[preommr]

The popular answer I've seen over the past few weeks is to just blame everything on the US, but that kind of thinking and lack of agency is exactly why countries like the UK are in the position they are.

Just constant burying heads in the sand, and believing in models where the prior assumptions are from a bygone era.

[vrganj]

We in Europe negotiated the JCPOA. Read its terms. Understand its lead negotiatior was the EU representative. That was our codified relationship with Iran. Now compare that to the best case after what you geniuses started.

Own up to it. This is solely on the US. The rest of us had it handled until you came along.

[OgsyedIE]

Not only do those particular prior assumptions date to 1957 in a way that makes deviating from them structurally dangerous, they involve very low military spending in a way that makes deviating from them politically dangerous.

Fixing the budget hole to pay for that spending without resorting to giving many people living in Monaco the Eichmann treatment as a side effect (which is untenable on account of French security guarantees to Monaco) would need some kind of government of hardcore believers who could also do math.

[ceejayoz]

Why would one not blame the US for this situation?

[credit_guy]

I think the OP is saying that it's ok to blame, but it is not ok to just blame. It is preferable to also act in some sort.

[ceejayoz]

For decades the world has very reasonably operated on the assumption that the world’s primary superpower wouldn’t be dumb enough to do this without a proper plan.

Everyone except the Iranians and maybe the Israelis were flat-footed by this, and the things that can be done about it are largely on the years/decades scale.

[bawolff]

The way i read the parent post, is that the uk decided to invest in other things than military. As a result they are at the whims of USA foreign policy and can't really do much about it. In an alternate world where UK spent more on hard power, they might not be subject to the whims of america to the same extent.

[To be clear, i dont 100% agree with this argument. I think there is a little truth to it but also things are much more complicated than that and it ignores the geopolitical tension in the region that was going to explode one way or another even without usa]

[mothballed]

USA is proximally to blame, but Iran in its current borders is an entity that is largely the brain child of Britain. It ended up encompassing the Baloch and Kurds, who could have helped check Persian power and make Persian borders more penetrable, which was probably a geopolitical mistake.

[fsckboy]

the Baloch and the Kurds are ethnic Persians, they speak Persian languages.

[mothballed]

>the Baloch and the Kurds are ethnic Persians,

Wut

> they speak Persian languages

As a lingua franca, sure. By some very twisted semantics maybe, but really, no.

[mrcsharp]

Because a competent country/government should plan ahead for shortages of any vital resource it depends on.

[ceejayoz]

Within reason.

Until quite recently, “the US sticks its dick in the chainsaw” wasn’t a “within reason” scenario.

[mrcsharp]

> Within reason

Reason dictates having redundancy in place. Having prepared scenarios for what to do. A lot of countries clearly don't have that and they are operating on the assumption that no major disruption is going to happen.

Depending on resources coming from historically unstable locations and not having plans to prepare for such instability is just foolish.

[ceejayoz]

> Reason dictates having redundancy in place.

The UK doesn’t have a strategic oxygen reserve in case the atmosphere disappears.

It’s both implausible and not really something they can do much about.

Trump is that sort of scenario.

[bawolff]

The middle east explodes is an eventuality that is within reason to prepare for. Its famously a geopolitical powder-keg.

[testing22321]

To be fair this is not the first time a US President stuck their dock in something and got bitten

[hughlomas]

The only state preventing free commerce through the strait is Iran.

[ceejayoz]

The only reason Iran is playing that sole card they hold is their two core enemies launched a war of aggression.

[3eb7988a1663]

The US is running a blockade of their own in the strait.

[mpyne]

That only applies to Iranian traffic. It would in fact be an act of war for the U.S. to blockade maritime traffic of countries it's not already at war with.

[3eb7988a1663]

So, where does that leave Cuba?

[ceejayoz]

Cuba is sanctioned, not blockaded.

[stavros]

Yes, as retaliation of a US/Israel invasion that is against international law.

[bawolff]

Which in turn is also against international law (international law would let them retaliate against israel & usa. It doesn't let them target neutral shipping [edit: to clarify i mean neutral shipping going to neutral ports]).

Of course international law is not worth the paper its written on.

[ceejayoz]

No, defensive blockades are explicitly permitted under international law, including neutral parties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade

> Blockades restrict the trading rights of neutrals, who must submit for inspection for contraband, which the blockading power may define narrowly or broadly, sometimes including food and medicine.

[bawolff]

To clarify, i meant shipping to neutral ports (article 99 of San Remo: "A blockade must not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States" https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/san-remo-manu... ). Oman seems neutral in all this but nonetheless affected.

They would be allowed to blockade neutral ships going to enemy ports (e.g. Israel) subject to a bunch of rules but that doesn't seem to be what they are doing.

I dont even think Iran is claiming this is a blockade. They are claiming its part of its territorial waters, and they are claiming that they dont recognize the UNCLOS which would give vessels transit rights (but at the same time they are claiming they recognize the part of UNCLOS that allows claiming 12 miles out as territorial waters). At least that is what i got from https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-legality-of-irans-closure-of-th...

[mpyne]

Did you miss the part about contraband? You quoted it, after all.

Firing on neutral shipping is not the same as intercepting it and inspecting it for war materiel or other contraband. Preventing shipping from reaching or leaving Kuwaiti ports is not the same as inspecting it for war materiel or other contraband.

[unethical_ban]

I'm very concerned about people downvoting the observation that this war is illegal and unnecessary even to achieve its stated goals.

[stavros]

I guess nobody likes hearing that their country is unethically invading other countries. As much as I hate defending Iran, I don't think there's much of a difference between what the US is doing to Iran and what Russia is doing to Ukraine.

[bawolff]

You could look to what the ICC has charged Putin with to see some key differences.

[beAbU]

The US is 100% without a doubt responsible for the shitshow we're in now.

We had a good thing going, and you fucked it up.

[varispeed]

You have Russian asset as president who acts like chaos monkey for the Putin's entertainment.

One thing is correct though that UK security services have not anticipated such outcome and politicians have not done anything about it.

[OgsyedIE]

The Soviet Union gave the equivalent of about 80-100 million USD in support to the ANC in South Africa in the 1970s and 1980s. As soon as they got power, the ANC turned around and aligned with the west, wasting every rouble Moscow spent.

Since the inauguration Trump has supported physical seizures of many different kinds of Russia-aligned merchant shipping and the economic degradation of Russia's allies. Given all of this, we can assume that the Russian asset angle is a much less accurate explanation for Trump's behavior than the alternative theory where he is highly suggestible to the most recent person to heavily compliment him in-person which used to be Putin and has subsequently changed to some mix of Rubio, Vance, Hegseth, Netanyahu and the Trump family.

[FridayoLeary]

Couldn't agree more. Our Navy is a joke. We can barely muster a single destroyer. Burning goodwill with Trump is foolish when europe is completely dependant on the US to defend them from Russia. I don't know what the strategic thinking is here. Demonstrate to the entire world that we are pathetic weaklings and the us that we're useless dependants?

This war might be dumb but it was also predictable. Why were these no contingencies? Or to quote Churchill "If you want peace you have to prepare for war".