[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.

[sophacles]

> If you want to phrase what that person wrote in this way

"That person" was literally you. I replied to you and quoted you. Are you sure DBz is beneath you?

> 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.

It indicates only that they wanted to have a stockpile of weapons... the most common reason for which is to defend the country from attacks. It seems perfectly reasonable that they would want a bunch of weapons in striking range of both attacks from the sea, and of hostile military installations (which were located specifically within range to strike Iran). In fact, given that the 2025 project explicitly targeted Iran it seems very likely that it was a bolstering of defenses (absent other evidence).

> 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?

They aren't the only country doing any of these things. (semantics aside... maybe they are the only country stockpiling those brands of missles and drones.... but certainly not the only country stockpiling missles and drones, etc).

> I think it's unfair to characterize this as wild speculation when anyone can read for themselves from reliable sources about Iran's activities.

The wild speculation is intent. Each of the actions that you bring up have many possible motives. The idea of Iran attacking directly and initially is a change in M.O. for Iran, and such a claim requires evidence that points directly to it beyond "this one of many possible motives".

> 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

I don't think may people are saying that at all. They are saying this war was unnecessary for any of the reasons that have thus far been stated because there is no evidence pointing to those reasons being true. The consequential evidence does not add up to a single conclusion, and the direct evidence has not been presented.

You seem to have had an awful lot of the "Iran is irrationally evil and stupid" kool-aid. I don't beleive Iran is a "good guy", but I don't believe in war justifications without good evidence either, particularly not ones that rely on cartoon-level villainy.

[protocolture]

>We saw how devastating cheap missiles and drones were, and realized if we didn't do something now then Iran could continue stockpiling

This is some crazy post hoc rationalisation.

They met with Iran, they even had the outline of a deal. Trump was on the cusp of showing that he was a better deal maker than his predecessors (or at least trying to) Israel intervened via Israel aligned lobbyists and suggested they could easily headcap Iran and not need to have a deal at all. They tried and screwed up the strait.

This wasnt some carefully planned "oh no the USA is really scared of cheap missiles we better for the good of the entire world stop Iran now". This was seat of the pants mercenary action on behalf of Israel, and its cost them.

>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.

Until Iran successfully develops a nuclear deterrent, it has literally 1 way of fighting back against the USA. Hurting the oil price. They did this in response to US provocation. Its insane to try and flip cause and effect here. Its like US haspara.

>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?

>stockpiling these weapons systems

Heaps of reasons, including self defense. "Only country" is a stretch.

>working on a nuclear weapon

Only way to protect themselves against a larger power, as is the case with other small nuclear armed nations.

>chanting death to America

They are clearly intelligent and have good taste.

>Maybe if they stopped doing those things we wouldn't be in this situation.

Unlikely. Its threatening Israels domination of the region that offends the USA>

>But why would they stop when the IRGC and religious fanatical leadership want to actually do those things?

The USA and its religious fanatical leadership wouldnt recognise any change anyway.

>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.

The legitimate issues with the Iranian government that most people have, will not be resolved by bombing their civilian populace into the ground. There are more paths here than bomb them/dont.

[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.

[ceejayoz]

> More ships always helps...

So the 11 aircraft carriers are not enough, one might say?

[maxglute]

This what most "why Americans have no healthcare" proponents not realizing. 11 carriers a pittance in terms of sortie generation. ~80% CENTCOM strikes was from now degraded land basing. 3 carriers = ~20% of total fires... ~10% when pushed to standoff range and have to spare sorites for tanking + cap... ~5% when tanking from land basing disrupted. >5% because original ~20% assumes unsustainable high tempo operations. If US waves magic wand and somehow got 11 carriers doing standoff strikes on Iran tier threat, that's ~10% of CENTCOM land strike generation. Iran degrading regional land basing and pushing CSGs to standoff in Arabian Sea basically broke CENTCOM logistics posture in ways that compound. NVM global (not just theatre) stockpile of highend munitions and interceptors would likely be gone before dismantling Iranian ghetto regional strike complex... who could also reconstitute faster. TLDR even if US could, 11 carrier are likely not enough.

[ericmay]

You're familiar with the mythical man month, right?

If we park all 11 aircraft carriers outside of Iran, how will we have them deployed to support interests elsewhere?

[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.

[bonsai_spool]

> Secondarily we are still supporting Ukraine

I think you're living with an alternative set of facts/interpretations from the mainstream, to which you are entitled.

We aren't supporting Ukraine anymore, that is essentially only Europe (via purchasing arms made in the US as well as elsewhere).

I really encourage you to try to think about what evidence undergirds your ideas and how you'd disprove your beliefs, which seem very resistant to current events.

[ericmay]

Well the first problem here is you're ignoring the previous support that was provided and of course some hundred + billion to date. The US and UK were rushing in missiles before the war even started.

Second, if you pay attention you can read about things like this for yourself:

> https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5876595-ukraine-discharge...

" “We must also send a strong message that Russian support for Iran’s targeting of U.S. military assets will not be tolerated,” he added.

Sponsored by Rep. Gregory Meeks (N.Y.), the senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the legislation would affirm U.S. support for Ukraine, slap new economic sanctions on Russia and help to fund Ukrainian reconstruction whenever the war ends.

It also provides Kyiv with additional weapons and military funding. And it declares U.S. support for NATO at a time when the Western treaty alliance has come under fire from President Trump, who has attacked the group and threatened to pull the U.S. from its roster. "

Of course this is one minor example.

You're focusing too much on what Donald Trump says. You need to give him a back seat and stop worrying about whatever dumb thing he tweets.

[epistasis]

> 8 weeks isn't that long of a timeframe.

To respond to the closure of a key naval route that supplies 20% of world oil supply? After months of closure already, with zero response?

This entire thing was started with zero warning, as far as your "diplomatic timelines" go.

Asserting weird and strange judgement calls with extreme confidence, and belittling others' judgement at the same time, is a very weak argumentation style. Perhaps you could provide some evidence that a "watch out we'll talk about this in 8 weeks" is a strong sort of statement of any sort?