[LurkandComment]

The Strait of Hormuz is a such a historical f-up. 1) It cuts the oil supply 2) It creates the demand and infrastructure for non-US backed Oil 3) It gives Iran a revenue stream and domain over taxing the Strait where none existed before 4) Crypto happens outstide of reach of most sanctions 5) Not knowing your footing: This has now encompassed the placement of underseas cables and global connectivity 5) As time goes one, there are other shoes that will drop 6) Even if this resolves, things like decoupling the USD and Oil now have momemntum.

[epistasis]

The US has never looked, or been, weaker than it is right now.

It was Jimmy Carter that established that the Strait of Hormuz would stay open, through the strength of the US military threat.

And now? The US is a paper tiger, making ridiculous threats via barely used social media platforms and then revoking them with just as little formality. The US has already done its worst, except for nukes, and the threats of nuking Iran are clear fakes.

The US used to be a guarantor of safety on the seas. That appears to have been completely destroyed by the weak leadership in the US.

[ericmay]

None of these things are true, it's just propaganda.

> The US has never looked, or been, weaker than it is right now.

Nothing has fundamentally changed with respect to American power. If this was true, that America has never been weaker than it is right now, why wouldn't China just go ahead and invade Taiwan? This is the perfect opportunity! Or is it that the US is so strong that even at its weakest point it can deter China from taking military action over Taiwan? Doesn't pass the smell test.

> It was Jimmy Carter that established that the Strait of Hormuz would stay open, through the strength of the US military threat.

And that worked for a long time.

And things change. The world isn't static.

And if the Strait is closed then it, as it is today, is also closed for the Iranians with the ultimate effect of making a cheeseburger cost a few dollars more and people coal-rolling their F-250s around having to spend more to do so. It screws over the rest of the world, but they also allowed this Iranian regime to fester and threaten until it was intolerable.

It's too late now, but the rest of the world which so clearly depends on the Strait of Hormuz should have taken diplomatic and economic action earlier and/or more forcefully to prevent a group of religious cultists and fanatics from seizing control of Iran and then constantly threatening the US. At some point enough is enough and so the failure to act or stand up to these bullies leads to more pain down the road. It's a trap that Europe especially continues to fall in to because culturally they don't understand that bad people exist and you have to use force to stop them. They're learning that about Ukraine now too.

> And now? The US is a paper tiger, making ridiculous threats via barely used social media platforms and then revoking them with just as little formality.

The United States casually walked in and bombed the hell out of Iran's military and killed its leaders. Idk. If I was Iranian I sure wouldn't be looking at the US as a paper tiger when it can go park an aircraft carrier nearby and then bomb all my stuff and there's basically nothing I can do about it except to bomb defenseless oil tankers.

> The US used to be a guarantor of safety on the seas. That appears to have been completely destroyed by the weak leadership in the US.

It's a package deal. In order to be the guarantor of the seas you have to take actions like the on in Iran. All Iran had to do was double, triple, or quadruple its missile stockpile and then try to enact tolls on the Strait of Hormuz and the cost to stop it would be too great. US action today is exactly the role it is playing in guaranteeing safety on the seas. By the way, why is the US the one that has to do this? And if you don't like us doing it, maybe we should stop. I know that's what the far-left and MAGA want - they want isolationism.

[thefz]

> Nothing has fundamentally changed with respect to American power.

In all honesty my friend, from the other side of the pond the US has never looked so weak and ridicule. Every day there's new proof the current rambling leadership has no idea what to do.

> The United States casually walked in and bombed the hell out of Iran's military and killed its leaders. Idk.

Bombed "a" leader, a new one is already up. You can't bomb ideas.

[ericmay]

> In all honesty my friend, from the other side of the pond the US has never looked so weak and ridicule. Every day there's new proof the current rambling leadership has no idea what to do.

I don't think the Trump administration handled this particularly well, but you're too focused on the short term. Just because a lot of people are ridiculing Trump (and for good reason, I think he belongs in jail over January 6th, and he does lots of dumb things) doesn't mean that the US has changed much. If anything it's getting stronger relative to the rest of the world - both the United States and China seem to be leaving everyone else in the dust.

> Bombed "a" leader, a new one is already up. You can't bomb ideas.

Well, no, this is incorrect. We didn't just bomb a leader, we bombed many leaders in the Iranian government and also in the IRGC. Separately but of course related, Israel has been killing Iranian proxy force leaders in Lebanon and Gaza and elsewhere.

[bonsai_spool]

I don't have a strong interest in this issue but it would appear your responses aren't incorporating the full scope of recent facts:

> Nothing has fundamentally changed with respect to American power

Yes, actually - Iran is charging tolls and was not doing that before. This is in the face of an American naval blockade right in their neighborhood. That is an affront to power, at least for the moment.

The China point is really immaterial to the instant issue of the Strait, but even there China is very obviously growing more aggressive (cf the recent trip of the Taiwanese president where he had to sneak out of his nation).

> The United States casually walked in and bombed the hell out of Iran's military and killed its leaders.

Yes, but now the Strait transit is being dictated by the new rulers. We can keep killing them but the issue is that we are no longer in control of a situation that we used to be in control of. That's why the paper tiger comparison is apt—for all our bombs, this isn't in our hands.

> there's basically nothing I can do about it except to bomb defenseless oil tankers.

Iran has bombed over a dozen US installations, probably the greatest damage to US military installations in recent memory, if ever. This includes destroying equipment that's worth > $700 M. The oil tankers are kind of a distraction when they can clearly damage all of our allies' infrastructure despite being decapitated by the first strikes.

> In order to be the guarantor of the seas you have to take actions like the on in Iran.

The whole point of this is we cannot guarantee passage in the Strait. I don't think that will over go back to how it was.

> By the way, why is the US the one that has to do this?

We don't and because of this current issue, nobody will be able to do it until our next world war establishes a new, single hegemon. It was convenient while it lasted because it allowed stability for our post-war economy.

[ericmay]

> Yes, actually - Iran is charging tolls and was not doing that before. This is in the face of an American naval blockade right in their neighborhood. That is an affront to power, at least for the moment.

I send a bill to every car that passes by my street. It's weird, none of them ever pay it. Iran can charge whatever it wants, but as long as America holds the blockade it doesn't matter. There's a misunderstanding that Iran "controls" the Strait of Hormuz. It doesn't. Control doesn't mean you simply stop others from exercising action, because if that's the case the US is also stopping any ships that Iran allows and is therefore in control.

> The China point is really immaterial to the instant issue of the Strait, but even there China is very obviously growing more aggressive (cf the recent trip of the Taiwanese president where he had to sneak out of his nation).

Well you can't really separate China out from the initial comment I responded to. How is American power the weakest it has ever been but then it's also not changed at all with respect to China? These kinds of statements just don't make sense. It's the kind of thing that feels good to say but is wrong.

> Yes, but now the Strait transit is being dictated by the new rulers.

But it's not because the US controls it too.

> Iran has bombed over a dozen US installations, probably the greatest damage to US military installations in recent memory, if ever.

Yea, now imagine Iran quadruples its drone and missile stockpile and then closes the Strait and then proceeds with accelerating development of nuclear weapons. I'm not sure why folks seem to lack the capacity to project future actions

[bonsai_spool]

> Well you can't really separate China out from the initial comment I responded to

You're the first one to mention China.

I think this is a bot account, or someone who is letting an LLM write to HN on their behalf.

[ceejayoz]

> I send a bill to every car that passes by my street. It's weird, none of them ever pay it.

Also weird: Barely any cars on the street now!

https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/strait-of-hormuz-ports...

Wonder if that's related.

[ericmay]

There's plenty of cars on the street. I'd recommend checking your state department of highways as they usually have live streams of traffic at certain intersections, highways, and other areas.

[sophacles]

> Well you can't really separate China out from the initial comment I responded to. How is American power the weakest it has ever been but then it's also not changed at all with respect to China? These kinds of statements just don't make sense. It's the kind of thing that feels good to say but is wrong.

What you're not to accept/acknowledge is this type of reasoning:

The US used to be power level 9000 [for several decades, in the past going back to the 1940s or before]

Now the us is power level 7000

China is currently power level 5000

The statement "The US is weaker than it ever has been [ed. in the lifetime of any current decision maker and relevant to current geopolitical decisions]" is true.

The fact that it's still stronger than China is also true.

It's absurd to pretend you don't understand this.

> Yea, now imagine Iran quadruples its drone and missile stockpile and then closes the Strait and then proceeds with accelerating development of nuclear weapons. I'm not sure why folks seem to lack the capacity to project future actions

What evidence is there that Iran would have shut down the strait at all? The only time they've done so in the last 40+ years is in response to a direct, unnecessary attack.

What evidence is there that Iran would behave differently than any other nation with nuclear weapons - that is use them as a deterrent to prevent pointless meddling by other countries prone to an unnecessary attack?

It seems like what you call a "lack [of] capacity to project future actions" might just be people wanting to avoid wild speculation.

[ericmay]

> It's absurd to pretend you don't understand this.

If you want to phrase what that person wrote in this way, then you're going to have to provide deeper analysis than a Dragon Ball Z style power comparison.

> What evidence is there that Iran would have shut down the strait at all? The only time they've done so in the last 40+ years is in response to a direct, unnecessary attack.

While neither of us have intelligence on Iran, you can reason about their activities and speculate on future actions. In the case of the Strait, Iran was stockpiling missiles and drone capabilities and if they continued to do so at the rate they were there is a tipping point where even the mighty US military would struggle to deal with this. Someone else commented about the US Military not learning anything from the Ukraine war, but I'd submit it was the opposite.

We saw how devastating cheap missiles and drones were, and realized if we didn't do something now then Iran could continue stockpiling, declare the Strait closed pending payment, and then work on a nuclear weapon as well leaving the United States (since we're the only one that can do anything) with very limited and unpalatable options.

Now it's fair, certainly, to speculate that Iran had no intention of closing the Strait or whatever, but their actions seem to indicate the opposite.

You can also ask why is it that Iran is the only country stockpiling these weapons systems, working on a nuclear weapon, chanting death to America, and whatnot? Maybe if they stopped doing those things we wouldn't be in this situation. But why would they stop when the IRGC and religious fanatical leadership want to actually do those things?

I think it's unfair to characterize this as wild speculation when anyone can read for themselves from reliable sources about Iran's activities. There seems to be this impression that the Iranian government is like this peaceful government and oh if only the US would just stop bothering them, but that simply does not stand up to reality.

[epistasis]

Power is two things: what can you do based on fundamental force, and what can you do because of perceived force.

The US has destroyed it's perceived amount of force, ergo it has lost a ton of power. And by not being able to keep the Strait open, it's a de facto demonstration that Trump is a far weaker president than Carter was.

> And things change. The world isn't static.

Yeah, what changed? The US got weak and incompetent leadership. What changed? The US lost power.

Enough coping, we all see what's going on, you can't Jedi mind trick your way out of people realizing the prices they are paying at the pump.

Will China attack Taiwan? You say it's not going to happen because it hasn't happened yet?! It's an obvious fallacy to say that something can't happen because it hasn't happened yet, which is the sum total of your argumentation. The chances of China attacking Taiwan right now have gone through the roof because of the weakness of the US, mostly because of perceived weakness, but also because of the US squandering massive amounts of precision munitions on a strategy with zero gains. When are we going to be able to rebuild all those Patriot missiles? Who knows, the supply chains are long and super slow.

What's really protecting Taiwan right now is Ukraine. By Ukraine taking out Russia's navy through cheap naval drones (thanks UK for your assist there!), Ukraine has provided Taiwan a very thorough path to defense. Both by sea and by air.

Trump also gave up Taiwan in his recent meeting with Xi. Nobody thinks that the US will go to bat for Taiwan anymore, it's all on its own. But thankfully other, less corrupt places like Ukraine have shown the way for Taiwan to defend itself.

[ericmay]

> The US has destroyed it's perceived amount of force, ergo it has lost a ton of power.

That's your perception. It's not the perception of those who matter.

> Enough coping, we all see what's going on, you can't Jedi mind trick your way out of people realizing the prices they are paying at the pump.

I'm glad folks are paying higher prices. We need less c02 in the atmosphere, more transit, and fewer giant trucks screaming around. We need less dependence on oil, too, and we're never going to get there if we keep having cheap and easy access to oil. Part of the reason we're in these wars and conflicts is to secure those oil supplies. These things are linked together. Americans need to start putting 2 and 2 together.

> Will China attack Taiwan? You say it's not going to happen because it hasn't happened yet?!

That's not what I said.

> What's really protecting Taiwan right now is Ukraine. By Ukraine taking out Russia's navy through cheap naval drones (thanks UK for your assist there!), Ukraine has provided Taiwan a very thorough path to defense. Both by sea and by air.

America has provided Taiwan a very thorough path to defense. Not Ukraine.

> Trump also gave up Taiwan in his recent meeting with Xi.

This is factually incorrect. These are the things I'm talking about - people read some headline and then all of a sudden we've gone from this summit and a few random comments to Trump "gave up Taiwan".

[TheGRS]

I have a really tough time looking at the current situation and not seeing the USA knocked down at least several pegs. In regard to China, my read is they are gaining more power from this episode and allowing the US step on rakes than they would from a Taiwan invasion.

Not all power is measured in military might, that seems to be the mistake the Trump administration has made time and time again.

[ericmay]

China imports oil from Iran and Venezuela. China's economy is not doing so hot because by being dependent on exports with less than ideal domestic consumption you wind up with, say, 17% youth unemployment.

You're reading the news and hearing about all the bad things about America because that's what everyone cares about talking about and what everyone knows the most about. Most people outside of China can't speak Mandarin, and don't read Chinese news - not that they report bad things that are going on, and so we have to rely on smaller samples of western media outlets.

If you have a perception that the US is knocked down several pegs (whatever that means) it's because you're consuming news that focuses squarely on criticism of the United States.

[TheGRS]

I read the news and make my own judgements based on events. I can read how the president has said we have reached a deal and threaten to destroy Iran over breaking the deal over the course of a day. And he's done that many times over in the span of the last 2 months. If I watched any other leader do that I would certainly be questioning their judgement and ability to lead and I would definitely question why their organization hasn't ousted them.

[ceejayoz]

> Nothing has fundamentally changed with respect to American power.

Oh, come on. NATO and Gulf allies are starting to deny US use of their bases, and Trump's been credibly threatening to leave NATO. We've also nixed a bunch of our soft power programs like USAID.

[ericmay]

NATO just today as reported by Bloomberg said that if the Strait isn't open by July that it will take or consider taking action. [1]

Your view of the situation doesn't match reality.

Separately, we still have like 11 aircraft carriers and our entire military still in tact. Nothing has changed with respect to our power. If you think otherwise, you are simply wrong. There's no other way to put it.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-05-19/nato-is-s...

Sorry for the paywall, I don't have a subscription but saw the headline on Bloomberg TV. There are other sources but I wanted to be consistent and link where I saw the news.

[ceejayoz]

> consider taking action

Even if they decide to do so, why would we expect them to be more successful than the US military - which outspends the entire rest of NATO - at it?

> Separately, we still have like 11 aircraft carriers…

Yeah, and we're straining to keep them handling the load.

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2026/05/11/epic-fur...

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/16/us/politics/uss-ford-fire...

[ericmay]

> Even if they decide to do so, why would we expect them to be more successful than the US military - which outspends the entire rest of NATO - at it?

More ships always helps - they wouldn't be doing it without the US, it would be with the US.

[epistasis]

Oh, 8 weeks, and they'll think about doing something? Huh, yeah, I'm sure that strong statement will have a big impact.

> Separately, we still have like 11 aircraft carriers and our entire military still in tact. Nothing has changed with respect to our power. If you think otherwise, you are simply wrong. There's no other way to put it.

Naval power has shifted massively over the past four years due to massive technology change, and the US has done nothing to adapt or learn from its former ally, Ukraine.

You are simply wrong and outdate in your thinking, and not understanding the current reality. Which is why you accuse others of the same thing, it's classic projection.

[ericmay]

> Oh, 8 weeks, and they'll think about doing something? Huh, yeah, I'm sure that strong statement will have a big impact.

It shows that you're wrong about the diplomatic situation. 8 weeks isn't that long of a timeframe. It takes weeks just to move some assets in place. You don't have a good understanding of how long it takes to do these kinds of things.

> Naval power has shifted massively over the past four years due to massive technology change, and the US has done nothing to adapt or learn from its

Factually incorrect. First you can't make a claim that the US has done nothing to adapt or learn from the ongoing war in Ukraine. The reason you can't make that claim, aside from the fact that well, any single change in tactics would prove you wrong, is because the US still to this day is deploying weapons and testing weapons and capabilities in Ukraine on the battlefield.

> former ally, Ukraine.

Also factually incorrect because Ukraine was never a US ally. Secondarily we are still supporting Ukraine and without our help in the early days of the war they would have very likely fallen under a renewed Iron Curtain. America and England were rushing missiles while the rest of Europe was sending helmets and debating whether Russia was even going to invade.

> You are simply wrong and outdate in your thinking

Incorrect. You're parroting catch-phrases and what others tell you and not thinking through things for yourself here.

[smallmancontrov]

Starting a war with Iran without filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserves at $60/bbl was truly special.

[juvoly]

The Iran regime was obviously going to be a push over.

Not the first forever war initiated as a Blitzkrieg. Not the last either.

[TheGRS]

I always felt the implication of power was a lot more valuable to US interests than exercising it, cheaper too for that matter. And even very recent history revealed that with the greatest military strength ever seen, the US cannot achieve all of its desires through force.

[juvoly]

What was the desire? Since the desire was a moving, ever changing, target it seems the force was primarily about showing force. Kind of meaningless.

Indeed, power is about convincing others fear your force. Using force is, in a sense, admitting a lack of power.

[TheGRS]

Also a great question that no one really has an answer to.

[montyanne]

Refilling the SPR would’ve required finding money to actually buy some oil. Put simply the SPR is broke/in debt.

Over the last few years congress passed pieces of legislation (infrastructure bills, healthcare changes, BBB) and used future SPR oil sales as an "offsetting receipt". Basically they say the’ll sell off millions of barrels of SPR holdings, count the future revenue as negative spending on paper, and use that money to pay for entirely unrelated legislative projects to make bills look deficit-neutral.

Yet another source for deficit spending (to the tune of $20bn) that doesn’t even show up in the headline numbers. Borrowing from future generations yet again.

(Sorry this is the kind of thing that grinds my gears - setting up some organization that is intended to be revenue neutral and self sufficient, then plundering it when politically useful. Same thing is happening to the Presidio park in SF right now)

[Ifkaluva]

Well whatever debt they took on to refill it would have been paid off quickly.

Buy at $60, start a war with Iran, sell at the new price, profit.

I guess the reason they didn’t do this is they thought Iran would fold quickly and oil would become even cheaper than $60

[epistasis]

Nobody who was a decision maker on the war thought about any of this, at all, in any way.

There was no strategy, no thinking, no planning, nothing.

The US military has wargamed the Strait of Hormuz to hell, and all that was ignored, or dismissed, or not even considered to be relevant.

The full force of the US military is in the hands of a man who operates on whims based on what his reality TV instincts tell him will look good, and we are seeing the weakness of electing a reality TV star known for his capricious decision making and cruelty.

[smallmancontrov]

The people with the money printer, who enjoy running the money printer, can find money if they want to.

Yeah, political posturing is dumb, but don't force yourself to accept a dumb premise put forward by someone who doesn't even believe in it themselves.

[mindslight]

At what point can we just commonly agree that the goals of this "administration" are to do as much damage as possible to the United States? I'm sure there are some true believers (eg Trump himself would be just as much at home yelling racist abuse at nursing home staff), and many that are just in it to steal as much as they can. But the people whispering in ears and the overall support is driven by powers that want to destroy the United States - whether it's Russia, Israel, China, Big Tech who want to turn the place into a corporate authoritarian hellhole, or all of them together with their own pet projects. And that so many Americans continue to buy into this administration's nonsense narratives really illustrates an undercurrent of hate for this country that has been brewing for decades.

[krunck]

  1) Oman and Iran both have territorial waters that extend into the center of the strait. See #3
  2) What is "non-US backed oil?
  3) Every country has the right to control their territorial waters.
  4) Governments have worked hard to erode people's privacy rights such that crypto is not as untraceable as people still think.
  5) ?
  5) ?
  6) Let it happen.

[pessimizer]

These objections seem confused. The person you are replying to is not attacking Iran, but you seem to be defending Iran. They're saying that attacking Iran was a stupid idea, because it caused Iran to strangle the Strait of Hormuz, a thing they hadn't done and that there was no indication that they were considering doing before the attack.

It's even stupider than the OP said. Aside from the strait, when you destroy Iran's oil facilities, you raise the price of oil for the foreseeable future. When Iran retaliates by destroying the oil facilities of local allies, it raises the price of oil for the foreseeable future. The only beneficiaries are oilmen in the US, Russia and South America, and the US is also supposed to be attacking Russia and South America.

[jmyeet]

It was clear from very early on that this war was (IMHO) the largest strategic blunder in US history and it's not even close. Prior to this, closing the Strait was an untested threat. This war forced Iran to prove they can in fact close the Strait and there's nothing the largest military on Earth can do about it. Well done, everybody, the system works.

The one point I'll disagree with is that sanctions do prevent you paying Iran even with crypto. I mean, you can fund your own wallet and give money to Iran but you've technically committed a crime and a pretty serious one. It's also one that's fairly easy to document and prove that you did it.

Oh, also the impact of cutting the world fertilizer supply hasn't hit yet. That'll come later in the year when the harvests are down, primarily in the Global South. This will also impact food prices in the West so look forward to that.

Your last comment suggests weakening of the petrodollar. I don't know if you meant it this way but let me dispel that myth: the USD doesn't have strength and power because oil sales are denominated in dollars. You have it backwards. Oil trades are denominated in dollars because of the demand for dollars and the root of that is the US military.

[fuoqi]

>the USD doesn't have strength and power because oil sales are denominated in dollars. You have it backwards.

Not quite. The "petrodollar" deal has helped to bootstrap and anchor the USD strength at a somewhat critical moment of history after the gold peg was "temporarily" suspended, which was effectively a default of the US government (second in the 20th century!).

Sure, today trade of oil in USD no longer plays a significant role in supporting its dominance, but it still plays a role. Together with other factors (such as increased weaponization of the USD-led financial system) rise of alternative settlement systems corrodes the network effects on which USD relies. Each blow in isolation may be insignificant, but their accumulation could become critical owning to the extreme non-linearity of the network effects.

[cgh]

Re fertilizer, it’s already happening. Potash exports from Canada, the world’s largest producer, have surged. In another US own goal, I believe potash demand will offer serious Canadian leverage in CUSMA negotiations.

[jmyeet]

Agreed on the potash but I was referring to the impact on food prices, which is still to come. Although Canada still exports almost all of its energy via the US so this street goes two ways.

The nature of trade is a complex web of many interdepdencies and this applies to war too. Like for awhile, the US was letting Iran-flagged ships headed to China and Chinese-flagged ships to pass through the Strait. Why? Because of the repercussions of an energy blockade on China to the US and its allies. China produces like 30-40% of the world's "stuff". China dominates rare earth production and an export ban on that would cripple the US military long-term.

Part of the reason the US is going it alone in Iran is because of all the torched good will from the tariffs. You broke it, you bought it. This event is a seachange in the international order that will take years to play out. What's ironic is that the US designed this international order post-WW2 for their own benefit and they're probably going to destroy it in a single presidential term.

[pessimizer]

> I mean, you can fund your own wallet and give money to Iran but you've technically committed a crime and a pretty serious one.

Other countries aren't subject to any US laws. The threat of US sanctions are a just a threat, not any sort of law enforcement.

[ceejayoz]

> The threat of US sanctions are a just a threat, not any sort of law enforcement.

The threat of arrest is a just a threat, not any sort of law enforcement.

The threat of handcuffs is a just a threat, not any sort of law enforcement.

The threat of tasering is a just a threat, not any sort of law enforcement.

The threat of criminal charges is a just a threat, not any sort of law enforcement.

The threat of drone strikes is a just a threat, not any sort of law enforcement.

The threat of literally having your President helicoptered out of your capital by US special forces is a just a threat, not any sort of law enforcement.

This is fun!

[thefz]

> It creates the demand and infrastructure for non-US backed Oil

Why should oil be US-backed :D :D

Man, this forum sometimes.

[tjwebbnorfolk]

You're taking this claim way too seriously. Iran is at war. This part of the information war. Nobody is going to pay fees to Iran to use internet cables.

[csoups14]

This was all theory before the war. Now Iran knows they can blockade that Strait and makes these demands so they have much more leverage.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Now Iran knows they can blockade that Strait and makes these demands so they have much more leverage

Tehran has more potential leverage inasmuch as they've credibly demonstrated they can block the Strait. Whether they have more actual leverage than before is uncertain–trade flows are routing around them. And their own shores remain blockaded. (Just because the U.S. has less leverage than it did before doesn't mean Iran necessarily has more.)

[gmerc]

It’s not like they can shut down the main air corridor to Asia if they please, right?

[JumpCrisscross]

> not like they can shut down the main air corridor to Asia

"Shut down" is not particularly accurate. America and Europe can route around. The only ones fucked are the Gulf carriers.

[tjwebbnorfolk]

They can make all the demands they want. I can demand you give me a thousand bitcoin to not burn your house down. That doesn't mean it has any remote chance of happening.

[sophacles]

You're going to burn down his house no matter what?

[linhns]

I don't think they can blockade it for long anymore.

[10000truths]

What's to stop Iran from using the threat of cutting those cables as leverage? A speedboat and a depth charge are all it takes, and neither are particularly difficult to make.

[nonethewiser]

Appeasement doesnt stop it, that's for sure. They would still be free to do it.

[10000truths]

Appeasement worked just fine when the JCPOA was signed. It might have continued working had Trump not unilaterally rescinded it.

[gosub100]

The problem is that you can only do it once.

[mandevil]

The threat of force is much more potent than the actual use of force: this has been the delicate dance that the US has used with Iran since the Revolution.

It took an idiot to try and actually use the full force of the USAF against Iran and reveal that the force was manageable- not great, but not going to topple the regime. And once that force was used and Iran's leaders realized it could be survived, that threat became much weaker, forcing a decision onto that previously mentioned idiot, he could either escalate to use greater force (some form of ground troops) or admit that he made a mistake and lost a war. And I suspect that the same will be true for Iran: the threat of cutting those cables is far more potent than the actual effects of cutting the cables.

The Internet is, it turns out, pretty good at routing around damage. The Russians have done some cable cutting in the Baltic Sea and it is annoying but it is not a winning move.

[tjwebbnorfolk]

> What's to stop Iran

What's to stop them? The enormous pile of ordnance floating in the gulf of oman that can be easily dropped on Tehran, for one...

[JumpCrisscross]

> The enormous pile of ordnance floating in the gulf of oman that can be easily dropped on Tehran, for one

Probably not. The other comment is right: cutting cables means having its own cables cut. (Tehran is also probably weighing whether it wants to continue mobilising almost all of its neighbors against itself. Trashing e.g. Kuwait for shits and giggles isn't strategically productive.)

[CamperBob2]

Tehran is also probably weighing whether it wants to continue mobilising almost all of its neighbors against itself

Interesting point. It might be a good time for some good old-fashioned false-flag action.

[JumpCrisscross]

> might be a good time for some good old-fashioned false-flag action

It's always "a good time for some good old-fashioned false-flag action" if you can pull it off. Given Riyadh and Abu Dhabi are already bombing Iran, and are now unaligned, there wouldn't be much for the U.S. to gain from something like this. (And if Israel were to pull off a false-flag operation against the U.S. now isn't better or worse than tomorrow or yesterday.)

[LurkandComment]

See in an information war, it doesn't have to be true to be dangerous, and never assume how stock prices might effect people's resileance. The greater point is there are cans of worms that are opening that weren't anticipated. This is just one example;].

[gowld]

What is nobody going to do if Iran military cuts cables?

Or blocks repair ships after normal accidental damage?

[tjwebbnorfolk]

I imagine they'll be able to cut exactly one cable before the US starts bombing them again. If my goal is to profit from subsea cables I don't own, getting bombed doesn't sound like a great strategy if I'm Iran.

It's information war to scare US companies away from the middle east.

[pessimizer]

Do you think the US was holding back on bombing Iran? It doesn't work; they have always prepared for an American attack, because they are a government that was formed by overthrowing the dictatorship that the US installed after destroying their democracy, and the US has been constantly threatening them ever since.

This is the only fight they've been preparing for. They knew they were going to be facing an overwhelmingly superior navy and air force. That's why everything is dug in, buried and hidden. It's also why the propagandistic idea that they're a "terrorist state" is stupid, because a terrorist state would be prepared to do terrorist damage. The only terrorist arming and funding was from the US and Israel to people in Iran. I don't even see any heightened security at any level in the US - we're not even expecting anything.

Don't believe that the US can eradicate all ability for Iran to do something as trivial as cutting an undersea cable anytime soon. They would still have the ability cut the cables as a last gasp after they were totally defeated at every level.

[dlev_pika]

When you put it like that I am starting to think this Trump guy might not be that good of a leader, this time neither.