4 ms·

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 mus

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?
        ericmay 7mo ago
        US -> Stop launching missiles by 8PM ET for two weeks or we'll bomb you severely. Iran -> Ok we will agree to that. The situation in the Straight already occurred. The US doesn't give a hoot about the short term economic base of these vassal states. > Which one explains Trump abandoning all original demands regarding regime change and even threats to destroy civilian infrastructure? The one I wrote does.
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.

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?
        ericmay 7mo ago
        US -> Stop launching missiles by 8PM ET for two weeks or we'll bomb you severely. Iran -> Ok we will agree to that. The situation in the Straight already occurred. The US doesn't give a hoot about the short term economic base of these vassal states. > Which one explains Trump abandoning all original demands regarding regime change and even threats to destroy civilian infrastructure? The one I wrote does.

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.