[ericmay]

> the US petrodollar promise to protect UAE states from aggression in exchange for trade in USD could not be upheld

Well the war is still ongoing, and Iran's regime is already feeling the pain of the blockade [1]. Pricing oil in Yuan because, I guess, the US is somehow not protecting the UAE doesn't make sense because China won't be there to protect them either. The US can just say, well fine you can sell your oil in Yuan. But we'll just blockade the Straight and seize oil priced in Yuan or something. Who exactly does the UAE need protection from? Iran? China's ally?

I swear I read this same story over and over again. There's always just an accusation "thing happened, here's how the US is now in a state of being screwed" and there's just never any follow-up or perhaps imagination that the US could just do something too. Hypersonic missiles? US Navy is done for, no possible counter. Iran has drones? Boom. US is done for no way they can spend Patriot missile money on $30,000 Iranian drones. Nope, nothing anyone can do at all. Iran "closes the Straight", well the US can't do anything. Now they are "embarrassed" and "slammed".

> OPEC cartel membership didnt gain it access to Hormuz

What does this mean?

[1] https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iran-is-flooded-with-s...

[nimbius]

> Pricing oil in Yuan because, I guess, the US is somehow not protecting the UAE doesn't make sense because China won't be there to protect them either.

It is an admission that US protection was always a paper tiger. Perhaps in the 1960s it meant something, but Iran has shattered the illusion that Washington has any credible defense of the country.

> The US can just say, well fine you can sell your oil in Yuan. But we'll just blockade the Straight and seize oil priced in Yuan or something.

The UAE primarily sells its oil to China, which is its largest export partner, followed by countries like India and Japan. the United States cannot do this without not only obliterating energy markets for an ally, but strengthening alliances between china and india. It is likely that should the US attempt such a move, China would respond with retaliatory technology tariffs and a reduction of agricultural trade.

> Who exactly does the UAE need protection from? Iran? China's ally?

the UAE did not "need protection" from any regional military threat until the United States used regional peace talks as cover to launch a surprise attack against Iran. the UAE would still likely be an OPEC member state had the US not unilaterally chosen to obliterate global energy markets for no consistent or clearly defined reason.

> there's just never any follow-up or perhaps imagination that the US could just do something too.

This conflict was well defined as geopolitical suicide for nearly forty years; its what kept the peace. All simulations and tabletop exercises predicted such an incursion would send global energy markets into panic, trade markets into recession, and produce no meaningful advancement of either regional security or regime change. Iran is backed by powerful allies and has shown numerous times it can meet each US escalation with yet more regional attacks. We have tried escalation and failed, burned through a decade of advanced missiles fighting cheap drones, and have no defined objective politically or militarily for this conflict.

[ericmay]

> It is an admission that US protection was always a paper tiger. Perhaps in the 1960s it meant something, but Iran has shattered the illusion that Washington has any credible defense of the country.

sigh No, it's not. There are 3 aircraft carriers parked in the region, plus US air bases. Iran launched over 2500 missiles at the UAE alone. The US destroyed much of Iran's military, the only thing they have left is the ability to launch missiles and drones at ships or do terrorist style attacks.

But if you want to suggest that the US is a paper tiger here, that just makes everyone a paper tiger. Nobody can stop Iran. Ok.

> The UAE primarily sells its oil to China, which is its largest export partner, followed by countries like India and Japan. the United States cannot do this without not only obliterating energy markets for an ally, but strengthening alliances between china and india. It is likely that should the US attempt such a move, China would respond with retaliatory technology tariffs and a reduction of agricultural trade.

Then we would react with export controls, additional weapons shipments to allies in the region, work with Japan and South Korea to start weapons programs, blockade Chinese trade, there's a million things we can do too.

> the UAE did not "need protection" from any regional military threat until the United States used regional peace talks as cover to launch a surprise attack against Iran. the UAE would still likely be an OPEC member state had the US not unilaterally chosen to obliterate global energy markets for no consistent or clearly defined reason.

And yet, UAE wants the US in the region and in UAE soil. Iran launched over 2500 missiles at the UAE, including civilian targets. Not sure your comment here reflects reality.

> This conflict was well defined as geopolitical suicide for nearly forty years; its what kept the peace.

Things change. US is the #1 energy producing country in the world in terms of oil, gas, &c. We're less dependent on the Middle East, plus we've basically secured the Venezuelan oil supply. Seems to me that what was once geopolitical suicide is no longer the case. We're here today, and life in the US just goes on as normal.

> All simulations and tabletop exercises predicted such an incursion would send global energy markets into panic, trade markets into recession, and produce no meaningful advancement of either regional security or regime change.

TBD

> Iran is backed by powerful allies and has shown numerous times it can meet each US escalation with yet more regional attacks.

Yes, Iran, who is supplying Russia with drones and such for its war against Ukraine is an ally, as is China.

> We have tried escalation and failed, burned through a decade of advanced missiles fighting cheap drones, and have no defined objective politically or militarily for this conflict.

We have not burned through a decade of advanced missiles fighting cheap drones. We can build our own cheap drones and are working on scaling production, and just because you don't understand the political or military objective doesn't mean that there isn't one, however poorly or well-thought it may be.

The US has very much escalated and sits now at the top of the escalation ladder. Iran has been trying to get the US to the negotiating table due to the blockade. Iran can launch its missiles as it likes to at civilian targets in the Gulf. We + allies will just get better at shooting them down. Who cares? If Iran wants to try to escalate we'll just escalate further, blow up more stuff, keep the oil from flowing if we decide. It doesn't really hurt us much.

[negura]

people tend to forget the exorbitant privillege of the US. originally this idea applied to USD being the global reserve currency. but it goes so much further. critics of american foreign policy simply lack a sense of proportion. there is so, so much leverage the US has. which they use to do things that wouldn't make sense for any other country. while still coming out on top. i'm glad to see specifics being provided in support of this idea

[watwut]

> Iran "closes the Straight", well the US can't do anything.

Well, Iran closed the Straight and the world is facing biggest oil crises since 90ties. US was in fact incapable to prevent it. Even if the Straight opened today, harm already happened and will continue to happen for months. And I dont think it will open today.

The war did not had to start at all and is causing considerable harm already. Iran feeling pain does not mean surrounding states were protected - instead they were put into harms way.

> Pricing oil in Yuan because, I guess, the US is somehow not protecting the UAE doesn't make sense because China won't be there to protect them either.

At this point, China is more predictable and crucially, more likely to keep their word. Not exactly entirely predictable and not exactly truth teller, but the difference here is huge.

[ericmay]

> The war did not had to start at all and is causing considerable harm already. Iran feeling pain does not mean surrounding states were protected - instead they were put into harms way.

They were always in harm's way. The war could have waited, and Iran could have doubled or tripled its missile stockpile and then they really would have been in harm's way. You're falling in to the same trap I mentioned "country does X, end of analysis".

> Well, Iran closed the Straight and the world is facing biggest oil crises since 90ties. US was in fact incapable to prevent it.

Any country is incapable of preventing it then. Iran could always just mine the straight and threaten to launch missiles and go hide in the mountains. If Iran wasn't doing all of these awful things in the region, none of this would be happening.

[toraway]

  > They were always in harm's way. The war could have waited, and Iran could have doubled or tripled its missile stockpile and then they really would have been in harm's way. 

I keep hearing this line defending US intervention but it doesn't really make sense. Iran was not threatening shipping traffic in the strait regardless of how many missiles they stocked up until they were forced to do so as an asymmetric warfare response to an attack by a superior military.

The missing ingredient has never been how many missiles Iran has stockpiled, it was external military action from someone like the US that gave them the window to assert that control.

The US didn't do the world any favors by getting it out of the way sooner or something, that's just absurd apoligism for a poorly planned war of choice that has obviously been a net negative for basically the entire world.

It would be like if the US nuked China and then shrugged after they predictably retaliated saying it just proved the threat from their stockpile that had always existed.

[ericmay]

> I keep hearing this line defending US intervention but it doesn't really make sense. Iran was not threatening shipping traffic in the strait regardless of how many missiles they stocked up until they were forced to do so as an asymmetric warfare response to an attack by a superior military.

Why would they threaten to do so prior to being ready? Have you ever played a strategy game where you build up your forces for an advantageous offensive or defensive position? Countries do this too. If we were playing a game where my actions would provide some advantage or victory over you in some area or a broad area, why would I announce what my intentions were to you so you could react or anticipate my actions?

Separately, you can just ask: why are they even stockpiling missiles in the first place? Why isn't Singapore stockpiling missiles, or perhaps Portugal, or Panama, or Morocco? Of course, this then introduces the circular reasoning "because of a potential US attack", but of course if Iran wasn't funding Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, and more, building up these missile stockpiles, continuing to pursue a nuclear bomb, helping Russia with its invasion of Ukraine, we wouldn't be here. At some point you just have to look at their actions and their actions suggest implementing a plan.

> The missing ingredient has never been how many missiles Iran has stockpiled, it was external military action from someone like the US that gave them the window to assert that control.

They don't have control over the Straight of Hormuz. It's a bit of semantics, but control would mean they can allow or disallow ships to pass based on their own decision making. They can disallow ships, but the US can also disallow ships. If Iran controls the Straight of Hormuz because they can fire missiles at ships, the US also controls the Straight of Hormuz because of that very same capability.

[jjfoooo4]

> Of course, this then introduces the circular reasoning "because of a potential US attack", but of course if Iran wasn't funding Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis

I think the first step of thinking about war objectively is to consider how each side sees it. The US POV is no less circular, from Iran’s perspective - they could list any number of provocations from the US to justify arming themselves, none more obvious than the war itself.

The debate around who started the hostility is ultimately pointless, the question is what to do about. Ideally the answer isn’t “arm for obliteration because the other side started it”

[ericmay]

Sure.

So let's say Iran stops building up massive amounts of missiles, funding these terrorist groups, stops pursuing a nuclear weapon, stops mass killing of its own civilians, and stops helping Russia prosecute its war against Ukraine (we can even leave this optional just to not introduce additional complexities).

What will the United States now have to do on its side as it pertains to Iran?

[watwut]

It is not a game. And this war happened because Israel and USA assumed Iran is weak.

This had squat zero with acute danger of military buildup. This happened because Hegseth thought Iran will fold and found it super unfair they did not.

> Separately, you can just ask: why are they even stockpiling missiles in the first place?

To protect themselves when America starta Another war. It cant go without war for long. As brutal as iran is, there was no imminent threat of expansion

It is israel who just displaced millions of people.

Is the idea here that only USA gets to have missiles?

[ericmay]

Iran is weak compared to the United States. The war wasn't started because Iran is weak, it was started because Iran is engaging in various activities that have effects in the world that the United States finds unacceptable.

> To protect themselves when America starta Another war.

Yet, only Iran has to protect themselves. Why is that? Well it's because they're doing bad things, and they know that we may do something about it. Why isn't Peru stockpiling missiles, or Thailand, or Iceland? It's because Iran's government was seized by an authoritarian regime that hates America and decided we would be the enemy forever and has continued to attack, and take other violent or non-violent actions that destabilize the region and global trade. If they just stopped doing this stuff, there wouldn't be a reason to "attack".

> It is israel who just displaced millions of people.

I don't think so. But Iran is responsible for Syria and those millions of people too. Like Maduro is responsible for the 8 million + refugees from Venezuela.

Your point of view of the world does not match reality. Stop making excuses and defending brutal authoritarian dictatorships.

> Is the idea here that only USA gets to have missiles?

Well you believe in nuclear non-proliferation, right?

[watwut]

Those states could export oil entirely reliable. They had tourism and finance industries dependent on them being safe.

Iran did not mined strait until USA and Israel bombed it twice during negotiations, threatened civilisation destruction, murdered political leaders and attacked BOTH civilian and military infrastructure.

You dont get to start a war or bomb and then blame the other side for not passivele accepting the situation.

USA caused harm here.

[ericmay]

> threatened civilisation destruction

Iran threatens to erase Israel and the United States off the map pretty much daily. So I just don't care that Trump did the same back to them. If they don't like threats like that, perhaps they should stop issuing them yea?

> murdered political leaders and attacked BOTH civilian and military infrastructure

What civilian infrastructure was deliberately attacked? We do know that Iran deliberately attacked civilian and military infrastructure. Did you mix the two up?

> You dont get to start a war or bomb and then blame the other side for not passivele accepting the situation.

Who started the war isn't an easy question to answer. I can easily and obviously argue that Iran started the war when they attacked Israel through their proxy forces. Ultimately though who "started" the war doesn't matter that much. Both sides have had grievances for quite a long time and things are just finally coming to more direct conflict.

[oa335]

> What civilian infrastructure was deliberately attacked?

Its clear you have only been getting your information from a certain set of sources. a lot of civilian infrastructure has been destroyed in Iran.

One of Israel's goals is to cripple the economy of Iran.

"Israeli leaders, including Defense Minister Israel Katz, have ordered the military to carry out strikes on targets that cause economic blows to the Iranian regime."

"This included a strike on major Iranian gas infrastructure in the country’s south nearly two weeks ago, and strikes on two of Iran’s largest steel factories on Friday. "

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-shifts-to-hitting-irans...

"Missiles also struck one of Iran’s biggest state-run pharmaceutical companies, Tofigh Darou, destroying its production and research and development units, state media said on Tuesday, blaming the strike on Israel. It’s a major producer of anti-cancer drugs and anesthetic in Iran"

https://archive.is/KAtCR

"A century-old medical research centre (Pasteur Institute) set up to fight infectious diseases like plague and smallpox has been heavily damaged in strikes on Tehran"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/terror-and-securit...

In addition, one of my friends who lives in Iran reported that a dialysis center, a refrigerator factory, a public park (that had "police" in the name), a popular chicken restaurant, and an entire apartment building full of people were each separately targeted and destroyed (apartment building was double tapped, killing rescue workers)

the above is just a small selection, universities, factories, bridges, oil infra has all been targeted as well.

would you consider US Steel factories, universities that do research for the military, factories or companies that make components that go into US weapons, apartment buildings where one military leader lives as military or civilian infrastructure?

[ericmay]

> would you consider US Steel factories, universities that do research for the military, factories or companies that make components that go into US weapons, apartment buildings where one military leader lives as military or civilian infrastructure?

I would consider it military infrastructure, but if you don't then you can't really complain about the US attacking, say, a petrochemical facility while Iran is/was simultaneously attacking infrastructure in the Gulf and attacking actual civilian targets like apartment buildings.

So you have to be consistent. It's either military or not. Iran is doing the same thing the US is doing or neither are doing it. Either way there's no room for moral superiority or outrage when both countries are somewhat acting the same, of course with Iran attacking and killing more civilians and whatnot.

[negura]

and let's not forget the boming of a literal school for girls

[ApolloFortyNine]

>Well, Iran closed the Straight and the world is facing biggest oil crises since 90ties. US was in fact incapable to prevent it. Even if the Straight opened today, harm already happened and will continue to happen for months. And I dont think it will open today.

Adjusted for inflation the price of oil isn't even the highest it's been this decade, let alone historically.

The price tripled from 2003-2008 as well.

>The war did not had to start at all

We probably won't know for twenty years if that's true or not. It's not as Iran's been some peaceful country for the last twenty years, they actively have sponsored terrorist organizations with the purpose of destabilizing the region. The country also sits on a wealth of natural resources but was solely researching nuclear power for peaceful purposes.

Really the big lesson for the next superpower is to simply act earlier. If you don't care about winning and just being a thorn in everyone's side, ballistic missiles are a great investment, and it should have been taken more seriously when Iran started stockpiling thousands of them.

[watwut]

> Adjusted for inflation the price of oil isn't even the highest it's been this decade, let alone historically.

I dont think UAE cares about American oil prices that much. Nor does Europe nor does Asia. That just meand America is less motivated to solve clusterfuck it created.

And yes, it is huge issue already. With flies cancelled for summer, with strategic reserves already being used, with homeschool and home office in some countries, shorted workweek in others, factories producing less.

> We probably won't know for twenty years if that's true or not.

We do know that. There was no urgent reason to start badly prepared war. And no involved country is peaceful.

> The country also sits on a wealth of natural resources but was solely researching nuclear power for peaceful purposes.

It was entirely legal for them, because literally USA teared down agreement to do the opposite.

And what everybody knows now is that the only way to be safe from aggression is to have nuclear.

[nephihaha]

Psst... It's a "strait" not a "straight". Strait refers to a narrow thing like a straitjacket. Straight means something which is not curved.

[nephihaha]

* Strait.

"Strait" refers to something which is narrow, especially at sea. It can be pluralised as "Straits" in many cases. "Straitjacket" also comes from this root.

"Straight" refers to something which is not curved. The "gh" used to be pronounced and still is in some parts of Scotland.

[ericmay]

Thanks for the correction! I totally goofed on that one. I appreciate it.

[asah]

"only the paranoid survive"

[ericmay]

Yea there is some truth to that. The US is still in a wartime economy and cultural mode of thinking post-WWII (military budget, highway and infrastructure build, cultural characteristics around guns [1] and such). The downside is the degradation of quality of life, rage-bait, stress, those sorts of things. But if we have Americans constantly freaking out (and to some extent they should - being #1 is tough) about Chyna that does put pressure on the government to take these concerns seriously if they previously were not.

[1] Not a 2nd Amendment criticism, I’m a strong supporter. More so the folks who load up on ammo and “cool” gear and all that stuff.