| > In the past 60 years the Iranian regime has only closed the straight in retaliation to a second massive suckerpunch against it. Well yes, because its a desperation move that hurts them just as much as it hurts everyone else. Its worth it to them as a last resort but at any earlier point it would have been a strategicly stupid thing to do. > The last time something that was a tiny fraction of that happened, it started two wars and killed half a million people (most of them from a country that had nothing to do with the attack). Arguably this whole thing happened because Israel thinks Iran is at fault for the oct 7 attacks and now views them as an unacceptable threat (note: even if you dont agree, it really doesn't matter so long as the people who are at war think this). Which was kind of like your hypothetical, so it should resonate with what you are saying. > Iran's response was downright restrained. Largely because they lack the ability to do much else that would be a strategic benefit to their situation. > Here's a radical idea. Don't start wars with countries if you don't like the consequences. Indeed, but that bites both ways. Violence begets violence and war begets war. The present situation was forged in the decisions of the past including many of Iran's. |