upvote
Military history is full of quotes like "war is too important to be left to the generals". When you put people who focus on technical matters in charge, they often make poor decisions, as they are not looking at the big picture.

The question is not about whether the US can blockade the Hormuz Strait but who gets blamed for the blockade. Iran is messaging that it is making serious attempts to reopen the strait, while China and Russia are probably reinforcing the message. When people around the world suffer from the consequences of the blockade, they are more likely to blame America for their troubles. Or at least that's what Iran is trying to achieve.

reply
Iran doesn’t have to do anything, really. The Hormuz blockade is entirely on the moronic US, their feeble leader as well as their utterly corrupt and incompetent politicians.

A toxic mix of staggering arrogance, moral bankruptcy, a lack of strategic thinking, non-existing historical awareness and a desperate need to divert attention because of the Epstein files.

Try debating a MAGA supporter. The stupidity is astounding.

reply
Your Ai-like trolling bias is a non-starter.
reply
So why is Hormuz closed right now? And why wasn't it closed earlier this year?
reply
No government have accepted Iranian tolls so far, that is just not going to fly ever. If every country controlling a strait started taking out such tolls that would cause much worse issues than we are seeing currently, nobody will have that.
reply
No government has accepted Iranian tolls so far, but some shippers sure have; ships have been passing through the strait. Those shipments go on to countries with governments. I don't think you can actually know that there wasn't government support for any of those payments so far.

And cryptocurrency should be even better for deniability. In reality it would be a really good idea for certain governments that rely heavily on Middle Eastern oil (e.g. Philippines) to pay fees in the short term. More than a month ago the Philippines was already claiming to have "safe and preferential access", if that involves money they'll pay it. (https://www.rappler.com/business/philippine-flagged-ships-sa...)

reply
You think people care? The average guy on the street doesn't even think about the fact that part of the price they paid for their lunch went to Panama for the use of a canal.
reply
The US fundamentally wants the oil to flow globally.

Its secondary blockade of the Strait seems to be driven by optics and PR rather than strategic value.

reply
It's a pressure campaign to get a nuclear deal. NYT reported Iran already offered to open the strait, end hostilities, and negotiate a nuclear deal later, but the US rejected that offer as they want to pressure them into giving up their uranium.

Now Iran is demanding money in exchange for the uranium which is the primary roadblock.

reply
Nobody credible said or believed Iran was making nuclear weapons. Iran had made it a fatwa against the Islamic law to develop such weapons and Obama had referenced that. They also dont believe bolivian fishermen could reach the US with stocks of drugs, they dont believe venezuela’s president was a hidden drug kingpin, and they also dont believe that Cuba is a credible threat that needs to be blockaded to the stone age.

These are power plays to signal that world dominance is not decaying but in case of Iran it has backfired and pushes China’s narrative as a pillar of stability.

reply
There is still lots of evidence that Iran started enriching uranium towards weapons grade over the past decade. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-64810145 Largely a legacy of Trump's sanctions failing to get a nuclear deal the first term and back firing. You'd have to be naive to think they don't want a bomb in the first place before that though.

Saddam played the same game where they pretended they just wanted nuclear for energy, even though they were a petrol state... which is why in 1981 Iran helped bomb Iraq's reactors (where Iran teamed up with Israel to do so) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera

If Iran didn't believe Iraq's peaceful nuclear intentions, I'm not sure why anyone would believe Iran then buying tons of uranium from Russia was any different. Not to mention building underground lairs to enrich it while also building ICBMs.

reply
The best way to thread the needle I can see was that maintaining highly enriched uranium was a deterrance/bargaining strategy. Doesn't break the fatwa but sends a message. Obviously it wasn't successful, they should have either built a bomb or not bothered, in hindsight.
reply
Many countries have nuclear power without any enrichment capability. Iran could try not being a pariah state and buy enriched uranium like many countries do. The only real reason to spend so much money and endure so much hardships for uranium enrichment is if they wanted at least the option to make nuclear weapons.
reply
reply
Your source doesn't contradict anything he said.

“This stockpile could potentially enable Iran to construct as many as 10 nuclear bombs, should it choose to weaponize its program, Grossi told The Associated Press last year.”

reply
It's a pressure campaign to get the Iranian leadership in one place so that Israel can bomb them again. There was a deal, the president cancelled it in his previous term.
reply
deleted
reply
Just wait for CENTCOM bulletin with their USDC blockade insurance address
reply
You mean that these mafia style insurances are a joke, but free (as in safe and not taxed) access to the seas is something many wars have been fought over. "Insurance" selling by navies was the norm until WW1 at least.
reply
bc1qxy2kgdytzdonaldjlostiranwartrump
reply
Hah, far more likely that it would be $TRUMP or $PATRIOT shitcoins. Gotta skim somehow.
reply
Why would the US navy be attacking ships in the strait of hormuz
reply
They are doing this because they blockaded Iran.
reply
because Baron trump has a bet on polymarket paying 100:1?
reply
A Iran drone then bombing UAE's oil infrastructure as payback?
reply
They are already doing that so it wouldn't change anything.
reply
So.... just fuck the world economy out of national american embarrassment?
reply
No they are not right now, otherwise we would have full news every day of it. Defense rockets for stuff like Patriot ran out, those systems are trivial to overwhelm and deplete in the age of cheap drones and become useless quickly.

Same for the major airports, they keep working, people keep flying to the asia, albeit in less numbers.

reply
>No they are not right now, otherwise we would have full news every day of it.

Yesterday Iran stuck a nuclear plant with a drone, and launched them at other targets as well. And there is news on it even...

https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-uae-nuclear-drones-71e7e5...

reply
UAE is firing weapons at Iran's oil infrastructure.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-u-a-e-has-been-secretly-car...

reply
Just to be clear, Iran has been accused of the attack.
reply
Yea there is. It's called "nuclear weapons."

Why you'd want to play this 'tough guy' game in the era of the Internet is wholly beyond me. You have a fantastically well outfitted military that in the absence of diplomacy stands a really good chance at getting us all killed.

Jingoism is a mind poison.

reply
A combination of enough insurance to make it worth the time of the owner + offer the workers a generous amount to their next of kin could make it worth it. Being turned into minced meat might be worth it for some people if it means their families become rich.
reply
Exactly. The US just announces that they will take any vessel that pays for transit. So, what happens then? Any vessel that goes through and the IRGC doesn't shoot them, the US seizes. So, no one pays since they can't pay for successful transit. The fun game is that all the vessels just go at once. Any that the IRGC doesn't shoot the US takes. Any that it does shoot sink. So, no transit. Unless IRGC doesn't shoot at all, in which case everyone gets out of there with just one vessel paying the ransom. Ultimately this doesn't work for the IRGC as the US is far more capable of closing the strait than Iran is.

The US can also fuck with Iran by getting slight cooperation from ships in the Gulf of Oman by getting some small inflatable boats with remote control and AIS transmitters on them. Put the boat in the water next to a ship, turn of the ship's AIS, turn on the boats AIS, and send the boat through. Send hundreds of them. IRGC won't know what to shoot at or will expose their positions by firing at a rubber raft.

reply
This is some wacky races shit that boils down to:

1. US fucks up by engaging Iran, Iran closes strait.

2. US fucks up the negotiations and fails to reopen the strait.

3. US decides to try and rescue its initial war goals, through a mutual blockade with Iran, starts sinking the very vessels it demands Iran gives passage to.

Does Mutley get a medal?

reply
Or they'll use a pair of binoculars (or a drone with a camera) to ignore the decoys and shoot at the actual ship...
reply
The horizon at sea level is about 3 miles. The strait of Hormuz is 35+ miles wide. Any mechanism used to get around this would be detectable and could be attacked with relatively inexpensive ordinance.
reply
About 20 meter elevation would be needed to cover the navigable part of the strait. So, a couple of tall ladders?
reply
Look at the map. They have mountains. Not much rain/fog in that area to block the sight lines. Maybe haze.
reply
You realize that America "in theory" wants ships to transit the strait right? The US blockade is self-defeating.

You can't block the strait if we block the strait! lmao

reply
I think this is incorrect. The point is to show that if Iran does this, then they will not be the only ones that can do it. The last thing that should happen is to reward Iran for rent seeking on the Strait. Others can also seek rent then, and the whole strait gets shut down..which encompassed around 90% of all Iranian oil exports, which in turn was about 90% of their economic exports.
reply
There is truth to this but it's basically we'll hurt ourselves to hurt you more. This is a lose-lose strategy.
reply
I am not sure if in the long term it is our interest to allow Iran to extract rent from this trade route, which would only strengthen China. It seems to me that the hurt is spread around the world quite widely, with inordinate impacts on Iran and China, not the U.S. or Europe [1].

[1] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-oil-trade-through-t...

reply
I have nothing against china, and I have no interest in the companies operating from our soil. They certainly view us with contempt.
reply
I am talking about geopolitical security.
reply
It's not really in my interest for a cabal of pedophiles to win this one. I dispute the conflation of the interests of the capitalist class with the american people.
reply
Wow. You know, I think Trump is dangerous to our Republic, almost certainly committing graft and fraud using the Office of the President for personal gain, probably a rapist and maybe a pedophile. I don't know. But that has nothing, I repeat, NOTHING to do with our national security and the geopolitical reality of the Russian-Iranian-Chinese-North Korean Axis and the threat that axis poses to the democratic free-world. Separate your concerns, walk and chew gum, and face the real world.
reply
Those countries are all very different with very different interests in their respective regions. China doesn't care about Ukraine, Russia doesn't care about Taiwan, and both were very muted in their reaction to the attacks on Iran.

The major thing they have in common is not respecting American trade embargoes against themselves, which, of course they don't.

reply
They had muted (visible) reaction because they could do little about it.
reply
Why is it so bad that countries want rent over the areas they control?
reply
It's not a matter of good or bad. Innocent passage through national waters (including straits) without paying tolls has been a fundamental principle of maritime law for a long time. Allowing Iran to charge a toll for passage through the Strait of Hormuz would set a bad precedent and encourage other countries to do the same. Iran might be able to get some of the weaker countries to pay up but the USA has no incentive to agree; more likely they would just continue the blockade, and possibly impose secondary sanctions against any entities that send money to Iran.
reply
Straits have always been points of local control. This isn't new. We will have to pay if we want to play. For all people bluster about the US being exempt, I don't see what leverage we can use that isn't more expensive than just paying up. Marinetime law is only as meaningful as can be enforced.
reply
Yeah, and "don't launch wars of aggression or bomb girls' schools on a whim" has been a principle for about the same amount of time.

Iran has been pretty clear that they'll open the strait if the USA lifts the blockade. How can we complain about fair passage while maintaining a blockade ourselves?

reply
.
reply
What's your point? Innocent passage never applied to artificial canals. You seem to be unclear on the basics of maritime law.
reply
[dead]
reply
The reason the US is blockading is because Iran is only partially blockading it. If Iran wasn't blockading at all then America wouldn't either. But it's pretty clear that "only shops whose countries pay a lot of money to Iran" would help Iran.
reply
The US is blockading the Iranian coast, not the entirety of the Strait.
reply
[dead]
reply
US Navy has shown particular strength in this conflict against Iran, sitting in the international waters many (many, many) miles away and chillin :)
reply
Whats weak about doing the smart thing?
reply
Starting a war and then not fighting in it is pretty stupid honestly. Either fight or dont start a pointless war
reply
American destroyers and aircraft carriers have been chased away from the Strait multiple times now.

Hilariously the USS George HW Bush had to go the long way around Africa rather than risk transiting the Bab El Mandeb after the Houthis defeated the US Navy last year.

reply
In what way were they chased away? Iran tried to sink them and didn't hit any shots, and many on Iran's side died trying. Many IRGC soldiers dying and not even scratching the paint on US vessels doesn't show US to be weak.

> Hilariously the USS George HW Bush had to go the long way around Africa rather than risk transiting the Bab El Mandeb after the Houthis defeated the US Navy last year.

Valuing the lives of your crewmen and avoid terrorists is bad how? USA not wanting their soldiers to die is weak? Would you want more deaths on US side to show strength?

USA can win this war with barely any casualties, why would you not do that? And USA being able to do this with barely any losses shows tremendous strength to me, Iran was more powerful than Ukraine but USA could establish aerial superiority immediately with no losses, this is so much stronger than what Russia displayed.

reply
> USA can win this war with barely any casualties

What do you mean by "win"? What strategic goals can the US achieve in this war? We're at a point where merely achieving status quo ante bellum--i.e., Iran doesn't charge for passage through the Strait of Hormuz--seems to require giving concessions elsewhere.

In many ways, this looks like the American version of Pearl Harbor--a stunning tactical victory that is simultaneously a crushing strategic loss.

reply
> We're at a point where merely achieving status quo ante bellum--i.e., Iran doesn't charge for passage through the Strait of Hormuz--seems to require giving concessions elsewhere.

No, there is no reality where the world will let Iran take tolls here, no matter what happens that part wont happen. The world depends too much on straits being open and toll free, if you let that slide once it will be done by others and that will break down the entire world order.

reply
What you're skipping over here is how that happens. If Iran wants to charge tolls on the strait, someone has to do something to keep Iran from doing that. And when you start gaming out the possible identities of that someone, the possible things of that something... well, the most likely route of this is via negotiating some concessions to Iran (i.e., at minimum sanctions relief and maybe even concrete progress to a nuclear bomb). That assumes that Trump even considers freedom of navigation as something worth concessions in the first place, which I don't take as a given.
reply
Which as they say, will require concessions elsewhere to achieve.
reply
The primary US strategic war goal was to slow down Iran's nuclear weapons program. That was not a smart reason to launch an attack, but the attack was at least somewhat successful in achieving the goal. Much of Iran's critical equipment is now destroyed or buried, so from the US perspective that's at least a minor, temporary strategic gain. I'm not claiming that any of this was a good idea or that it will work out well in the long run but let's be clear about the real goals.
reply
> The primary US strategic war goal was to slow down Iran's nuclear weapons program.

Let’s be realistic, this was probably about Israeli domestic politics first and US domestic politics second, and maybe thirdly as a favor to the Saudis. It’s crooks running all three countries for their own purposes and issuing BS PR cover stories.

reply
The US administration has given several contradictory claims as to what the strategic goals of the war are supposed to be.

The problem with the claim of nuclear weapons program is that the dominant assessment of the intelligence communities is that Iran didn't have a nuclear weapons program at all. Khamenei the elder was known to be against having a nuclear weapons program, and the US's achievement is to replace him with his son... who is known to be in the pro-nuclear weapons program. Considering that the nuclear enrichment centers were targeted in last year's strikes, it's not even clear that the strikes this year have had a meaningful effect in even a temporary delay in enrichment progress.

At this point, I suspect that Trump never had any strategic war aims in the first place, but was instead motivated by an operational aim (regime change in Iran, à la the Venezuela operation), and has been flailing about since then because the administration simply doesn't have anyone with the capacity to actually understand the strategic reality of the situation and is substituting operational and tactical goals for strategic ones.

reply
Given how expensive they are they were presumably supposed to do more than primarily stay out of range. There are less expensive ways of doing that.
reply
They block Iranian ports so Iran can no longer export oil, that is doing a lot.
reply
And Iran has blocked the strait too. It's at best a stalemate.
reply
But this stalemate benefits US corporations by raising the price for oil, so its not really hurting the attacker. In order to hurt a plutocracy like USA you need to hurt the American stock market but American stocks are doing great.
reply
It benefits a few corporations in the short term but not America in general. And if the oil prices rise and stay high, there will be demand destruction. US sits on top of the capital food chain and will be hurt.
reply
That's true. Both USA and Russia should be quite happy with the current state of affairs. China not so much.

Rest of the world is quite pissed with USA. But that's just emotion. Unless it gets realised into something concrete it matters little.

reply
Trump is at -20% net approval and it's steadily getting worse even now. Seems like most Americans don't decide whether things are going great by looking at S&P 500.
reply
neither he nor people that will decide 2026 election give a hoot about his net approval rating. they should not even poll this. the only thing worth polling is few states that could swing the election one way or another (and this is even smaller number than normal for upcoming midterms). what americans think on the whole has stopped mattering awhile ago…
reply
Blowing shit up and killing people isn't winning. Winning is getting what you want strategically and operationally. Unless you are 12, most outcomes aren't just big explosions.
reply
deleted
reply
We are quite incapable of dealing with a mass attack by Iranian small boats with bombs.
reply
They are not, they updated their tactics to account for that so they destroyed a lot of Iranian small boats with bombs trying to attack the vessels. If they were incapable of countering that we would have seen American casualties in these skirmishes but only Iranians died.
reply
Not one U.S. ship was damaged by the Houthis. Meanwhile airstrikes took out a ton of Houthi assets.
reply
Your claims are hilariously wrong.
reply
> Hilariously the USS George HW Bush had to go the long way around Africa rather than risk transiting the Bab El Mandeb after the Houthis defeated the US Navy last year.

The ship went the long way around because why risk being attacked by missiles? It's less that the US Navy "was defeated", which itself is a plainly asinine comment which only serves a purpose of trying to incite others, and more so a practical safety concern.

But if you really want to argue that the US Navy was defeated, I would submit our next step should be to utilize nuclear weapons on Yemen and destroy the Houthis. That way you can't make these claims and we'll see who really is defeating who :)

reply
[dead]
reply
I would have never realised that things would have taken such an Onion worthy scatological turn.

s/n/d/6

reply
Sure, but when it happens it's no longer Iran's problem - it's your problem. (And maybe America's problem, unless America gains anything from the global trade burning down.)
reply