[ericmay]

Well, there are quite a number of factors. I think you're right that "it's inflation" is a little too simple, but it does seem to be at least a significant factor, in my opinion.

The Strait of Hormuz is, basically not a big deal unless you're driving your big ole' truck. Americans are price sensitive and so some companies will have to absorb pricing increases, customers will absorb some others, and so forth. In other words, business as usual. Of course the closure of the Strait is a big problem for most of the rest of the world. They better get on with figuring out how to get Iran to stop being so chaotic in the region or we'll just keep it shut down indefinitely. No big deal.

Because the United States has so many advantages (primary global reserve currency, robust and efficient capital markets, highly sophisticated and dynamic economy across all sectors except luxury goods, &c.) it's able to weather these storms much easier than most other countries. As a country that also imports so much, if we spend less on imported products that's less of a problem than not being able to sell products. A recession isn't great, but the current parameters seem to suggest to me it's less of a problem for the United States - perhaps why we're in part seeing stock market valuations continue to climb.

[thfuran]

>The Strait of Hormuz is, basically not a big deal unless you're driving your big ole' truck

Are you serious? Even ignoring the other things that ship through there, a significant disruption to global energy supply is significant to most people. If you're not driving a truck, you're probably using goods that contain plastic or took energy to produce or were moved from one place to another in fuel-powered vehicles. If, somehow, you're not, you're probably using services that are.

[macintux]

Not to mention the countries heavily reliant on LNG from Qatar that are facing a very difficult time.

[ericmay]

The best course of action now is to spend less time criticizing the United States and more time working with the United States, sending assets, military capabilities (if able), or at least providing political and diplomatic support &c. to stop the Iranians.

The world let this disease (IRGC) fester in the region for too long, and now because of that the fix is going to require significant pain. The IRGC in its current form has run its course and will not be allowed to threaten American interests, allied interests (whether that's Israel, UAE, Saudi Arabia, or otherwise), and they will not be permitted to build a nuclear weapon or threaten global trade.

[majormajor]

So the best thing the rest of the world could do is send their own people to die because the US keeps bashing its head against a wall here since the 50s?

What's your sales pitch exactly for how that's the best thing for the non-US rest-of-the-world? What's the US's post-WWII track record, success-wise, in regime-change foreign wars, how much would you trust the US on this one?

[ericmay]

Well they don’t have to, but we aren’t going to let Iran obtain a nuclear weapon or build up such a missile and drone stockpile that they could then threaten and attack their Gulf neighbors and implement restrictions maritime trade, which they were likely to do, hence the build up.

> What's your sales pitch exactly for how that's the best thing for the non-US rest-of-the-world? What's the US's post-WWII track record, success-wise, in regime-change foreign wars, how much would you trust the US on this one?

Honestly not all that bad for the US.

Korea - we stopped the North Koreans from taking over the entire peninsula. It’s China and Russia’s fault that the hell hole we know as North Korea exists today.

Vietnam - unnecessary war, but we won the peace.

Panama - took out Noriega

Desert Storm - stopped Saddam and kicked his thugs out of Iraq.

Serbia and Bosnia - NATO campaign. I’m personally a little unsure if the results were good or not but I understand we collectively stopped a genocide.

Afghanistan - we tried our best and made some mistakes along the way. Eventually got Bin Laden though. Too bad the rest of the world didn’t help. Now we’re seeing a massive regression in women’s rights there.

Iraq - probably not worth the money, but Iraq went from a brutal dictatorship under Saddam to a much more stable and peaceful country with a Parliament.

Venezuela - Took out Maduro with no losses.

Iran - TBD on the long term but we’ve stopped the IRGC buildup and at least bought time to figure out what to do.

The rest of the world stands on the sidelines and complains and complains yet the United States actually has the balls and will to do things. We aren’t perfect, but without US military action or at least the threat the world would be much more dangerous and much worse off. China sure as hell isn’t going to send troops to liberate Kuwait. Europe doesn’t have the military capability to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons and exerting a stranglehold on a large chunk of global oil supply.

[toraway]

  > Vietnam - unnecessary war, but we won the peace

I’m struggling to understand what this spin is even supposed to mean?

  > Afghanistan - we tried our best and made some mistakes along the way. Eventually got Bin Laden though. *Too bad the rest of the world didn’t help.* Now we’re seeing a massive regression in women’s rights there.

Why are you lying about this?

  > At its peak between 2010 and 2012, ISAF had 400 military bases throughout Afghanistan (compared to 300 for the ANSF) and roughly 130,000 troops.[7] Forty-two countries contributed troops to ISAF, including all 30 members of NATO.

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

[majormajor]

There's a reason I mentioned regime change in there. It's a FAR more difficult operation than a war of defense or a tactical campaign. And it's why I think none of these support your "not all that bad" conclusion. You listed 9 things, 2 are far too recent to evaluate, and of the remaining 7 these 5 are regime-change failures (or simply not-regime-change-attempts):

> Korea - we stopped the North Koreans from taking over the entire peninsula. It’s China and Russia’s fault that the hell hole we know as North Korea exists today.

The regime still existed, and wasn't prevented by that restriction from nuke/missile development like you are so worried about in Iran. "It's other countries fault" isn't an excuse here, it's something that should be taken into consideration more generally in advance.

> Vietnam - unnecessary war, but we won the peace.

But no regime change accomplished with the war itself, yes?

> Desert Storm - stopped Saddam and kicked his thugs out of Iraq.

I think you mean "kicked his thugs out of Kuwait". And let's keep that in mind: a defensive operation worked well.

> Serbia and Bosnia - NATO campaign. I’m personally a little unsure if the results were good or not but I understand we collectively stopped a genocide.

I don't really think this qualifies as "regime change" vs intervention campaign in a "traditional" existing conflict?

> Afghanistan - we tried our best and made some mistakes along the way. Eventually got Bin Laden though. Too bad the rest of the world didn’t help. Now we’re seeing a massive regression in women’s rights there.

"Got Bin Laden" isn't a regime change, and now obviously the regime is not good. What was the rest of the world supposed to do to make it better? Occupy every square mile of the country with soldiers for a couple generations?

And then this one:

> Iraq - probably not worth the money, but Iraq went from a brutal dictatorship under Saddam to a much more stable and peaceful country with a Parliament.

There's no face of a dictator like Saddam anymore but I think "stable and peaceful" oversells it. But yeah, this is the most direct not-yet-imploded regime change in the area on the list.

Notably left off your list regime-change-wise here is Iran in the 50s. That one seems to have backfired. (And that's a great example of why Venezuela, Afghanistan, this-iteration of Iran, even Iraq all are still open-books with potential unforeseen consequences left to come.) The biggest direct threat to date from the Middle East to the US itself hasn't been from nation states, it's been terror groups that have festered post-intervention attempts.

The calculus for this attack on Iran assumes that they were going to escalate imminently in a new, more direct, way and that it would directly threaten the US itself; both of these seem a bit far-fetched after decades of the status quo. It's also an area where the US seems to not have much credibility because there was that whole less-than-a-year-ago "we knocked back the nuclear program" post-bombing claim.

And in particular:

> we aren’t going to let Iran obtain a nuclear weapon or build up such a missile and drone stockpile that they could then threaten and attack their Gulf neighbors and implement restrictions maritime trade, which they were likely to do

seems like that actually did happen, and maritime trade is already impacted? Seems a bit silly to say "the US must act to prevent the very thing that the action will provoke."

[sofixa]

Hate to break it to you, but the IRGC isn't going anywhere.

The reason nobody was dumb enough to attack them before is that it's an unwinnable conflict. They don't need a lot to close the Strait of Hormuz, a few guys rolling mines off a beach would do that. And they have a lot more, like missiles and drones to do damage at a distance too.

And it's a regime that has at least a million loyal fanatics ready to fight for it (the Basij, the org that did unarmed meat waves against Iraq to defend the regime). So any invasion is an absurd proposition.

So what, the hope is that the theocratic kleptocracy will give up? Not even a child could be so naive. They literally believe in martyrdom, whacking a few of the top dogs means nothing.

It's like the Kims, nobody can unseat them. Only this is far worse, because Iran has the leverage of Hormuz, and it knows it can wait - because they don't care about the people - while the US and global economy suffer until they fold. Especially with midterm elections coming, the US will fold.

[ericmay]

Watch and see.

> Especially with midterm elections coming, the US will fold.

These are the kinds of misunderstandings that are disappointing to see. There is no disagreement here amongst the political class. It is political theater for votes. Apparently you’re susceptible to the marketing.

We don’t need to invade Iran. We just keep the Strait closed since we control it and then Iran’s economy simply fails and the worst thing that happens for America is higher prices. But we can handle that.

[sofixa]

> These are the kinds of misunderstandings that are disappointing to see. There is no disagreement here amongst the political class. It is political theater for votes. Apparently you’re susceptible to the marketing

The political class answers, in a way, to the population. The American population is extremely sensitive to the price they get at the gas station (because of the complete lack of alternatives in driving in most places, and the average car having bad fuel economy). If by election time the prices are the same, the ruling party will get punished. And the ruling party doesn't want that.

[PygmySurfer]

The festering disease is the United States of America, not the IRGC.

[hdgvhicv]

Countries should be sanctioning the warmongers that caused this. Confiscating trumps golf courses would be a start.

[ericmay]

Yes I'm rather serious. For the US it's not a big deal (again unless you're driving one of those giant trucks where you're spending $300 to fill up, not my problem). Are $5 gas prices great? Not really, but is it a catastrophe? No, far from it. We have dealt with high gas prices before and we'll see high gas prices again. We just learn to live with it and find other ways to get efficient or whatever we need to do.

Some Americans need to have their understanding of the world checked. If you think high gas prices are the end of the world, just wait until we have a real problem. Are we going to be incapable of fighting a war because Netflix and Pepsi prices went up or it's too expensive to coal roll down the highway?

Separately as someone who supports both Ukraine and the US and taking down the Iranians it's amusing to see each political tribe get mad about gas prices as it is convenient for them. When Russia invaded Ukraine, MAGA was screaming from the rooftops and putting Joe Biden "I did that" stickers on gas pumps. Now that we're taking on the Iranians all of the commies are doing the same thing (aren't gas prices good anyway since we need to do something about global warming?). Neither side of populist is worthy of serious consideration. Stay the course, whether that's supporting high gas prices because of Russia or because of Iran.

[GIFtheory]

The US does not exist in a vacuum. Cuba just ran out of fuel. These things have cascading effects. Even if you do believe the U.S. exists in a vacuum and you don’t drive a big truck, there are still obvious effects. Spirit airlines went bankrupt, for one. Will this be a global catastrophe? I hope not, but it could be if we’re unlucky.

[ericmay]

It won’t be a global catastrophe but if folks around the world think it will be they better figure out how to stop the IRGC and get the Iranians to knock it off. Otherwise we will just keep the Strait closed and deal with it. Don’t forget, Iran is the one making and selling drones for Putin to bomb innocent Ukrainians. That alone is a good enough reason to bomb their military capabilities.

Cuba ran out of fuel because we took out their thug partner in Maduro. If they wanted to drop the whole authoritarian communist dictatorship stuff and their involvement in the disaster that became Venezuela and partnering with the Russians then they'll be better off.

[tardedmeme]

Why would they stop the IRGC? This disaster is solely caused by the USA, they'd figure out how to stop the USA. Or switch to a lot more renewable power. Don't forget the USA is the one who is attacking ships who cross through the strait - Iran is only shooting American ships, which is reasonable since America started a war with them, America is shooting all other ships because it wants the whole world to suffer.

Since when is it acceptable to invade another country just for being communist or a dictatorship? Conventionally it's up to the people in those countries to overthrow a dictator. Other countries only get involved if the dictator attacks them (like the USA dictator did).

[ericmay]

> Since when is it acceptable to invade another country just for being communist or a dictatorship? Conventionally it's up to the people in those countries to overthrow a dictator.

Such is the burden America must face, unfortunately. If we do nothing then Iran builds more and more missiles and a nuclear bomb and then they close the Strait and there’s nothing we can do about it. Then we get asked “why did America let this happen?”. Same with Ukraine. Sure let’s but out of other people’s business… only to get asked why we are abandoning Europe or whatever.

Secondarily, it’s plenty acceptable all the time. In the case of Iran I think it’s justifiable simply on the merits of them providing help to Russia in its unacceptable invasion of Ukraine. Never mind the strategic concerns I’ve mentioned, that Iran murdered over 30,000 of its own citizens, and spreads conflict and devastation throughout the region via proxy groups and other methods. Take out Iran and we are pretty much left with peaceful countries remaining.

[incanus77]

You're right, ever since we developed trucks, trains, and ships that run on pure atmospheric air, we haven't had to worry about pesky price fluctuations on every physical object that we buy or sell!

[ErroneousBosh]

> For the US it's not a big deal

Do you like being able to buy food?

[ericmay]

Yes, and will continue to do so even if it’s at higher prices. What in the world do you think is going on here? Do you think the US is going to run out of food or something because prices are a little higher?

[thfuran]

https://www.fb.org/news-release/nationwide-survey-most-farme...

Food production will decrease, and even moderate increases in food prices mean many people unable to afford enough food.

[ericmay]

We’ll be alright. We handled it in 2022 when Russia (who is helped and supported by Iran by the way) invaded Ukraine. The world didn’t end when gas prices were crazy high then, we just kept chugging along.

[thephyber]

> The Strait of Hormuz is, basically not a big deal unless you're driving your big ole' truck.

Worst take I’ve ever seen on this website.

> Americans are price sensitive and so some companies will have to absorb pricing increases, customers will absorb some others, and so forth. In other words, business as usual.

No. Not all goods/services have the same price elasticity. At some point, people stop buying some goods if they are too expensive. They stop commuting to work. We start to see breakdown of the supply chain.

Literally 100% of many towns in the US depend on trucks to deliver food to their grocery stores and the inventory on hand usually only lasts a few days. Once those trucking deliveries become unaffordable for either party in the contract, society starts to. Real down.

Consumers don’t magically make more money when the price of gas rises. It starts to crowd out their ability to spend on other things. The poorest of the working class likely has to commute the furthest so they will end up sacrificing something to keep paying for the commute - food or rent or utilities.

The US doesn’t weather this because we have “a sophisticated supply chain”. _If_ we weather it, it’s because we created the US SPR after the last major oil crisis and we have significant domestic supply (although not all oil is fungible so we might not have enough light sweet to keep the economy running at 100%).

[ericmay]

We are handling it just fine. Your perspective of struggle is very wealth-oriented. We aren’t struggling at all as a country.

The second problem with your argument is that you’re using it as an argument against the war but it’s actually an argument in favor of the war. Why is that? Because as Iran continues to load up on missiles and pursue a nuclear weapon they reach a point where they can assert control over the Strait and shut down shipping pending tribute to their theocracy (maybe if it was a Christian one you’d have a bigger problem with it? Idk?) and then we couldn’t do anything about it. The world isn’t static. Stop treating it as such.

[thephyber]

Equally bad take in your response.

Iran never attempted to develop a nuclear weapon. Literally 30 years of Netanyahu threatening it is just “weeks away” and Trump was the only US president to get suckered into that argument.

They have always used the threat of developing it as power, both domestically and regionally. It was 100% the exact same thing with Sadaam Hussein and WMD — they want to appear to have the strong weapon, but simultaneously don’t want to develop it or use it (until, ironically, Trump / Israel took out their leadership). Also, we were assured their entire nuclear program was “obliterated” summer 2025, so which is it? It can’t simultaneously be non-existent and an urgent national security threat to the US.

Now that Trump started the war in Iran, we are playing chicken with people who don’t care if they die or not (or so we are told). Not exactly a good position to be in against the “world’s largest sponsor of state terror”. We kicked a hornet’s nest and our political leadership didn’t stop to ask the experts (military, political, or economic) what were the completely predictable second and third order problems with this strategy. We couldn’t even get Trump to wait long enough to fill up the US SPR before starting a massive war in the Middle East.

To reiterate, we haven’t felt any of the actual pain YET. My arguments thus far are only of current harm, not the likely harm in the near future. That’s for next month’s comments.