3 ms·

Why would one not blame the US for this situation?

credit_guy 6mo ago
I think the OP is saying that it's ok to blame, but it is not ok to just blame. It is preferable to also act in some sort.
- ceejayoz 6mo ago
  For decades the world has very reasonably operated on the assumption that the world’s primary superpower wouldn’t be dumb enough to do this without a proper plan. Everyone except the Iranians and maybe the Israelis were flat-footed by this, and the things that can be done about it are largely on the years/decades scale.
mrcsharp 6mo ago
Because a competent country/government should plan ahead for shortages of any vital resource it depends on.
- ceejayoz 6mo ago
  Within reason. Until quite recently, “the US sticks its dick in the chainsaw” wasn’t a “within reason” scenario.
  - bawolff 6mo ago
    The middle east explodes is an eventuality that is within reason to prepare for. Its famously a geopolitical powder-keg.
  - testing22321 6mo ago
    To be fair this is not the first time a US President stuck their dock in something and got bitten
  - mrcsharp 6mo ago
    > Within reason Reason dictates having redundancy in place. Having prepared scenarios for what to do. A lot of countries clearly don't have that and they are operating on the assumption that no major disruption is going to happen. Depending on resources coming from historically unstable locations and not having plans to prepare for such instability is just foolish.
    - ceejayoz 6mo ago
      > Reason dictates having redundancy in place. The UK doesn’t have a strategic oxygen reserve in case the atmosphere disappears. It’s both implausible and not really something they can do much about. Trump is that sort of scenario.
hughlomas 6mo ago
The only state preventing free commerce through the strait is Iran.
- ceejayoz 6mo ago
  The only reason Iran is playing that sole card they hold is their two core enemies launched a war of aggression.
- stavros 6mo ago
  Yes, as retaliation of a US/Israel invasion that is against international law.
  - bawolff 6mo ago
    Which in turn is also against international law (international law would let them retaliate against israel & usa. It doesn't let them target neutral shipping [edit: to clarify i mean neutral shipping going to neutral ports]). Of course international law is not worth the paper its written on.
    - ceejayoz 6mo ago
      No, defensive blockades are explicitly permitted under international law, including neutral parties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade > Blockades restrict the trading rights of neutrals, who must submit for inspection for contraband, which the blockading power may define narrowly or broadly, sometimes including food and medicine.
      - mpyne 6mo ago
        Did you miss the part about contraband? You quoted it, after all. Firing on neutral shipping is not the same as intercepting it and inspecting it for war materiel or other contraband. Preventing shipping from reaching or leaving Kuwaiti ports is not the same as inspecting it for war materiel or other contraband.
mothballed 6mo ago
USA is proximally to blame, but Iran in its current borders is an entity that is largely the brain child of Britain. It ended up encompassing the Baloch and Kurds, who could have helped check Persian power and make Persian borders more penetrable, which was probably a geopolitical mistake.
- fsckboy 6mo ago
  the Baloch and the Kurds are ethnic Persians, they speak Persian languages.
  - mothballed 6mo ago
    >the Baloch and the Kurds are ethnic Persians, Wut > they speak Persian languages As a lingua franca, sure. By some very twisted semantics maybe, but really, no.
bawolff 6mo ago
The way i read the parent post, is that the uk decided to invest in other things than military. As a result they are at the whims of USA foreign policy and can't really do much about it. In an alternate world where UK spent more on hard power, they might not be subject to the whims of america to the same extent. [To be clear, i dont 100% agree with this argument. I think there is a little truth to it but also things are much more complicated than that and it ignores the geopolitical tension in the region that was going to explode one way or another even without usa]

I think the OP is saying that it's ok to blame, but it is not ok to just blame. It is preferable to also act in some sort.

ceejayoz 6mo ago
For decades the world has very reasonably operated on the assumption that the world’s primary superpower wouldn’t be dumb enough to do this without a proper plan. Everyone except the Iranians and maybe the Israelis were flat-footed by this, and the things that can be done about it are largely on the years/decades scale.

mrcsharp 6mo ago

Because a competent country/government should plan ahead for shortages of any vital resource it depends on.

ceejayoz 6mo ago
Within reason. Until quite recently, “the US sticks its dick in the chainsaw” wasn’t a “within reason” scenario.
- bawolff 6mo ago
  The middle east explodes is an eventuality that is within reason to prepare for. Its famously a geopolitical powder-keg.
- testing22321 6mo ago
  To be fair this is not the first time a US President stuck their dock in something and got bitten
- mrcsharp 6mo ago
  > Within reason Reason dictates having redundancy in place. Having prepared scenarios for what to do. A lot of countries clearly don't have that and they are operating on the assumption that no major disruption is going to happen. Depending on resources coming from historically unstable locations and not having plans to prepare for such instability is just foolish.
  - ceejayoz 6mo ago
    > Reason dictates having redundancy in place. The UK doesn’t have a strategic oxygen reserve in case the atmosphere disappears. It’s both implausible and not really something they can do much about. Trump is that sort of scenario.

hughlomas 6mo ago

The only state preventing free commerce through the strait is Iran.

ceejayoz 6mo ago
The only reason Iran is playing that sole card they hold is their two core enemies launched a war of aggression.
stavros 6mo ago
Yes, as retaliation of a US/Israel invasion that is against international law.
- bawolff 6mo ago
  Which in turn is also against international law (international law would let them retaliate against israel & usa. It doesn't let them target neutral shipping [edit: to clarify i mean neutral shipping going to neutral ports]). Of course international law is not worth the paper its written on.
  - ceejayoz 6mo ago
    No, defensive blockades are explicitly permitted under international law, including neutral parties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade > Blockades restrict the trading rights of neutrals, who must submit for inspection for contraband, which the blockading power may define narrowly or broadly, sometimes including food and medicine.
    - mpyne 6mo ago
      Did you miss the part about contraband? You quoted it, after all. Firing on neutral shipping is not the same as intercepting it and inspecting it for war materiel or other contraband. Preventing shipping from reaching or leaving Kuwaiti ports is not the same as inspecting it for war materiel or other contraband.

mothballed 6mo ago

USA is proximally to blame, but Iran in its current borders is an entity that is largely the brain child of Britain. It ended up encompassing the Baloch and Kurds, who could have helped check Persian power and make Persian borders more penetrable, which was probably a geopolitical mistake.

fsckboy 6mo ago
the Baloch and the Kurds are ethnic Persians, they speak Persian languages.
- mothballed 6mo ago
  >the Baloch and the Kurds are ethnic Persians, Wut > they speak Persian languages As a lingua franca, sure. By some very twisted semantics maybe, but really, no.

bawolff 6mo ago

The way i read the parent post, is that the uk decided to invest in other things than military. As a result they are at the whims of USA foreign policy and can't really do much about it. In an alternate world where UK spent more on hard power, they might not be subject to the whims of america to the same extent. [To be clear, i dont 100% agree with this argument. I think there is a little truth to it but also things are much more complicated than that and it ignores the geopolitical tension in the region that was going to explode one way or another even without usa]