4 ms·

Assisting the US with regard to Iran is phenomenally unpopular. The increase in energy prices isn't outweighing people's desire not to have their country assist

by HWR_14 5mo ago

Assisting the US with regard to Iran is phenomenally unpopular. The increase in energy prices isn't outweighing people's desire not to have their country assist.

nradov 5mo ago
And yet national leaders do phenomenally unpopular things all the time when they decide it's necessary. In this particular case it's mostly moot because none of the other impacted countries really has the capability to act regardless of popularity or lack thereof. Like the UK chose to spend all of their money on nationalized healthcare instead of the military. I don't mean that in a critical or negative way, on balance that might have been the right choice for them. But that choice does constrain their options in a crisis.
- nicoburns 5mo ago
  Would it not be pretty counterproductive for other countries to assist the US in this case? That seems only likely to prolong / exacerbate the war. The US giving up would be much faster.
  - nradov 5mo ago
    Whether it would be counterproductive or not depends on what those other countries are trying to produce. None of them particularly want to pay tribute or protection money to Iran, especially because Iran could then decide to close the strait again or raise the fee at any time. They also don't want to set a precedent that other countries might exploit for charging transit fees through their national waters. And the USA might impose secondary sanctions on any country which makes payments to Iran. So the current stalemate might last quite a while.
    - deleted 5mo ago
      [deleted]
- jonquark 5mo ago
  The UK spends a lower fraction of its GDP on health than the US (the US is an outlier because of its system). The UK's NHS is not why it's not taking part in this mess.
- lukan 5mo ago
  "Like the UK chose to spend all of their money on nationalized healthcare instead of the military" I believe the equation is a bit more complex than that.
  - nradov 5mo ago
    Fair enough. There are a multiple additional reasons why the UK can no longer afford an expeditionary military to protect their overseas interests, but the full explanation can't fit into an HN comment. The exact reasons aren't relevant to the current state of affairs, the main point is that they lack the capability to do anything even if they wanted to.
    - lukan 5mo ago
      The simple reason is, the british stopped being a big empire in the wave of decolonisation. They lost most of their colonies. Not just for military reasons, but human progress. Self determination of people etc. So had no need or funds to sustain a mighty global fleet anymore. (And health care sounds like a way more useful thing to fund, than the capability to wage war around the globe) Maybe the US needs to learn that lesson, too? Right now all the US with all its might achieved is blocking a former free flowing transit.
      - nradov 5mo ago
        The US national security establishment is unlikely to learn any lasting lessons from this debacle. So the UK and other impacted countries will need to deal with the situation as it actually exists, not in some hypothetical alternate reality with a less interventionist US foreign policy.
Jensson 5mo ago
Many countries have said they will help patrol the strait as long as the war stops. Iran wont be able to keep this after the war. Iran wont declare war against the entire world, so they wont shoot down their destroyers.
- ImPostingOnHN 5mo ago
  The attack on Iran was an attack on the globe, causing energy and supply chain issues for everybody, including the attackers. Other countries are not volunteering to help prosecute more attacks on Iran, because they are already victims of those attacks, and it's bad enough that the USA and israel aren't even apologizing for hurting them, much less paying for the damages. Thus, the offer to "help patrol the strait" once the USA and israel stop attacking is meant to persuade the USA and israel to stop attacking, not an indication of support for the USA and israel's attacks. Indeed, most countries do not support the USA and israel's attacks on Iran, were totally okay with the status quo, and would have preferred if the USA and israel had not attacked Iran.
  - nradov 5mo ago
    So what? Attacking Iran was a stupid move, but the US and Israeli regimes don't particularly care about the other victims whining. If other countries are going to make themselves dependent on fossil fuels from the Persian Gulf region then they'll either have to secure their own sea lines of communication or accept that supplies are unreliable. Asking for apologies or payments won't accomplish anything. That is the geopolitical reality.
    - ImPostingOnHN 5mo ago
      > the US and Israeli regimes don't particularly care about the other victims whining This does seem to be true of israel, but as for the USA, it does not, hence the USA limiting their attacks. > If other countries are going to make themselves dependent on fossil fuels from the Persian Gulf region then they'll either have to secure their own sea lines of communication or accept that supplies are unreliable. This sort of rhetoric is why other countries do not support the USA and israel: the other countries already did that, then the USA and israel came and attacked those supply lines, thus attacking those countries. It strikes me as gaslighting abuser language to attack someone else, then blame it on them for not protecting themselves better. It's better for the attackers to acknowledge their mistakes, apologize for them, and pay restitution.
michaelt 5mo ago
The other thing is: even if a country like the UK committed billions of dollars to joining the fight in the gulf - there’s no reason to think it’d lower their energy prices, or earn them any favours from Trump. Short of a nuclear strike (which isn’t on the cards thankfully) nothing short of a ceasefire can get shipping moving again. Sending more warships doesn’t help with that. So it’s not just that helping Trump would be incredibly unpopular at home - there’s also no guarantee the huge expense would lower energy bills at all.
amarant 5mo ago
this is in no small part because Iran is viewed a bit like America's Poland. Yes, I know ww2 comparisons are tired but honestly the Lebensraum explanation makes more sense than what trump has said publicly, so here we are...
- watwut 5mo ago
  I really doubt USA is planning to settle Iran and replace Iranians by Americans at conquered land.

by HWR_14 5mo ago

Assisting the US with regard to Iran is phenomenally unpopular. The increase in energy prices isn't outweighing people's desire not to have their country assist.

nradov 5mo ago

And yet national leaders do phenomenally unpopular things all the time when they decide it's necessary. In this particular case it's mostly moot because none of the other impacted countries really has the capability to act regardless of popularity or lack thereof. Like the UK chose to spend all of their money on nationalized healthcare instead of the military. I don't mean that in a critical or negative way, on balance that might have been the right choice for them. But that choice does constrain their options in a crisis.

nicoburns 5mo ago
Would it not be pretty counterproductive for other countries to assist the US in this case? That seems only likely to prolong / exacerbate the war. The US giving up would be much faster.
- nradov 5mo ago
  Whether it would be counterproductive or not depends on what those other countries are trying to produce. None of them particularly want to pay tribute or protection money to Iran, especially because Iran could then decide to close the strait again or raise the fee at any time. They also don't want to set a precedent that other countries might exploit for charging transit fees through their national waters. And the USA might impose secondary sanctions on any country which makes payments to Iran. So the current stalemate might last quite a while.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
jonquark 5mo ago
The UK spends a lower fraction of its GDP on health than the US (the US is an outlier because of its system). The UK's NHS is not why it's not taking part in this mess.
lukan 5mo ago
"Like the UK chose to spend all of their money on nationalized healthcare instead of the military" I believe the equation is a bit more complex than that.
- nradov 5mo ago
  Fair enough. There are a multiple additional reasons why the UK can no longer afford an expeditionary military to protect their overseas interests, but the full explanation can't fit into an HN comment. The exact reasons aren't relevant to the current state of affairs, the main point is that they lack the capability to do anything even if they wanted to.
  - lukan 5mo ago
    The simple reason is, the british stopped being a big empire in the wave of decolonisation. They lost most of their colonies. Not just for military reasons, but human progress. Self determination of people etc. So had no need or funds to sustain a mighty global fleet anymore. (And health care sounds like a way more useful thing to fund, than the capability to wage war around the globe) Maybe the US needs to learn that lesson, too? Right now all the US with all its might achieved is blocking a former free flowing transit.
    - nradov 5mo ago
      The US national security establishment is unlikely to learn any lasting lessons from this debacle. So the UK and other impacted countries will need to deal with the situation as it actually exists, not in some hypothetical alternate reality with a less interventionist US foreign policy.

Jensson 5mo ago

Many countries have said they will help patrol the strait as long as the war stops. Iran wont be able to keep this after the war. Iran wont declare war against the entire world, so they wont shoot down their destroyers.

ImPostingOnHN 5mo ago
The attack on Iran was an attack on the globe, causing energy and supply chain issues for everybody, including the attackers. Other countries are not volunteering to help prosecute more attacks on Iran, because they are already victims of those attacks, and it's bad enough that the USA and israel aren't even apologizing for hurting them, much less paying for the damages. Thus, the offer to "help patrol the strait" once the USA and israel stop attacking is meant to persuade the USA and israel to stop attacking, not an indication of support for the USA and israel's attacks. Indeed, most countries do not support the USA and israel's attacks on Iran, were totally okay with the status quo, and would have preferred if the USA and israel had not attacked Iran.
- nradov 5mo ago
  So what? Attacking Iran was a stupid move, but the US and Israeli regimes don't particularly care about the other victims whining. If other countries are going to make themselves dependent on fossil fuels from the Persian Gulf region then they'll either have to secure their own sea lines of communication or accept that supplies are unreliable. Asking for apologies or payments won't accomplish anything. That is the geopolitical reality.
  - ImPostingOnHN 5mo ago
    > the US and Israeli regimes don't particularly care about the other victims whining This does seem to be true of israel, but as for the USA, it does not, hence the USA limiting their attacks. > If other countries are going to make themselves dependent on fossil fuels from the Persian Gulf region then they'll either have to secure their own sea lines of communication or accept that supplies are unreliable. This sort of rhetoric is why other countries do not support the USA and israel: the other countries already did that, then the USA and israel came and attacked those supply lines, thus attacking those countries. It strikes me as gaslighting abuser language to attack someone else, then blame it on them for not protecting themselves better. It's better for the attackers to acknowledge their mistakes, apologize for them, and pay restitution.

michaelt 5mo ago

The other thing is: even if a country like the UK committed billions of dollars to joining the fight in the gulf - there’s no reason to think it’d lower their energy prices, or earn them any favours from Trump. Short of a nuclear strike (which isn’t on the cards thankfully) nothing short of a ceasefire can get shipping moving again. Sending more warships doesn’t help with that. So it’s not just that helping Trump would be incredibly unpopular at home - there’s also no guarantee the huge expense would lower energy bills at all.

amarant 5mo ago

this is in no small part because Iran is viewed a bit like America's Poland. Yes, I know ww2 comparisons are tired but honestly the Lebensraum explanation makes more sense than what trump has said publicly, so here we are...

watwut 5mo ago
I really doubt USA is planning to settle Iran and replace Iranians by Americans at conquered land.