[dlubarov]

Extorting an international waterway is effectively just piracy (we just don't typically use the word for state actors). We could try to end this piracy through negotiations, but letting states use piracy as a bargaining chip doesn't set a good precedent.

[anonymous_user9]

> letting states use piracy as a bargaining chip doesn't set a good precedent.

If piracy is bad, what precedent due the US and Israel's conduct set?

Instead of tolling the strait, Iran should arrest leaders of their neighboring states, and try them for their crimes under Iranian law.

[drivebyhooting]

There’s no point in arguing tit for tat or who has the moral high ground. No matter what grievance one side brings up the other will have a retort.

[scotty79]

US physically confirmed Iran's ownership of the strait. Now everybody should just get off their lawn. US spits on international laws and institutions so why should anybody respect them?

[dlubarov]

If we're saying that because everyone has broken a few international laws, now they don't matter at all, then why should Iran be the only one extorting international waters or waterways?

Should we start our own extortion program? There's no need to limit it to waters near us; we can credibly threaten ships anywhere on the planet. Of course other states could do the same, even landlocked ones...

[scotty79]

> Should we start our own extortion program?

Isn't US already doing that with Venezuela and/or Cuba?

[adrian_b]

You forget that USA has instituted a blockade of Cuba in February, before attacking Iran.

USA has intercepted the oil tankers headed to Cuba, causing a very serious fuel shortage there, which has created a lot of problems for the ordinary Cuban citizens.

It is USA who started practicing piracy in international waters and blocking the traffic of ships belonging to others.

Therefore now it is really shameless for USA to criticize Iran for doing against USA and its allies, during a war started by USA, the same thing that USA has already been doing, and unlike Iran, USA has started doing this completely unprovoked.

USA has already demonstrated in numerous occasions that they believe to have the right to break any international laws and treaties whenever they please. Therefore any other country also has the same right, whenever that is done against USA or its allies.

[donkeybeer]

Invading a country unprovoked, launching missiles at schoolgirls is invasion, murder and warcrimes. We don't typically use the word murder for state actors, but letting them use this as a bargaining chip doesn't set a good precedent.

[dlubarov]

You keep saying unprovoked. How is attacking Israel with tens of thousands of rockets and drones (mostly by proxy) not a provocation? How many attacks do you expect Israel to tolerate before finally responding?

[donkeybeer]

Proxy is a nice word that's best not brought up or else south America and the middle east deserve to nuke the United states multiple times over.

[dlubarov]

Article 51 applies to states, not continents, but sure some states might have a claim against the US. That doesn’t change anything about the Iran regime’s aggression.

[donkeybeer]

But you brought it up. Nicaragua if we are following the laws of proportionality established by America and Israel in this invasion, Nicaragua alone has the right to level most of the unuted states, and to say nothing of the claims of other south american and middle eastern countries. So personally I'd rather not use the proxy argument unless one is comfortable with the idea of the USA having multiple nukes lobbed at it from all over the world.

Iran presently also isn't trying to Lebensraum "buffer zones" from other countries lands around itself.

[dlubarov]

Okay, let's imagine that Nicaragua has the right to nuke the US, setting aside the fact that their self-defense justification expired decades ago, and that someone else committing war crimes does not create any legal justification for other war crimes.

I'm still not sure what this has to do with Iranian aggression?