[Terr_]

If it were that straightforward, right now the US would (A) have a consistent set of demands/goals that include shipping security and (B) a large international coalition of support.

Neither are true.

P.S.: Plus, of course, the whole problem where "protecting global sea lanes" typically requires a different approach than "start a war by assassinating the leadership you were negotiating with."

[bagels]

JD vance whined that we shouldn't protect middle east shipping lanes because he believes it helps Europe more than the US.

[IncreasePosts]

Don't make me defend JD vance.

He said Europe should pay their fair share for protection since 40% of their trade passes through those lanes but only 3% of America's.

[datsci_est_2015]

Why focus on the consumer side, especially when so many of the current administration are brazenly in bed with the regimes that benefit from free oil flow in the region? (Kushner & MBS)

You’re not forced to repeat his rhetoric, maybe think critically about it.

[vkou]

How much of the destabilization of North Africa and the Middle East is America's responsibility, and how much did Europe pay in absorbing refugees from it?

Should Germany be sending DC a bill?

If I recall correctly, America didn't even say 'Thank you'...

[bawolff]

US messaging has been all over the place, but stop funding proxies has been one of the more consistent parts.

To be clear, im not saying protecting shipping is the primary reason for this war. I'm just saying if that is what you think usa should be doing, then this war makes sense.

As far as b) there are a lot of factors. Its not like freedom of navigation is the top concern of every country in the world.