There's ongoing geopolitical undersea cable war between US trying to kill PRC undersea / digital silkroad projects for years, it be interesting asymmetric warfare for PRC to support Iran crippling western cables powering western data centers OR building up some leverage so regional data centers has to go through some % of Chinese pipes. TBH one of the easiest way to effectively undermine US compute / ecosystem advantage is to normalize splinternet and reduce network effects (and no spacex / megaconstellation won't have bandwidth to replace). The premise of 100s of billions to buy US hardware to support/integrate into US ecosystem breaks if the literal physical link breaks. And not many regions out there with 100s of billions of surplus burn on US hardware. Iran knows whats up. Don't get me wrong, everyone loses from cutting cables, but some lose much more. That said, I can see a future of siloed sovereign internet, where regional cables are constantly degraded.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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".
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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:
" “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.
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?
> 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?
As if everyone else isn't doing that? Don't be intellectually dishonest if you want to accuse me of that. Speaking of, you're also doing what you're accusing me of "months of closure with zero response" how is there zero response? No negotiations have taken place? The US didn't bomb and destroy targets in Iran? The US hasn't blockaded Iran so that it can't control the Strait?
Second, 20% of the world's oil supply just means the world should have taken much more care to not let these religious fanatics and murderers gain control of Iran to threaten their oil supply. America is just fine.
> Speaking of, you're also doing what you're accusing me of "months of closure with zero response" how is there zero response?
As you noted, only today has it been reported that NATO is considering maybe doing something in the Strait. In a few months. "Don't be intellectually dishonest", indeed.
How is that being intellectually dishonest? You made a claim that NATO and Gulf States are closing bases to imply that they were denying support to the US, not that I think that claim is even true anyway, but even so I simply provided literal breaking news of NATO increasing support for the US here. They may ultimately decide to do nothing because, by July this whole thing could be over. Who knows?
You are right though, Europeans do like to talk a lot and usually decide to do nothing. Maybe that'll play out again here.
Plus, at least I provided a source for my claim. Where are yours?
> You made a claim that NATO and Gulf States are closing bases to imply that they were denying support to the US, not that I think that claim is even true anyway…
> even so I simply provided literal breaking news of NATO increasing support
You provided breaking news that they're considering it, and that it's breaking news today perfectly illustrates the "months of closure with zero response" claim you're trying to knock down.
> You provided breaking news that they're considering it, and that it's breaking news today perfectly illustrates the "months of closure with zero response" claim you're trying to knock down.
But saying there are "months of closure with zero response" is factually incorrect. The blockade itself is proof enough that there is a response lol.
Additional details are needed - this doesn't seem to be a very strong claim. France also as the article implies previously allowed these flights and resupply operations. They may change their mind yet again.
> Spain
Sure Spain doesn't support the war. I agree with you there.
Ultimately, political hot potato on American overflights or strikes or usage of bases (which are being broadly used across NATO members) doesn't match the strong claim you seem to be wanting to make.
> No, the American-only blocade is not proof that NATO has responded.
To be clear you're claiming that there isn't a NATO response? If so I apologize as I thought you were referring to a US response to the ongoing war. More generally NATO allies and Gulf States have participated in various ways in the war. UAE and Saudi Arabia for example are reported to have struck Iran. I don't recall the full extent but I believe the United Kingdom and France which both have facilities or operate in the area were going to assist in shooting down threats to civilian facilities but I don't recall where that landed.
> Unresponsive; "in the early days of the war".
Responsive - provided a link to an example.
> "I might be right! Someday!"
Well it's hard to tell, they issue statements all the time. Here's an example:
"France has said it is "ready to help" defend Gulf nations and Jordan against Iran, signalling a firm commitment to regional allies as tensions spiral following a wave of missile and drone attacks." (https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20260302-france-backs-gulf-stat...)
So yea, like they do change their mind. You know situations and stuff are dynamic and things change, right? France could decide tomorrow they've had enough and outright participate in the war. Who knows?
> Good; we now agree my claim was accurate.
I'd agree your specific claim about Spain is accurate, but it's inaccurate with respect to NATO as a whole. Why is it inaccurate? Because for every Spain there's another NATO member who is allowing overflights or whatever.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.)
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.
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.
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.
> 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.)
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;].
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.
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.
Basically. Strong country attacks weak country. Weak country can't fight back against strong country so they attack other weak countries hoping they can get enough negative feedback to strong country. And seek sympathy from people in strong country.
Saudi and Iran hatred goes back long before that. Shia vs Sunni. Genesis of most of the problems in middle east. Syrian civil war: Sunni vs Alawites(Shia offshoot). Yemen civil war: Sunni vs Shia. When a mosque is bombed somewhere in middle east, its sunni vs Shia. It makes for some interesting decisions on support from the US side. We are now backing the new president of Syria who spent had spent a decade killing Americans in Iraq when he was leadership in Iraqi Al Qaeda.
Why would they want to harm Iraq? Iraq is mostly Shia who identity with Iran. Their only real military force is Iranian backed Shia militias which led to some interesting things like US bombing Iraqi military installations. More interesting is the media never covered all the American A10s strafing Iraq government installations in Iraq.
I would like many, many other entities and institutions to demand Big Tech (and large multinationals writ large) pay up, in general. Their coffers were filled by people unknowingly giving away valuable resources, which these companies then sold on for their true worth; in a more just world, users would have been able to sell those resources at actual fair value, and then use the income to pay for the tech industry's services out-of-pocket. The "shakedown" is a little uncouth, but preferable to the alternative we've been living for almost 2 decades.
Looking at the map, I am failing to understand why any of the named American Big Tech companies would risk breaking sanctions to protect these cables. Why not just threaten your neighbouring countries instead? They have some skin in the game.
Previously:
Iran will impose fees on subsea internet cables in Strait of Hormuz - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48183031 - May 2026 (135 comments)
There's ongoing geopolitical undersea cable war between US trying to kill PRC undersea / digital silkroad projects for years, it be interesting asymmetric warfare for PRC to support Iran crippling western cables powering western data centers OR building up some leverage so regional data centers has to go through some % of Chinese pipes. TBH one of the easiest way to effectively undermine US compute / ecosystem advantage is to normalize splinternet and reduce network effects (and no spacex / megaconstellation won't have bandwidth to replace). The premise of 100s of billions to buy US hardware to support/integrate into US ecosystem breaks if the literal physical link breaks. And not many regions out there with 100s of billions of surplus burn on US hardware. Iran knows whats up. Don't get me wrong, everyone loses from cutting cables, but some lose much more. That said, I can see a future of siloed sovereign internet, where regional cables are constantly degraded.
Article claims this primarily affects US tech companies. Then refuses to elaborate on who and how.
The bits that are flying the US flag are not allowed through. There are some blackbit transfers happening though with ACK's turned off.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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
> 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.
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.
Now I'm curious. LLM? This clearly lacks the context of the conversation thread, to a comedically goofy looking extent.
Hormuz went from 150 ships a day to a handful. As demonstrated by my link. If you prefer, a static image link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Strait_of_Hormuz_Tra...
[flagged]
> Are you referring to your own statement…
I'm referring to the fucking Strait of Hormuz, where the tolls and attacks have resulted in almost no "cars" on the "road".
[flagged]
LLM confirmed, I guess. Bye.
> 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.
Please stop accusing others of being a bot.
> You're the first one to mention China.
You're ignoring the broader context which included general commentary on US military posture and defense of international shipping.
> 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.
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.
> 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".
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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...
> 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.
> More ships always helps...
So the 11 aircraft carriers are not enough, one might say?
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.
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?
You have correctly identified why people are asserting to you that the US looks weak over this, yes.
This is incorrect
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
> 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?
> 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?
As if everyone else isn't doing that? Don't be intellectually dishonest if you want to accuse me of that. Speaking of, you're also doing what you're accusing me of "months of closure with zero response" how is there zero response? No negotiations have taken place? The US didn't bomb and destroy targets in Iran? The US hasn't blockaded Iran so that it can't control the Strait?
Second, 20% of the world's oil supply just means the world should have taken much more care to not let these religious fanatics and murderers gain control of Iran to threaten their oil supply. America is just fine.
> Speaking of, you're also doing what you're accusing me of "months of closure with zero response" how is there zero response?
As you noted, only today has it been reported that NATO is considering maybe doing something in the Strait. In a few months. "Don't be intellectually dishonest", indeed.
How is that being intellectually dishonest? You made a claim that NATO and Gulf States are closing bases to imply that they were denying support to the US, not that I think that claim is even true anyway, but even so I simply provided literal breaking news of NATO increasing support for the US here. They may ultimately decide to do nothing because, by July this whole thing could be over. Who knows?
You are right though, Europeans do like to talk a lot and usually decide to do nothing. Maybe that'll play out again here.
Plus, at least I provided a source for my claim. Where are yours?
> You made a claim that NATO and Gulf States are closing bases to imply that they were denying support to the US, not that I think that claim is even true anyway…
Spain: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/02/world/middleeast/spain-de...
France: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/france-refused-israel-us...
Saudi Arabia: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trumps-abrupt-u...
> even so I simply provided literal breaking news of NATO increasing support
You provided breaking news that they're considering it, and that it's breaking news today perfectly illustrates the "months of closure with zero response" claim you're trying to knock down.
> You provided breaking news that they're considering it, and that it's breaking news today perfectly illustrates the "months of closure with zero response" claim you're trying to knock down.
But saying there are "months of closure with zero response" is factually incorrect. The blockade itself is proof enough that there is a response lol.
> Saudi Arabia
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/how-secret-u-a-e-and-s...
> France
Additional details are needed - this doesn't seem to be a very strong claim. France also as the article implies previously allowed these flights and resupply operations. They may change their mind yet again.
> Spain
Sure Spain doesn't support the war. I agree with you there.
Ultimately, political hot potato on American overflights or strikes or usage of bases (which are being broadly used across NATO members) doesn't match the strong claim you seem to be wanting to make.
> The blockade itself is proof enough that there is a response lol.
No, the American-only blockade is not proof that NATO has responded.
> https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/how-secret-u-a-e-and-s...
Unresponsive; "in the early days of the war".
> They may change their mind yet again.
"I might be right! Someday!"
> Sure Spain doesn't support the war. I agree with you there.
Good; we now agree my claim was accurate.
> No, the American-only blocade is not proof that NATO has responded.
To be clear you're claiming that there isn't a NATO response? If so I apologize as I thought you were referring to a US response to the ongoing war. More generally NATO allies and Gulf States have participated in various ways in the war. UAE and Saudi Arabia for example are reported to have struck Iran. I don't recall the full extent but I believe the United Kingdom and France which both have facilities or operate in the area were going to assist in shooting down threats to civilian facilities but I don't recall where that landed.
> Unresponsive; "in the early days of the war".
Responsive - provided a link to an example.
> "I might be right! Someday!"
Well it's hard to tell, they issue statements all the time. Here's an example:
"France has said it is "ready to help" defend Gulf nations and Jordan against Iran, signalling a firm commitment to regional allies as tensions spiral following a wave of missile and drone attacks." (https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20260302-france-backs-gulf-stat...)
So yea, like they do change their mind. You know situations and stuff are dynamic and things change, right? France could decide tomorrow they've had enough and outright participate in the war. Who knows?
> Good; we now agree my claim was accurate.
I'd agree your specific claim about Spain is accurate, but it's inaccurate with respect to NATO as a whole. Why is it inaccurate? Because for every Spain there's another NATO member who is allowing overflights or whatever.
> To be clear you're claiming that there isn't a NATO response?
You, in the comment that started this particular thread:
"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."
To which /u/epistasis replied:
"Oh, 8 weeks, and they'll think about doing something?"
Your LLM needs bigger context.
> You, in the comment that started this particular thread:
I was just asking for clarification to make sure we were talking about the same thing. I even apologized.
> "Oh, 8 weeks, and they'll think about doing something?"
And yea, like there's no like big time pressure or something here. The war isn't a big deal anyway.
Starting a war with Iran without filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserves at $60/bbl was truly special.
The Iran regime was obviously going to be a push over.
Not the first forever war initiated as a Blitzkrieg. Not the last either.
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.
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.
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)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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!
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.
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.
> 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.)
It’s not like they can shut down the main air corridor to Asia if they please, right?
> 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.
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.
You're going to burn down his house no matter what?
I don't think they can blockade it for long anymore.
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.
Appeasement doesnt stop it, that's for sure. They would still be free to do it.
Appeasement worked just fine when the JCPOA was signed. It might have continued working had Trump not unilaterally rescinded it.
The problem is that you can only do it once.
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.
> 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...
> 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.)
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.
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;].
What is nobody going to do if Iran military cuts cables?
Or blocks repair ships after normal accidental damage?
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.
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.
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.
[dead]
It's fine guys, the DOW is at 50k.
Iran's chief strategy in this war seems to be to harm Iraq and Saudi Arabia
Basically. Strong country attacks weak country. Weak country can't fight back against strong country so they attack other weak countries hoping they can get enough negative feedback to strong country. And seek sympathy from people in strong country.
Not quite. Saudi Arabia is a base for US operations.
Saudi and Iran hatred goes back long before that. Shia vs Sunni. Genesis of most of the problems in middle east. Syrian civil war: Sunni vs Alawites(Shia offshoot). Yemen civil war: Sunni vs Shia. When a mosque is bombed somewhere in middle east, its sunni vs Shia. It makes for some interesting decisions on support from the US side. We are now backing the new president of Syria who spent had spent a decade killing Americans in Iraq when he was leadership in Iraqi Al Qaeda.
[dead]
[dead]
Hurt people hurt people?
I guess. I think the dynamic is different though. Iran attacking bystanders is more strategic than what that adage normally refers to in my opinion.
Why would they want to harm Iraq? Iraq is mostly Shia who identity with Iran. Their only real military force is Iranian backed Shia militias which led to some interesting things like US bombing Iraqi military installations. More interesting is the media never covered all the American A10s strafing Iraq government installations in Iraq.
Mostly UAE and Bahrain I think.
Their enemy has bases there
[dead]
I would like many, many other entities and institutions to demand Big Tech (and large multinationals writ large) pay up, in general. Their coffers were filled by people unknowingly giving away valuable resources, which these companies then sold on for their true worth; in a more just world, users would have been able to sell those resources at actual fair value, and then use the income to pay for the tech industry's services out-of-pocket. The "shakedown" is a little uncouth, but preferable to the alternative we've been living for almost 2 decades.
Looking at the map, I am failing to understand why any of the named American Big Tech companies would risk breaking sanctions to protect these cables. Why not just threaten your neighbouring countries instead? They have some skin in the game.
Aren't US citizens and corporations prohibited from paying anything to Iran due to sanctions?
In letter and spirit, yes. If you're in the club, no.
> If you're in the club, no
Evidence folks in the U.S. leadership are "paying antyhing to Iran"?
Can you substantiate this?
Only if you’re not in the club
"There is only yes and all other answers"
Crypto.
2€/MB :(
Completely avoidable and optional btw.
Thanks Trump and Bibi! The whole world suffers for these two men.
[dead]