4 ms·

There was a time when USA guaranteed the safe passage of shipping, which helped secure a peaceful world order, apparently. I view this as a continuation of that

There was a time when USA guaranteed the safe passage of shipping, which helped secure a peaceful world order, apparently. I view this as a continuation of that legacy, but admit I only have 1-2 books supporting this view.

armada651 5mo ago
How is closing the strait a continuation of a legacy of guaranteed safe passage?
- jvanderbot 5mo ago
  I wasn't aware USA closed the stait
ajross 5mo ago
This is some extraordinary up-is-down construction. Hormuz was open in February, and for decades preceding that. It's closed now. How is this situation the result of the "guarantee of safe passage of shipping", exactly?
- jvanderbot 5mo ago
  1) Iran has been naughty v. shipping for a long time, directly and indirectly 2) Iran has been naughty v. USA's allies for a long time, directly and indirectly 3) Iran has been naughty v. USA itself for a long time, directly and indirectly So, in the interested of stable trade through Hormuz, someone decided to push Iran out. The intent was not to close the strait. The effect was to create a situation unsafe for trade, which is ironic and comical, but it's not the intent. So, since principles determine intent, I think I was not being contradictory.
  - ajross 5mo ago
    Definition for "naughty" and examples thereof might help. Because it doesn't mean "closed". The point isn't to make a moral argument for Iran's position, just a realpolitik one. We fucked with them, they fuck with us. They're winning, unfortunately as it might be. Ergo, we shouldn't have fucked with them.
    - jvanderbot 5mo ago
      Oh, well that's your point. My point was just that entering the war is consistent with the principle of ensuring bad actors can't act badly, esp re: trade and allies. So we both made our point.
      - ajross 5mo ago
        > principle of ensuring bad actors can't act badly That's... not a principle though? Who else pursues geopolitics by that principle? When else has the US? It's... not a thing, unless you mess with semantics to define "bad actors" as "whoever we dislike" and "badly" as "whatever we dislike". Iran hasn't fucked with Hormuz since before most of the commenters here were born. Arguing that we somehow "had to" goad them into fucking with Hormuz in 2026 is just madness. I mean, look: this wasn't the plan. You know it. I know it. Trump and Bibi thought they'd get a quick win, and when they didn't their bluff was called and they don't have the cards. Hormuz opens WHEN WE PAY IRAN TO OPEN IT, and not before. We've lost. The world is just waiting for the surrender.
        jvanderbot 5mo ago
        I was being pithy - the principle was free trade and some mixture of "we dont negotiate with terrorists", as mentioned in top of thread. If you're going to take the weakest version of whatever I say, I'll end up writing paragraphs to lawyer my way into expressing myself at the strength required to justify a war, and that's just unfun. The entire global war on terror was basically a "We dont allow terrorist states to exist", and Iraq war 1 was pretty close to the same principles in action - feel free to shock and awe a state out of existence if it threatens global trade/oil. And you're wrong about Iran. They have two grievous sins in USA/EU's eyes. 1) they have launched increasingly severe attacks on shipping in the last 10 years (not to mention 100s of attacks on civilians through funded terror networks), and 2) they are a key supplier and ally for Russia's invasion of Europe and former Soviet states, and their shahed drones are killing a lot of civilians. 1 https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/03/23/iran-deliberate-attacks-on-civilian-ships-apparent-war-crimes https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/03/23/iran-deliberate-attacks-... 2 https://2017-2021.state.gov/irans-history-of-naval-provocations/ https://2017-2021.state.gov/irans-history-of-naval-provocati...
AntiUSAbah 5mo ago
Soooo just to be clear here with your argument: The USA was doing something to guarantee that stuff can flow through it, then they start a war, now they can no longer guarantee this? Did they suddenly loose the power to protect this flow? Just because USA is war mongering, doesn't mean no one else would have stepped up or that it wouldn't be better without all of this involvment.
- jvanderbot 5mo ago
  Everything I said was true : Bretton woods exists, and my opinion flows from that. Feel free to disregard it or correct the facts, I think that'd be a good discussion. And yeah, USA might do dumb things that put them into a bind, but ultimately the peaceful flow of traffic through Hormuz is a goal worth pursuing for the world economic health.
  - AntiUSAbah 5mo ago
    I'm happy to endulge in a good discussion. My argument is not that deep for sure, but you are only referencing Bretton woods. The problem with US petro dollar is always the same: we don't know what would have been if it wouldn't exist. But my main point was very specific to the strait of hormuz and how it was flowing without the help of the USA, now stoped because of the influnece of the USA and how the USA can't restart it. So your point is not valid for the current state of the strait of hormuz. You are also moving the goal post now as you state that the peaceful flow of traffic is worth it. Of course it is but now we have to do it and its not the USA helping some other country to fix their problem, in this case every other country needs to do something to fix US Americas problem they created. USA also got very rich and powerful thanks to the petro dollar, which now shifts to China and now China is benefiting from this. This system was never fair though.
    - jvanderbot 5mo ago
      Playing devils advocate, the results are not always intended. I think the intent was to secure the area / prevent a state from becoming hegemonic, esp a state which has proven to be prone to harassing shipping and allies in the area (to say the last), as well as a state which is directly aiding an invasion of Europe/former USSR independent states. So, circling back to my original comment, the Iran war is in line with the principles of keeping peaceful free trade safe (perhaps only for "us"), but alas, as you say, free trade has paused while we try to do that. That's it. I dont think that's a hugely controversial statement or obviously false.

armada651 5mo ago

How is closing the strait a continuation of a legacy of guaranteed safe passage?

jvanderbot 5mo ago
I wasn't aware USA closed the stait

ajross 5mo ago

This is some extraordinary up-is-down construction. Hormuz was open in February, and for decades preceding that. It's closed now. How is this situation the result of the "guarantee of safe passage of shipping", exactly?

jvanderbot 5mo ago
1) Iran has been naughty v. shipping for a long time, directly and indirectly 2) Iran has been naughty v. USA's allies for a long time, directly and indirectly 3) Iran has been naughty v. USA itself for a long time, directly and indirectly So, in the interested of stable trade through Hormuz, someone decided to push Iran out. The intent was not to close the strait. The effect was to create a situation unsafe for trade, which is ironic and comical, but it's not the intent. So, since principles determine intent, I think I was not being contradictory.
- ajross 5mo ago
  Definition for "naughty" and examples thereof might help. Because it doesn't mean "closed". The point isn't to make a moral argument for Iran's position, just a realpolitik one. We fucked with them, they fuck with us. They're winning, unfortunately as it might be. Ergo, we shouldn't have fucked with them.
  - jvanderbot 5mo ago
    Oh, well that's your point. My point was just that entering the war is consistent with the principle of ensuring bad actors can't act badly, esp re: trade and allies. So we both made our point.
    - ajross 5mo ago
      > principle of ensuring bad actors can't act badly That's... not a principle though? Who else pursues geopolitics by that principle? When else has the US? It's... not a thing, unless you mess with semantics to define "bad actors" as "whoever we dislike" and "badly" as "whatever we dislike". Iran hasn't fucked with Hormuz since before most of the commenters here were born. Arguing that we somehow "had to" goad them into fucking with Hormuz in 2026 is just madness. I mean, look: this wasn't the plan. You know it. I know it. Trump and Bibi thought they'd get a quick win, and when they didn't their bluff was called and they don't have the cards. Hormuz opens WHEN WE PAY IRAN TO OPEN IT, and not before. We've lost. The world is just waiting for the surrender.
      - jvanderbot 5mo ago
        I was being pithy - the principle was free trade and some mixture of "we dont negotiate with terrorists", as mentioned in top of thread. If you're going to take the weakest version of whatever I say, I'll end up writing paragraphs to lawyer my way into expressing myself at the strength required to justify a war, and that's just unfun. The entire global war on terror was basically a "We dont allow terrorist states to exist", and Iraq war 1 was pretty close to the same principles in action - feel free to shock and awe a state out of existence if it threatens global trade/oil. And you're wrong about Iran. They have two grievous sins in USA/EU's eyes. 1) they have launched increasingly severe attacks on shipping in the last 10 years (not to mention 100s of attacks on civilians through funded terror networks), and 2) they are a key supplier and ally for Russia's invasion of Europe and former Soviet states, and their shahed drones are killing a lot of civilians. 1 https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/03/23/iran-deliberate-attacks-on-civilian-ships-apparent-war-crimes https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/03/23/iran-deliberate-attacks-... 2 https://2017-2021.state.gov/irans-history-of-naval-provocations/ https://2017-2021.state.gov/irans-history-of-naval-provocati...

AntiUSAbah 5mo ago

Soooo just to be clear here with your argument: The USA was doing something to guarantee that stuff can flow through it, then they start a war, now they can no longer guarantee this? Did they suddenly loose the power to protect this flow? Just because USA is war mongering, doesn't mean no one else would have stepped up or that it wouldn't be better without all of this involvment.

jvanderbot 5mo ago
Everything I said was true : Bretton woods exists, and my opinion flows from that. Feel free to disregard it or correct the facts, I think that'd be a good discussion. And yeah, USA might do dumb things that put them into a bind, but ultimately the peaceful flow of traffic through Hormuz is a goal worth pursuing for the world economic health.
- AntiUSAbah 5mo ago
  I'm happy to endulge in a good discussion. My argument is not that deep for sure, but you are only referencing Bretton woods. The problem with US petro dollar is always the same: we don't know what would have been if it wouldn't exist. But my main point was very specific to the strait of hormuz and how it was flowing without the help of the USA, now stoped because of the influnece of the USA and how the USA can't restart it. So your point is not valid for the current state of the strait of hormuz. You are also moving the goal post now as you state that the peaceful flow of traffic is worth it. Of course it is but now we have to do it and its not the USA helping some other country to fix their problem, in this case every other country needs to do something to fix US Americas problem they created. USA also got very rich and powerful thanks to the petro dollar, which now shifts to China and now China is benefiting from this. This system was never fair though.
  - jvanderbot 5mo ago
    Playing devils advocate, the results are not always intended. I think the intent was to secure the area / prevent a state from becoming hegemonic, esp a state which has proven to be prone to harassing shipping and allies in the area (to say the last), as well as a state which is directly aiding an invasion of Europe/former USSR independent states. So, circling back to my original comment, the Iran war is in line with the principles of keeping peaceful free trade safe (perhaps only for "us"), but alas, as you say, free trade has paused while we try to do that. That's it. I dont think that's a hugely controversial statement or obviously false.