh 7mo ago
      cause a lot of lives have been lost! they even thoroughly blew up a school. it's generally considered to be in somewhat poor taste to celebrate your personal gain in situations like that. it's like openly celebrating a massive passenger airliner crash because you happen to hold stock in their biggest competitor.
      - cluckindan 7mo ago
        I understand the ethical viewpoint, but does it generalize, and where are the lines of moral good/neutral/bad when you ”buy the dip”? Bombing civilians is despicable, so obviously bad to buy. Bombing legitimate targets is accepted warfare, but there are always civilian casualties in war, so war in general must be bad to buy. Other causes for dips? Insane tariff policy drives small companies to the ground and leaves low income families struggling, must be bad to buy. Global recession hits due to a pandemic which claims innumerable civilian lives, must be bad to buy. Global recession hits due to some other factor, lots of civilians die from depression or violence, must be bad to buy. A huge market dip hits and causes millions of leveraged investors to lose most of their principal to margin calls, companies go bankrupt, people lose their jobs, lots of civilians die from depression or violence, must be bad to buy. Is there a scenario where ”buy the dip” is not immoral by these standards? A defect in a series of automobiles causes hundreds of deaths, causing the manufacturer’s stock price to plummet. Is it bad to buy? Thousands of people die in car crashes every day and it barely registers. Civilians die and are killed in horrible ways every day. Is it genuinely always bad to buy the dip?

ericmay 7mo ago

[flagged]

jcranmer 7mo ago
Before today, only ships Iran deigned to let pass the Strait of Hormuz could go through without risking attack from Iran. As a result of the ceasefire, Iran must let any ship through the Strait... unless Iran objects to its passage. There does not appear to be an actual meaningful change in the status of the Strait of Hormuz, which does not make it a win. Of course, there's a broader loss which is that the US is strategically in a much worse position than it was a month ago. Reopening the Strait with free passage of ships would be a return to status quo ante bellum, but the US can't even manage that... which means that it's a major loss for the US, quite possibly the worst strategic loss in its entire history.
- ericmay 7mo ago
  Iran would close the Straight later. That’s why they were building all these missiles. Then when they are loaded up with thousands of more missiles the US wouldn’t be able to do anything about it or stop them from pursuing a nuclear weapon because they have too many missiles and the cost would be too great. The US is preventing a geopolitical (> strategic) defeat by acting now. The US also lets the ships through because it’s just more oil on the market to keep prices low. Iran being able to shoot missiles doesn’t mean they control the straight. Otherwise the US also controls the straight because it can lob missiles at tankers. It’s been 5 weeks, let’s hold off on “possibly the worst strategic loss in all of American history” for a few weeks eh?
  - direwolf20 7mo ago
    There's nothing the US can do any more to stop Iran developing a nuclear weapon. They have just proved that peace talks don't work, negotiations don't work. The only way to defend yourself from America is to have the actual capability to nuke Washington DC from afar. And Iran has a right to defend itself, so it will develop that capability. What would be the consequences? The same thing that already just happened? America punished them, killed their head of state as revenge for not having a nuke yet.
    - k33n 7mo ago
      The US could do pretty much whatever it wants with Iran tbh. Iran’s entire navy is sunk. They have no functional air force. There’s also the obvious way to straight up finish them off, but the cost to Iran’s civilian population would be enormous and it would be unprecedented.
      - direwolf20 7mo ago
        Then why did the US surrender just now instead of finishing the job? They have agreed to all of Iran's terms and imposed no terms of their own. And ships still aren't passing the Strait of Hormuz - why is that, if Iran has no military capabilities?
        ericmay 7mo ago
        The US just forced Iran to stop launching missiles at ships in the Straight in exchange for halting bombing operations.
        locknitpicker 7mo ago
        > The US just forced Iran to stop launching missiles at ships in the Straight in exchange for halting bombing operations. Interesting choice of words. Let's try this again: the US implored for a ceasefire in exchange for Iran to stop destroying the economic base of US vassal states in the region and allow ships to go through the strait to mitigate the impending economic disaster this will have on the US economy. Which one explains Trump abandoning all original demands regarding regime change and even threats to destroy civilian infrastructure?
- 8note 7mo ago
  the meaningful change is that ships can move with volume through the strait again, no? ships could register and pay the toll without having to take a stroll by iran's toll booth, so the volume of ships can go back up
  - bilbo0s 7mo ago
    I'm likely misunderstanding what you're trying to say. Can you elaborate on how, exactly, ships would be able to evade the toll booth, if they have to pay the toll in any case? Because on the surface of it, it sounds to me like Iran is tolling the straits. Which is fine. The fee is small enough that I'm not opposed to paying it given the alternative. I understand why the world is willing to pay. Ok. I get it. But it's hard for me to view this as a win for us. So I'm probably missing something? (Or at least, I hope I'm missing something.)
  - eqvinox 7mo ago
    Change relative to before the war… where ships could just pass freely. So that's a loss.
    - ericmay 7mo ago
      Ships would have not been able to pass freely at a later point. That’s why Iran was building and buying these missiles. Folks look around and say wow they did so much damage - yea now imagine 2x-5x the number of missiles and launchers and by the way why not build a nuclear bomb to really make sure the rest of the world pays them for oil and energy. Of course Iran wasn’t going to close the straight yet, they didn’t have the ability to inflict enough pain to deter US, Israeli, and/or Gulf State strikes to prevent them from closing it.
      - bilbo0s 7mo ago
        But everyone still pays them right? I mean that's the deal. Why would I want to be paying them if you're, at the same time, telling me they don't have the muscle to make me pay? Why is anyone paying Iran anything if we won? Someone's gonna need to explain that to me.
runako 7mo ago
US didn't achieve any of the goals it stated during any part of the war. The "goals" it achieved were largely a restoration of the status quo ante, modulo an enormous new revenue stream for Iran. US spent vast amounts of money on not achieving any meaningful objective, while at the same time granting the opposition items from their long-term wish list (removal of sanctions). That's a loss. If Iran's leaders' brains are not made of rotten oatmeal, they will massively accelerate their nuclear weapons program with their windfall.
- ericmay 7mo ago
  We blew up most of their military, and killed a lot of their leadership. > If Iran's leaders' brains are not made of rotten oatmeal, they will massively accelerate their nuclear weapons program with their windfall. How can you possibly arrive at this conclusion? Besides Russia, China, Pakistan, or North Korea giving them money and expertise they aren’t going to just be able to “accelerate” their nuclear weapons program after being so thoroughly damaged. If Iran (remind me why are they pursuing nuclear weapons again?) continues their program we will just blow it up again. They’re simply not going to be allowed to have nuclear weapons. There is no possible acceleration here. If they start loading up on missiles again to try and close the straight and use that as leverage so they can build nuclear weapons and then really close the straight and hold oil shipments hostage we will blow those up too.
  - runako 7mo ago
    According to the White House, the Iranian nuclear weapons program was totally destroyed 8 months ago. And in under 8 months, the Iranians were able to reboot it and make enough progress that it was an imminent threat again. (More to my point, "accelerate" does not imply any given velocity. It means move it fast-er. Notably, one must accelerate from a complete stop to move at all.) Every state that feels threatened must see acquisition of nuclear weapons (or acquiring a nuclear-armed protector) as Job #1. Maybe they buy using the new windfall from the toll on the Strait, maybe they use their own know-how. Maybe a combination. But yeah, every leader needs to get their country under a nuclear umbrella. Any leader who is not will be replaced for delinquency. It's abundantly clear that we are entering an age of nuclear proliferation. Ukraine, Venezuela, Iran, Cuba are just the earliest examples. Entirely possible US didn't invade Greenland due to its nuclear protection. Would Israel be cleansing (ethnically) large swathes of Lebanon if there was a risk they could lose Tel Aviv this afternoon? But now it is clear that we are (again) in a geopolitical environment in which the strongest can take whatever they want from the weak. Demonstrated nuclear capability is the only clear deterrent.

abc123abc123 7mo ago

The war hasn't even started. What you have seen is the amuse-bouche. What you would see, if there was a real war going on, is the end of the iranian civilization. This little school yard fight was just Trump trying to get a peace prize. He miscalculated, so as soon as things are back to normal, he will declare victory, ignore all facts to the contrary and go home. As always I thank Trump for the amazing investment opportunities he is always creating! =)

master-lincoln 7mo ago
> As always I thank Trump for the amazing investment opportunities he is always creating! =) Disgusting.
- cluckindan 7mo ago
  How so?
  - michh 7mo ago
    cause a lot of lives have been lost! they even thoroughly blew up a school. it's generally considered to be in somewhat poor taste to celebrate your personal gain in situations like that. it's like openly celebrating a massive passenger airliner crash because you happen to hold stock in their biggest competitor.
    - cluckindan 7mo ago
      I understand the ethical viewpoint, but does it generalize, and where are the lines of moral good/neutral/bad when you ”buy the dip”? Bombing civilians is despicable, so obviously bad to buy. Bombing legitimate targets is accepted warfare, but there are always civilian casualties in war, so war in general must be bad to buy. Other causes for dips? Insane tariff policy drives small companies to the ground and leaves low income families struggling, must be bad to buy. Global recession hits due to a pandemic which claims innumerable civilian lives, must be bad to buy. Global recession hits due to some other factor, lots of civilians die from depression or violence, must be bad to buy. A huge market dip hits and causes millions of leveraged investors to lose most of their principal to margin calls, companies go bankrupt, people lose their jobs, lots of civilians die from depression or violence, must be bad to buy. Is there a scenario where ”buy the dip” is not immoral by these standards? A defect in a series of automobiles causes hundreds of deaths, causing the manufacturer’s stock price to plummet. Is it bad to buy? Thousands of people die in car crashes every day and it barely registers. Civilians die and are killed in horrible ways every day. Is it genuinely always bad to buy the dip?