6 ms·

If we have military hegemony, then why can't we open the strait of Hormuz?

by jazzypants 4mo ago

krapp 4mo ago
[flagged]
- hattmall 4mo ago
  This maybe a bit of sarcasm, but it's actually accurate. The information was so contrived that multiple firms sent physical analysis to observe the strait in person. They all have said that the strait remains active with decreased but consistent transit. Regardless of who claimed the strait was open or closed. It's the reason oil markets are so hesitant to bid up futures contracts.
jimbob45 4mo ago
After all has been said about the ages of Biden and Trump, it’s ironic that having presidents with experience living through Vietnam and the Soviet-Afghan war has been so useful for their two terms.
- ZeroGravitas 4mo ago
  But the difference between Vietnam and Iran is that Trump had a plan to get out of Vietnam.
mothballed 4mo ago
The US could/can, they're just not willing to undergo the mass casualties it would take to put boots on the ground and put those boots up the ass of the people controlling Hormuz. Which absolutely cannot be achieved purely by air.
- _dark_matter_ 4mo ago
  This is just a different way if saying that we can't.
- helsinkiandrew 4mo ago
  > The US could/can, they're just not willing to undergo the mass casualties it would take to put boots on the ground It doesn’t matter what the reason, if you can’t do something you can’t do it.
  - mothballed 4mo ago
    I'm not interested in a lengthy semantic debate about what "can" means but I'd hope we could agree at least one possible interpretation includes things you're unwilling but able to do.
    - runako 4mo ago
      Generously, what difference does it make to any person if you technically achieve some result but in practice are not able to realize that end state?
      - urams 4mo ago
        Is it the case that if someone doesn't do something some time then they can't do that thing? Like, if you were playing basketball and Lebron James walked by and you threw the ball to him and said "dunk this!' and Lebron said "no, I'm not willing to" does this mean Lebron can't dunk? Because personally, I'd still take Lebron on a basketball team even if he wasn't willing to dunk the ball that one time.
        runako 4mo ago
        > if you were playing basketball and Lebron James walked by and you threw the ball to him Yes, this is a terrible analogy for the war in Iran. Hugely unpopular, costing Americans vast sums of money daily, headed for possible catastrophe. Very much not a low-stakes "Lebron walks by" situation. Better analogy with Lebron would be: championship game with a title on the line. He gets possession as time runs down and the team needs him to score or make a play that scores. It's not okay for him to then say he's fully capable of scoring but doesn't want to at just that moment for reasons. NB: this is not to say the US military couldn't cause untold damage on the region. This is obvious, anybody can look at recent history to see that the US military is more than capable of destroying a country in the region. Rather, this is an object lesson that war is politics by other means, and here we tried to do war without any politics and it has not gone well for us.
- hattmall 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - MrVandemar 4mo ago
    > last major source of instability in the region. Are you forgetting the bad neighbor that keeps attacking most of its other neighbors, even while under ceasefire agreements? And then moving onto the land and saying "this is ours, time to redraw the border again.". Because that, to me, screams instability.
    - hattmall 4mo ago
      I get it, but no, that's not leading to regional instability that actual hostile nations and leadership have been responsible for creating in the region.
    - digi59404 4mo ago
      You mean the bad neighbor whom Iran has constantly funded attacks on from those other neighbors? The bad neighbor who has IRGC Funded terrorist and militant cells along its very border? You mean the bad neighbor whom comes under rocket fire on a routine basis? Are we forgetting that Iran is the one who has funded Hamas and Hezbollah and provided them safe haven? Maybe that bad neighbor wouldn’t be a bad neighbor and be attacking the other neighbors. If the other neighbors did not provide shelter for those who wish to burn down the bad neighbors house? Point is - Iran plays a SIGNIFICANT role in the destabilization of the region. That bad neighbor might be a good neighbor if Iran wasn’t attacking it via proxies. But I suspect we’re not ready to have that nuanced conversation yet.
      - dotancohen 4mo ago
        The people downvoting your comment should be aware of a few things: 1. The ceasefire with Lebanon specifically states that Hezbollah is to retreat to the Litany river, which they have not done. The ceasefire further states that military operations against Hezbollah are permitted so long as they remain south of the Litany, and so long as they attack Israel. They attack Israel daily - Israel is not breaking the ceasefire. That's why popular news use the term "Israel attacks despite ceasefire" instead saying "Israel breaks ceasefire" - because Israel is not the side breaking the ceasefire. 2. Hezbollah attacked Israel unprovoked on October 8th 2023, leading to the current conflict. 3. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis have been internally displaced since then. Popular media calls internally displaced Gazans refugees, yet I've never seen this term applied to the internally displaced Israelis.
- kakacik 4mo ago
  US military ain't some unstoppable force in all possible scenarios, it was stopped and won over quite a few times, last time I recall by taliban sheepherders. In some cases like first Iraq war yes, but they don't wage those wars anymore. And all mental limits re casualties are very real limits just like other. Its like saying russia could/can conquer whole Europe, if only X, Y and Z. That effectively means they can't, as we see playing out right now despite them trying desperately to achieve this very thing.
  - dotancohen 4mo ago
    > last time I recall by taliban sheepherders Part of the reason that Americans prefer to lose that war is because the enemy is called "sheepherders", implying innocent civilians, when the military is winning. The blurring of when a militant is referred to as a civilian has proven to be a very effective tactic to reduce the American population's tolerance for war.
    - anonymars 4mo ago
      I'm confused, are you insinuating that the Taliban essentially ran a PR campaign to portray themselves as sheepherders to garner sympathy from the US population to reduce its appetite for fighting them?
      - dotancohen 4mo ago
        No, I am stating that there are strong elements in popular media, news providers chief among them, who seek to weaken US influence and use US public opinion to drive that change.
        anonymars 4mo ago
        Why would the US news media seek to weaken US influence (or stop war)? Seems much simpler to assume that "sensationalism sells"
        4mo ago
- amunozo 4mo ago
  If you cannot afford doing it, then you cannot do it. What's the purpose of having the capability to do something if you cannot afford the losses of doing it?
kortilla 4mo ago
Because it would require a boots on the ground invasion to occupy the entire portion of Iran overlooking the Strait. The strait is physically open but no insurance company will cover massive oil carriers because they are so easy to hit with small weaponry from the ridges of Iran.
- amunozo 4mo ago
  So effectively, there is no military hegemony, as the U.S. cannot afford the costs of using it.
- AnthonyMouse 4mo ago
  Why doesn't the US government just insure them itself then? A quarter of a billion dollars is a major risk to an insurance company with no internal capacity to mitigate the risk itself, but it's not even a rounding error in the federal budget and the US government would then be expressing confidence in the ability of its own military to ensure safe passage. And even if they had to pay a claim, it would cost the population less than the higher gas prices, since increasing supply lowers the market price for all supply, not just the incremental units.
  - throwaway173738 4mo ago
    That would require an act of Congress. So implicitly, the majority party in the House and Senate don’t want to do this. Ask yourself, who is in power right now?
- sofixa 4mo ago
  > Because it would require a boots on the ground invasion to occupy the entire portion of Iran overlooking the Strait. Which even the morons who started this conflict know is suicidal because Iran has literally at least a million loyal fanatics (Basij, the same organisation doing unarmed meat waves against Iraq)!ready to die for the regime, and the terrain is in their favour. So that's not military hegemony.

If we have military hegemony, then why can't we open the strait of Hormuz?

krapp 4mo ago

[flagged]

hattmall 4mo ago
This maybe a bit of sarcasm, but it's actually accurate. The information was so contrived that multiple firms sent physical analysis to observe the strait in person. They all have said that the strait remains active with decreased but consistent transit. Regardless of who claimed the strait was open or closed. It's the reason oil markets are so hesitant to bid up futures contracts.

jimbob45 4mo ago

After all has been said about the ages of Biden and Trump, it’s ironic that having presidents with experience living through Vietnam and the Soviet-Afghan war has been so useful for their two terms.

ZeroGravitas 4mo ago
But the difference between Vietnam and Iran is that Trump had a plan to get out of Vietnam.

mothballed 4mo ago

The US could/can, they're just not willing to undergo the mass casualties it would take to put boots on the ground and put those boots up the ass of the people controlling Hormuz. Which absolutely cannot be achieved purely by air.

_dark_matter_ 4mo ago
This is just a different way if saying that we can't.
helsinkiandrew 4mo ago
> The US could/can, they're just not willing to undergo the mass casualties it would take to put boots on the ground It doesn’t matter what the reason, if you can’t do something you can’t do it.
- mothballed 4mo ago
  I'm not interested in a lengthy semantic debate about what "can" means but I'd hope we could agree at least one possible interpretation includes things you're unwilling but able to do.
  - runako 4mo ago
    Generously, what difference does it make to any person if you technically achieve some result but in practice are not able to realize that end state?
    - urams 4mo ago
      Is it the case that if someone doesn't do something some time then they can't do that thing? Like, if you were playing basketball and Lebron James walked by and you threw the ball to him and said "dunk this!' and Lebron said "no, I'm not willing to" does this mean Lebron can't dunk? Because personally, I'd still take Lebron on a basketball team even if he wasn't willing to dunk the ball that one time.
      - runako 4mo ago
        > if you were playing basketball and Lebron James walked by and you threw the ball to him Yes, this is a terrible analogy for the war in Iran. Hugely unpopular, costing Americans vast sums of money daily, headed for possible catastrophe. Very much not a low-stakes "Lebron walks by" situation. Better analogy with Lebron would be: championship game with a title on the line. He gets possession as time runs down and the team needs him to score or make a play that scores. It's not okay for him to then say he's fully capable of scoring but doesn't want to at just that moment for reasons. NB: this is not to say the US military couldn't cause untold damage on the region. This is obvious, anybody can look at recent history to see that the US military is more than capable of destroying a country in the region. Rather, this is an object lesson that war is politics by other means, and here we tried to do war without any politics and it has not gone well for us.
hattmall 4mo ago
[flagged]
- MrVandemar 4mo ago
  > last major source of instability in the region. Are you forgetting the bad neighbor that keeps attacking most of its other neighbors, even while under ceasefire agreements? And then moving onto the land and saying "this is ours, time to redraw the border again.". Because that, to me, screams instability.
  - hattmall 4mo ago
    I get it, but no, that's not leading to regional instability that actual hostile nations and leadership have been responsible for creating in the region.
  - digi59404 4mo ago
    You mean the bad neighbor whom Iran has constantly funded attacks on from those other neighbors? The bad neighbor who has IRGC Funded terrorist and militant cells along its very border? You mean the bad neighbor whom comes under rocket fire on a routine basis? Are we forgetting that Iran is the one who has funded Hamas and Hezbollah and provided them safe haven? Maybe that bad neighbor wouldn’t be a bad neighbor and be attacking the other neighbors. If the other neighbors did not provide shelter for those who wish to burn down the bad neighbors house? Point is - Iran plays a SIGNIFICANT role in the destabilization of the region. That bad neighbor might be a good neighbor if Iran wasn’t attacking it via proxies. But I suspect we’re not ready to have that nuanced conversation yet.
    - dotancohen 4mo ago
      The people downvoting your comment should be aware of a few things: 1. The ceasefire with Lebanon specifically states that Hezbollah is to retreat to the Litany river, which they have not done. The ceasefire further states that military operations against Hezbollah are permitted so long as they remain south of the Litany, and so long as they attack Israel. They attack Israel daily - Israel is not breaking the ceasefire. That's why popular news use the term "Israel attacks despite ceasefire" instead saying "Israel breaks ceasefire" - because Israel is not the side breaking the ceasefire. 2. Hezbollah attacked Israel unprovoked on October 8th 2023, leading to the current conflict. 3. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis have been internally displaced since then. Popular media calls internally displaced Gazans refugees, yet I've never seen this term applied to the internally displaced Israelis.
kakacik 4mo ago
US military ain't some unstoppable force in all possible scenarios, it was stopped and won over quite a few times, last time I recall by taliban sheepherders. In some cases like first Iraq war yes, but they don't wage those wars anymore. And all mental limits re casualties are very real limits just like other. Its like saying russia could/can conquer whole Europe, if only X, Y and Z. That effectively means they can't, as we see playing out right now despite them trying desperately to achieve this very thing.
- dotancohen 4mo ago
  > last time I recall by taliban sheepherders Part of the reason that Americans prefer to lose that war is because the enemy is called "sheepherders", implying innocent civilians, when the military is winning. The blurring of when a militant is referred to as a civilian has proven to be a very effective tactic to reduce the American population's tolerance for war.
  - anonymars 4mo ago
    I'm confused, are you insinuating that the Taliban essentially ran a PR campaign to portray themselves as sheepherders to garner sympathy from the US population to reduce its appetite for fighting them?
    - dotancohen 4mo ago
      No, I am stating that there are strong elements in popular media, news providers chief among them, who seek to weaken US influence and use US public opinion to drive that change.
      - anonymars 4mo ago
        Why would the US news media seek to weaken US influence (or stop war)? Seems much simpler to assume that "sensationalism sells"
        4mo ago
amunozo 4mo ago
If you cannot afford doing it, then you cannot do it. What's the purpose of having the capability to do something if you cannot afford the losses of doing it?

kortilla 4mo ago

Because it would require a boots on the ground invasion to occupy the entire portion of Iran overlooking the Strait. The strait is physically open but no insurance company will cover massive oil carriers because they are so easy to hit with small weaponry from the ridges of Iran.

amunozo 4mo ago
So effectively, there is no military hegemony, as the U.S. cannot afford the costs of using it.
AnthonyMouse 4mo ago
Why doesn't the US government just insure them itself then? A quarter of a billion dollars is a major risk to an insurance company with no internal capacity to mitigate the risk itself, but it's not even a rounding error in the federal budget and the US government would then be expressing confidence in the ability of its own military to ensure safe passage. And even if they had to pay a claim, it would cost the population less than the higher gas prices, since increasing supply lowers the market price for all supply, not just the incremental units.
- throwaway173738 4mo ago
  That would require an act of Congress. So implicitly, the majority party in the House and Senate don’t want to do this. Ask yourself, who is in power right now?
sofixa 4mo ago
> Because it would require a boots on the ground invasion to occupy the entire portion of Iran overlooking the Strait. Which even the morons who started this conflict know is suicidal because Iran has literally at least a million loyal fanatics (Basij, the same organisation doing unarmed meat waves against Iraq)!ready to die for the regime, and the terrain is in their favour. So that's not military hegemony.