[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.