Iran stops negotiations with U,S., vows to 'completely' block Strait of Hormuz: State media
Posted by SirLadthe1st@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 266 comments
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
I love how people talk about Iran shutting down the Strait of Hormuz like the U.S. Navy didn't spend an afternoon turning a large chunk of their operational fleet into an artificial reef. Like, sure, Iran can make transit dangerous and expensive, but that's not the same thing as actually closing the strait.
The media keeps acting like Iran has some decisive upper hand here, and people just eat it up.
iRadiKS@reddit
They only need to hit a handful of freighters to block transit for months. You dont seem to understand how international shipping and insuring works. A 1% risk to lose a 100 million dollar ship means insurance spikes up instantly and at some point, becomes unavailable. At that point only once the risk is gone will shipping resume. Thats what we have been dealing with for months now. Its high time you understand such basic concepts
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
You're arguing that Iran can disrupt shipping - which I agree is a temporary concern - not that it can close the Strait.
Nobody disputes that Iran can raise insurance rates. The question is whether it can sustain that disruption once the U.S. starts sinking the assets responsible. History says no.
Sgt_Habib@reddit
If it is so safe, why doesn’t the navy enter the strait?
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
I.. what? They are balls deep in the strait. That's literally part of the Fifth Fleet's job. The U.S. has been patrolling and securing that waterway for decades.
Sgt_Habib@reddit
Are you saying it is secured and the navy is already currently in the straight?
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
Yes. The Fifth Fleet has operated in and around the Strait for decades.
Nobody is claiming the Strait is perfectly safe, which is what I'm sure you're trying to "gotcha" me on. I'm questioning the assumption that Iran can keep laying mines, launching attacks, and disrupting shipping indefinitely while the U.S. sits there and does nothing.
Creating a problem and sustaining a problem are two very different things.
Sgt_Habib@reddit
My guy, operating in an area for decades during peacetime is completely different than the ability to do so during wartime. At least you concede it isn’t safe.
They don’t need to lay mines and I think you underestimate how damaging it will be disrupting shipping and how easy it is for Iran to do so as the US watches
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
I think that's where we disagree.
You're looking at the current level of disruption and concluding that Iran has demonstrated it can keep the Strait effectively closed.
I'm looking at the same situation and seeing that the U.S. and its allies have not conducted anything close to a full-scale campaign against every asset Iran uses to threaten shipping.
Take Kharg Island as an example. It's the backbone of Iran's oil exports. If the objective were to inflict maximum economic damage on Iran, there are obvious targets that have largely been left standing.
That doesn't prove the U.S. would escalate further. It does suggest that what we've seen so far shouldn't automatically be treated as the maximum capability available to either side.
So when people point to the Strait still being dangerous, I don't see proof that Iran can sustain a closure indefinitely. I see proof that the conflict has not yet escalated to the point where either side is using every tool available to it.
Sgt_Habib@reddit
If either side hasn’t further escalated and Iran retains the strait then yes as it stands they control it and until they don’t we can say they do. Iran has matched horizontal escalation throughout the campaign so far and there is strong evidence they can do so as the US goes up the escalation ladder. Kharg Island wont reopen the strait and Iran will attack the Gulfs backbone oil exports in response. I think you underestimate what a challenge it would be to destroy all the drones, ballistic weapons, mines and speed boats even if it escalates. The US navy cannot secure the coastline, the US doesnt have interceptors for all the drones and even an invasion looks like it would be Gallipoli to start and another Iraq/Afghanistan x10. All at what cost and to whom
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
"Iran would retaliate" isn't really a rebuttal, is it? The question is what happens next and I get the impression that you're assuming Iran gets a move and the U.S. doesn't.
If the conflict escalated to the point where the U.S. was targeting Iran's primary oil export hub, wouldn't it also be reasonable to expect additional air defense assets, naval assets, ISR, and force protection measures around Gulf energy infrastructure?
The question isn't whether Iran can retaliate... Obviously it can. But the real question is why you're assuming Iranian escalation is matched by zero U.S. escalation.
Sgt_Habib@reddit
I never said it would not be matched if anything I am saying Iran would be matching the US’s escalation as it has done so far. Air defenses have not been successful in protecting US bases or US radar systems—it is likely Iran would be able to match an attack on Kharg
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
Here's another area where we fundamentally disagree.
Iran has demonstrated it can retaliate. I haven't seen evidence that it can match the U.S. or Israel escalation-for-escalation indefinitely. We've already seen strikes on nuclear facilities, air defenses, military infrastructure, commanders, and targets deep inside Iran. That's not evidence of parity to me.
More importantly, we're still talking about a conflict where obvious escalation targets on both sides remain largely untouched.
That's why I keep saying the current situation tells us more about political restraint than military limits, and why I believe Iran can't close the strait.
Sgt_Habib@reddit
You can disagree but these are facts. I think youre mistaking that mere strikes in iran as being decisive strikes when clearly they have not been and analysts suggest it would be impossible to. Nuclear facilities can be rebuilt and the material has been moved. Air defenses: we’ve seen Iran down US planes so while not fully operational, it is still operating. Military infrastructure: we’ve seen continued drones and ballistic missiles continue to be launched by Iran and even the US has admitted it underestimated the number Iran possessed and admitted that it is running out of interceptors. Even so, what is the goal? The regime is still in tact and the it controls the straight. The US started it, how would you finish it?
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
I don't think we're actually disagreeing on most of the facts.
We both agree Iran still has missiles, drones, launch capability, and a functioning government. We both agree Iran can retaliate and impose costs. We both agree Iran can make shipping through the Strait dangerous enough that companies may decide the risk isn't worth taking.
Where we disagree is the conclusion. You seem to view those facts as evidence that Iran can indefinitely close or control the Strait. I don't. To me, there's a difference between making transit dangerous and physically denying passage. If enough ships choose not to transit because they're worried about being attacked, you can absolutely argue the Strait is effectively closed from a commercial standpoint. That's fair.
What I haven't seen demonstrated is that Iran can physically deny access to a determined coalition response indefinitely. When I look at the same facts, I see a conflict where Iran can create risk and impose costs, but also one where the U.S. and Israel have repeatedly struck targets deep inside Iran without being meaningfully deterred from doing so.
The other thing I find interesting is that much of the world seems to agree on two things: Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons, and the Strait of Hormuz should remain open. But when it comes to the costs and risks associated with enforcing either, everyone disappears.
That's why I keep saying the current situation tells us more about the level of escalation both sides have chosen than it does about their ultimate military limits.
Sgt_Habib@reddit
If your claim is that Iran cannot indefinitely close the strait, when is that time and how do you achieve that. The only ships passing are ones paying a toll currently.
Im not claiming they can indefinitely I am just saying they are currently and it appears like they could for the foreseeable future. You seem to think otherwise so what is a realistic plan where they don’t from what we have seen so far.
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
I think we're talking past each other because we're using "close" differently. If by "close" you mean Iran can make shipping so risky that many commercial operators choose not to transit the Strait, then I agree. They've clearly demonstrated that. But that's different from physically denying passage to a determined coalition. A threat of attack is not the same thing as the ability to prevent transit.
To use an analogy: if someone stands outside a store and says they'll attack anyone who enters, they haven't closed the store. They've made entering dangerous. Those are related concepts, but they're not the same thing.
That's why I keep separating "creating risk" from "controlling the Strait." Iran has demonstrated the first. I haven't seen evidence it can do the second indefinitely against a coalition that prioritizes keeping the waterway open.
So when people say "Iran closed the Strait," my response is: do you mean Iran physically prevented passage, or do you mean shipping companies decided the risk wasn't worth it? Because those are very different claims.
Sgt_Habib@reddit
Im sorry but that is just nonsense semantics. Obviously there is no gate that can be opened or locked for the strait—who in the world besides yourself is arguing it in that way or using closed like that? Everyone is saying it is “closed” as in closed for business, like the guy in your metaphor unless you pay a toll. When trump says the boarder is closed is he literally closing it lol of course not people use their brains and know what he means by that. Even if we accept your semantics, okay then actually the strait is open just not for the US and its allies, so there is no reason to “open” the strait if it is open.
What is your plan then? If not “indefinite” when do you think it will end and how?
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
No, that's exactly the distinction.
Countries absolutely can physically deny access to waterways. We saw it during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and we've seen the U.S. physically interdict and seize vessels involved in Venezuelan oil exports. That's what an enforced closure or blockade looks like.
What you're describing is something different: Iran creating enough risk that shipping companies decide transit isn't worth it.
Those arent the same thing.
I've never disputed that Iran can create risk, raise insurance costs, deter traffic, or make shipping expensive. My point from the very first comment was that those capabilities are not the same as possessing the ability to physically prevent a determined coalition from using the Strait indefinitely.
The fact that we've gone from "Iran can completely close the Strait" to "well, insurers don't like risk" is kind of my point.
Sgt_Habib@reddit
Whether the ship is seized or droned doesn’t really matter. It is prevented from getting through and I think Iran has that ability. This point is so simplistic and uninteresting and begs the question; is there a determined coalition?
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
Congratulations, I think we've finally arrived at the point I made in the original comment.
If a ship gets attacked in the Pacific, does that mean the Pacific Ocean is closed, or does it mean there's risk associated with transiting it?
If pirates attack ships off Somalia, does that mean that stretch of water is closed, or does it mean there's risk associated with transiting it?
Now apply the same logic here. If Iran declares the Strait closed, ships continue to transit because Iran can't physically block it, and Iran attacks one of them, does that mean the Strait was closed? Or does it mean there's risk associated with using it?
And that's the part I keep coming back to: could an organized coalition effectively repel that threat if it actually wanted to? I'm not asking whether there's political appetite. I'm not asking whether it's worth the cost. I'm asking whether Iran, Somali pirates, or our mystery Pacific force could actually keep those areas closed if the world decided to push back.
Because those are capability questions, and they are very different from risk, cost, and willingness questions.
At this point, it honestly sounds like you agree with me, and I genuinely don't understand why you're still pushing back.
Sgt_Habib@reddit
Congrats you semantically live in your own world creating your own definitions that the rest of the world does not agree with. If the US attacks a ship in the pacific and has the ability to attack any ship any time then yes it is closed.
Are you going to give a plan? Are you going to suggest when the indefinate closure will not be indefinate? Are you going to answer if there is a determined coalition? Or are you just going to continue making imaginary scenarios
WestcoastAlex@reddit
this 👍
WestcoastAlex@reddit
😆
WestcoastAlex@reddit
until Iran blew up their port remember? now they dont even have a spot to load\unload
iRadiKS@reddit
1) Okay first of all disrupting shipping (read stopping shipping by 95-98%) and closing the strait is effectively the same thing. I dont know what you are even trying to say with that point as if those were to seperate issues.
2) they can very much sustain the disruption as is proven by the last 3 months at this point
3) you are acting as if its only the Iranian Navy that is causing the disruption, when it is not just that. They also have an unknown number of hideouts in the mountainside which have been placed there over the last couple of decades all over their 1000s of miles of shoreline at the gulf. Even if the whole iranian navy is taken out, even if all hideouts at the gulf have been destroyed, even if all their underwater drones have been destroyed, they still have 10s of thoundands of regular shahed drones that can fly for thousands of miles that they can just deploy from deep inside the country. If it was so easy i am sure your dear leader would have already tried forcing the strait open. Instead he is parking his fleet at the mouth of the gulf, hundreds of miles away from the strait, because, unlike you, even he is not stupid enough to think that that would be a good idea
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
Don't take this as me disagreeing with you in principle: if ships don't want to transit due to safety concerns, you could argue that's functionally no different than being closed for those ships. My point is that a temporary disruption caused by risk and uncertainty is different from demonstrating that Iran can sustain that situation indefinitely against a determined military response.
The last 3 months prove Iran can create risk and disruption. They do not prove Iran can permanently close the Strait. It's still open.
I agree Iran has more than a navy; drones, missiles, proxies, and coastal batteries are all threats. The question is whether those assets survive long enough to maintain a closure once the U.S. and its allies start systematically targeting them. That's the part nobody seems willing to address.
your_red_triangle@reddit
the Strait is closed. You're delusional if you think the US has any boats passing through.
The one time they tried to pass they got attacked and had to run. Literally confirmed by your orange buffoon leader.
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
You're basically restating my original point.
Iran can make transit risky. Iran can make insurance rates explode. Iran can convince shipping companies it's not worth the risk. None of that is the same thing as physically controlling the Strait and preventing passage.
We've seen what actual denial of access looks like. The U.S. quarantined Cuba during the missile crisis. The U.S. has used naval forces to physically interdict shipping, including operations involving Venezuela. That's control of a waterway. What you're describing is deterrence through threat of attack.
That's exactly the distinction I made in my first comment. Iran can impose costs. I haven't seen evidence it can indefinitely prevent a determined coalition from using the Strait if that coalition decides keeping it open is worth the effort.
your_red_triangle@reddit
you're delusional and dumb.. a true MAGA supporter. thanks for the laugh
1slinkydink1@reddit
I mean now you're just arguing semantics of "permanently". What does it matter if it's literally permanently closed or severely disrupted to the point that no one can go through?
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
Because I'm not arguing Iran can't disrupt shipping. I've already conceded that. I'm arguing that creating a problem and sustaining a problem are different things.
The fact that shipping is disrupted today doesn't tell us what happens if the U.S. and its allies decide eliminating that threat becomes the primary objective.
So, no, I don't think it's semantics at all.
Javimoran@reddit
Has history not been applied for the last few months?
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
Lol, well I think you're again assuming that the US is doing everything in their power. The Houthis have demonstrated the ability to disrupt shipping. They have not demonstrated the ability to permanently close a major strategic waterway against sustained military opposition.
Javimoran@reddit
So what you are saying is that so far they are succeeding in blocking strategic waterways, but that's simply because the other side is just not trying...
That is for sure a take. Definitely the US wanted to show weakness and that is what they are not trying yet. Or maybe simply the US cannot get the strait open without paying a price that it is not willing to pay.
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
Lol well that's actually much closer to my position than you seem to think. I don't believe the last few months represent the maximum effort the U.S. is willing or able to apply to reopening the Strait. I think they've demonstrated they can strike Iranian targets, enter Iranian airspace, sink vessels, and destroy infrastructure when they choose to.
Whether the current strategy is smart is a different question entirely. Personally, I think part of the goal was to pressure other countries into taking a more active role rather than having the U.S. own the entire problem. Great strategy if you're Biden, definitely not if you're someone that's antagonized Europe over defensive capabilities and then immediately start offensive operations against a Middle Eastern country... but I never said Trump was brilliant.
You may disagree with that assessment, and that's fair. But "the Strait is still dangerous" doesn't automatically prove the U.S. has exhausted its options or that Iran holds some permanent strategic upper hand.
Blarg_III@reddit
You don't need a navy to effectively close the strait to commercial traffic. Any part of it can easily be hit from hundreds of miles of Iranian coastline. It took the US months to discourage the Houthis in the Red Sea, stopping an actual military from launching strikes at shipping would be impossible without a full invasion.
WestcoastAlex@reddit
thats right. and they dont need boats to do it.
imunfair@reddit
Dangerous and expensive is something insurance companies don't like, so unless the US government is going to get into the insurance business to screw with Iran that means the strait is closed.
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
Well that's sort of the point, isn't it? Iran can disrupt traffic. What I haven't seen anyone explain is how they sustain that disruption once the U.S. starts removing the assets responsible.
Let's not pretend the U.S. isn't tracking Iranian ships - especially ships with mine-laying capabilities - or that it couldn't sink those vessels quickly.
So, you're describing a scenario where Iran is allowed to repeatedly lay mines and attack shipping without suffering the consequences. That's the part I don't buy.
imunfair@reddit
The US has been trying to "remove" the ballistic missile launch sites and drones for months now with no success. The reality is they have them in hardened bunkers the US can't do shit about which is why we tried to mine the routes they take to reload, apparently again with little success.
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
I think this is where we're fundamentally disagreeing. You're treating the current level of U.S. involvement as though it's evidence of the maximum effort the U.S. is capable of bringing to bear. I don't see evidence of that.
Instead, what I've seen is a series of limited operations conducted while trying to avoid a wider regional war. If the objective were truly to eliminate every launch site, drone depot, fast boat base, logistics hub, and military facility involved in threatening shipping, we'd be talking about a very different conflict than the one we've seen so far.
And what weve already seen is the ability to operate inside Iranian airspace, strike high value targets, and hit Iranian military assets with relatively little interference. That doesn't prove such a campaign would be easy or cost free, but it does suggest we're nowhere near the limits of what the U.S. and its allies are capable of bringing to bear.
That's why I don't think the last few months tell us much about what a determined full-scale effort would look like.
imunfair@reddit
We can expend more "effort" in the form of our soldier's lives lost by putting boots on the ground, but that will just end up being another Vietnam, so instead of losing now with little cost we'll lose later with tens of thousands of our soldiers dead.
Based on your replies so far you don't seem to know much about Iran and are under the impression it will be the same as Iraq, when it's a totally different scenario. I doubt we can even do a smash and grab on their enriched uranium - I think we would have done that already if we could have because Trump could spin that as a win even while losing the war.
Do we have control of their airspace? Absolutely. Does it matter to the outcome of this war? Not one bit - they knew our strengths and prepared appropriate counters by hiding their own weapons and designing tactics that keep pressure on us until we go away.
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
I think you're reading an argument into my position that I never made.... I don't think Iran is Iraq. I don't think a ground invasion would be easy, desirable, or even necessary. And I don't think Iran is sitting around unaware of American capabilities. My confusion is that your argument seems to assume the planning only goes one direction.
Yes, Iran knows the U.S. prefers airpower, ISR, naval power, precision strikes, sanctions, and economic pressure. Of course they've spent years preparing for those threats. But... I mean, do you think the U.S. military is unaware that Iran has spent years preparing for those threats? Do you think American planners only discovered yesterday that Iran uses hardened facilities, dispersed assets, proxy networks, and asymmetric tactics? I mean, do you seriously believe these things?
Every capability you're describing has been studied by U.S. planners for decades and that's why I keep coming back to the same point: Iran has demonstrated it can impose costs and create risk. I agree with that. What I haven't seen demonstrated is that Iran can indefinitely sustain that pressure against an opponent that decides degrading those capabilities becomes the primary objective.
But we're far beyond my original point.
imunfair@reddit
Because your original point about US exceptionalism in the middle east was incorrect, and you keep dancing around rather than admitting you were wrong. As Trump likes to say - we don't have the cards. Iran is set up to counter our main strength and our people have no stomach for a full-fledged war with Iran just to serve Israel's interests.
Trump shouldn't have attacked them because there's no way to win, and everyone but him and you seems to know that, but he assumed they would save-face like they normally do, and he was wrong. So now he either needs to admit we lost and give them concessions, or let them tax the global economy by controlling the strait, neither option will get their enriched uranium from them and the former will require Israel to stop attacking its neighbors.
Realistically the least-damaging loss is just to pull out and let Iran control the strait, and realize that our participation in military bases near Iran will be severely limited going forward - likely resulting in neighboring countries making deals with Iran rather than the US since we've proven we can't protect them.
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
You know what's funny? It's that we've gone through about six different arguments only to end up back at the point I made in my original comment.
I said Iran can make transit dangerous and expensive, but that isn't the same thing as having the ability to completely shut down the Strait indefinitely. Since then I've been told:
Notice what's missing from that list: "Iran can actually stop a determined coalition from reopening it."
We've spent dozens of comments moving from "Iran can completely block the Strait" to "reopening it might not be worth the cost."
Those are not the same argument.
So are we all seriously going to spend 100 comments reinventing the distinction I made in the first post?
imunfair@reddit
No one cares about you trying to split hairs about how the strait is closed, they just care that it is. I'm really not sure what your agenda is, but you're really not going to get any traction with the irrational US glazing and Israel support here.
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
So let me get this straight... We spent hours arguing because I said Iran making the Strait dangerous is not the same thing as Iran being able to actually close it and hold it.
After all that, you finally land on: "Well, it doesn't matter how it's closed, only that ships aren't using it."
That is literally the distinction I made at the start.
You argued against my point, slowly arrived at my point, tried to use my point against me, and now that I've pointed that out, you're calling it "splitting hairs."
Lol no dude. That's not splitting hairs. You're just realizing the argument you ended with is the same one I opened with.
Just take the L.
imunfair@reddit
It's you that spent hours arguing with half a dozen or more people all of whom told you that you were wrong. That you still can't wrap your head around why is the real L.
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
🤣 ok
1slinkydink1@reddit
Mines are probably the least effective shipping deterrent. I think that you're too fixated on mines in the scenario. Iran has drones and fast boats in unknown quantities that the risk of them popping out and causing trouble is enough to make the strait effectively unpassable for commercial shipping.
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
I don't think we're actually disagreeing that much; I've already conceded Iran has drones, fast boats, missiles, proxies, and plenty of ways to create risk.
But my question remains the same: how long can those systems keep operating once the focus shifts from intercepting attacks to systematically degrading the infrastructure that supports them?
It's not just about finding every boat. It's fuel depots, launch sites, logistics hubs, maintenance facilities, storage sites, command and control, supply routes, and the positions those assets operate from.
I think I've been fairly consistent with my point: creating a problem and sustaining a problem are different things. Iran has clearly demonstrated it can create risk. I still haven't seen anyone explain how that risk is maintained indefinitely once the supporting infrastructure starts disappearing.
Chipay@reddit
What supporting infrastructure does Iran need to fly drones into oil tankers? And how does the US effectively destroy that infrastructure?
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
I think we're getting lost in technical details that neither of us actually has access to. My point isn't that the U.S. can magically find and destroy every drone. My point is that we've already seen the U.S. and Israel demonstrate intelligence and strike capabilities deep inside hostile territory, including against highly protected targets (hell, look at the supply chain infiltration of the Hezbollah pagers).
So when people tell me Iran can sustain this indefinitely, my question is still the same: based on what?
We've seen Iran demonstrate it can create risk. We haven't seen it demonstrate it can maintain that risk forever against a coalition that decides degrading those capabilities becomes the primary objective.
Those are two different claims.
orangeswat@reddit
I don't think you quite understand just how much escalation would be required to stop that from being a risk, if it's at all possible (most certainly not). This isn't a game, it has real consequences, and it would require millions of people on the ground in a total war scenario to even approach the ability to stop basic drone production which is down to a science these days..and if that happens we would be begging to just pay a toll to iran to open the strait.
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
Okay, but now it sounds like you've shifted from a capability argument to a cost-benefit argument. Which is a very different claim, but honestly, it's a stronger one.
If your position is that the U.S. could further reduce the threat but likely isn't willing to pay the economic, political, and military costs required to do so, then I largely agree. In fact, that's part of why I suspect the original strategy was to get other countries more involved instead of having the U.S. own the entire problem.
My disagreement was never that escalation would be costly. It was with the claim that the current situation proves Iran can indefinitely maintain control of the Strait against a determined coalition response. Those aren't the same thing.
ImpossibleDragonfly@reddit
If Iran can't control the strait than why are we bothering to negotiate with them? Seems to me that they do which is why the US keeps coming back to the table.
kolitics@reddit
The US wants no nuclear without committing troops to an invasion.
Sgt_Habib@reddit
They had that with the JCPOA and didn’t need to bomb anything to do so. You’re just giving Iran more reason to get a bomb.
kolitics@reddit
no nuclear, not some nuclear
Sgt_Habib@reddit
Did the JCPOA allow for a nuclear bomb specifically? Did they enrich above threshold during the JCPOA?
imunfair@reddit
I think trump going in was silly but JCPOA did have a sunset clause, so they would have been able to "legally" have nukes a short while down the road.
Sgt_Habib@reddit
Not perfect deal but they were set to phase out starting in 2023 and end 2031. Something that could have renegotiated down that line or time used to bring china and russia to pressure. Regardless, as an NPT signatory it would have been able to pass the limits just like any other NPT nation for peaceful purposes—something Israel is not signatory of and does possess nuclear weapons.
ImpossibleDragonfly@reddit
So why isn't the strait open?
kolitics@reddit
That isn’t the main ask of the US and impacted parties didn’t want to go open it.
imunfair@reddit
lol "impacted parties" man you've been consuming too much Trump propaganda. Oil is fungible which is why US gas prices have skyrocketed - the entire world is the "impacted party" by nature of the market.
The only way you could avoid it is by extreme measures like making exports illegal in the US, which would have its own negative impacts as messing with the free market always does.
ImpossibleDragonfly@reddit
Ok, than the US can gtfo than. According to Trump they already obliterated Iran's Navy and nuclear capabilities so everything should be all good.
kolitics@reddit
US wants no nuclear. Not to need to periodically disrupt capability. This needs Iran to agree
ImpossibleDragonfly@reddit
The whole point of bombing them was so that we didn't need to rely on an agreement in the first place. Otherwise we already had an agreement.
Now we're left with no agreement, a closed strait and insane gas prices.
kolitics@reddit
to disrupt capability and force an agreement for no nuclear. If it was acceptable to US to allow some level of enrichment there was a deal and perhaps could have been another prior to the conflict, but that’s not no nuclear
ImpossibleDragonfly@reddit
Well it seems to me that the US can't force Iran into a deal at all. We are all clearly worse off than when we had the JCPOA due to the situation with the strait and the lack of an agreement with Iran.
WineOptics@reddit
Typical of you to just call people “bots” because you disagree. My experience is that 9/10 nots are right wing MAGA/pro Israel or Russian.
orangeswat@reddit
There's bots of every flavor but they are currently the most obvious and obnoxious ones at the moment because of how indefensible what they are promoting is.
WestcoastAlex@reddit
yup
Mordeth@reddit
Just saying you put a sea mine in the strait, no matter if you actually did that, is enough for insurers to say 'nope'. No commercial vessel will travel uninsured. You don't actually have to physically block them.
Too bad americans still have this need to point out a 'win', even nothing they can achieve will be on par with not going to war in the first place.
Clean-Ad-6642@reddit
Feels like the same shades of "we didn't lose Viet nam, I just left cuz we wanted to"
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
And then what?
The U.S. knows how to clear mines. It knows how to escort shipping. It knows how to find and destroy mine-laying vessels.
You're describing a temporary disruption, not a sustainable closure.
phaedrus910@reddit
Mines are not the only threat.
WestcoastAlex@reddit
correct.
WestcoastAlex@reddit
so why arent they doing it hmm?
Mordeth@reddit
Knows? Sure. Doing it? No.
Sgt_Habib@reddit
How temporary, like how long would it take to clear the entire gulf? Can Iran re-mine it while it is being cleared?
loggy_sci@reddit
The old mods abandoned this site and the remaining mod is an agenda poster who ruined this place. It’s full of anti-west campists, Russian bots, Iranian bots, anti-semites. Used to be a good sub but the level of discourse here is worse than worldnews at this point. Save your thoughtful analysis for an actual news sub.
ycnz@reddit
But... They do have an overwhelming geographic advantage, that the US politically aren't currently combating. Yeah, they could invade and take over the entire country, but the American body count would be horrendous (I'm presuming you don't give a fuck about any others).
WestcoastAlex@reddit
its not bots. you are just an idiot
BendicantMias@reddit
Bruh, even your allies are calling this a "humiliation". When Merz called it that, he wasn't some media commentator, he the head of state of a US ally - calling its war a humiliation. That shows how widespread that impression is. If that's Germany, imagine how the rest of the non-US allied world sees it.
TheIrishBread@reddit
Out of curiosity would you drive your car uninsured through a minefield? If that answer is no then you have the reason commercial shipping won't even touch the strait at the moment.
The media is acting like it because Iran does have the upper hand until someone is foolish enough to put boots on ground to stop them.
Rest of the world is fast running out of patience in regards to yank arrogance and grandstanding in regards to problems they create themselves.
It's also not helping your credibility by calling anyone who disagrees with you a bot, instead it makes you look like you can't argue your point either because of a lack of skill or because your arguments never had any substance bar "that's what my propaganda channel says so it must be the truth!".
imunfair@reddit
Oof, I guess Trump deciding to ask for "edits" to the terms of the potential agreement completely killed it in the cradle. Yeah they blamed it on ceasefire violations, but as of yesterday they were still talking before he did that. Art of the deal. I'm sure Netanyahu is happy though.
Hesitation-Marx@reddit
Netanyahu ordered the IOF to start attacking the southern suburbs of Beirut, and I’m sure that’s a contributing factor.
Ok-Goose6242@reddit
Yeah, Bibi wasn't willing to stop advancing in Lebanon
polymute@reddit
The article explicitly says Iran named this as the main reason for suspending the negotiations.
Nihilamealienum@reddit
Iran puts pressure on Trump to prevent Israel from defending itself against a group that killed more civilians in Syria than Israel ever did, and Reddit jumps in saying Israel is behind it.
Antisemitism? Stupidity? Bots? Who knows at this point
Chipay@reddit
How many Red Cross medics has Israel defended itself from this time?
Nihilamealienum@reddit
I love the cheap rhetorical tricks on here.
Yes Hezbollah doesn't even exist this time. It's all just Red Cross Medics, and the Hezbollah rockets are Japanese origami cranes.
Chipay@reddit
When is the next paramedic massacre planned?
Nihilamealienum@reddit
Does Hezbollah exist? Does it massacre civilians? Does it routinely try to kill Israeli civilians?
These are questions with simple answers you can't give.
Yes Israel has violated international law and a couplr of cabinet members belong in the Hague. If you can explain why that exculpates Iran from supporting a militia that raped and slaightered their way accross Alawite Syria civilian populations and actively shoots rockets at apartment buildings I' listening. Is Lebanon Iran? No. Is Iran some democratic defender? No it's a theocratic hellhole killing civilians in three different countries with proxies and mowing down their own population.
But they're fighting (((Zionism))) so it's ok.
Forderz@reddit
Why does Hezbollah exist? Does it have something to do with Israel invading Lebanon in the past?
And before you say that was a "defensive invasion," maybe consider that apartheid oppression leads to hostile militancy, not the other way around.
bcbroon@reddit
Defending itself? That is an awfully funny way of describing the behaviour of an expansionist apartheid state, that routinely bombs civilians in neighbouring countries and takes territory with its military.
Nihilamealienum@reddit
And of course the neighboring countries never kill Israeli civilians because we don't have civilians.
Nihilamealienum@reddit
Maybe stop people from shooting at synagogues in Canada and it won't make the Zionist argument for us.
your_red_triangle@reddit
is that why the terrorist state of Israel is bombing synagogues in Iran?
Nihilamealienum@reddit
Israel is bad so shooting synagogues in Canada is OK.
That's your logic, right?
your_red_triangle@reddit
show me where I said "shooting synagogues in Canada", is OK?
Your argument was that the genocidal ideology of Zionism is valid because of "shootings in Canada" So I ask again, explain why the terrorist state of Israel is bombing Synagogues in Iran?
The answer is simple, the biggest threat to Jews around the world is genocidal zionists.
Let me know which words you struggle to understand.
DefDefTotheIOF@reddit
Wow, the first time an 'israeli' said something that wasn't a blatant lie!
Nihilamealienum@reddit
Brilliant sense of humor, there.
Country of Rumi, Sadiq Hedayat Ruhollah Kaleqi and what have you done with it? Turned her children into the pray of the Negahban.
You know what's fascinating? And it says more about Reddit than you? You're basically saying the Jewish kids you convinced Hamas to slaughter aren't civilians, and no one will down vote you.
Well, we survived the Nazis, it's certainly not gonna be you who wipes us out.
Clean-Ad-6642@reddit
Yeah Germany was sure defending themselves by invading Poland in 39 Gtfoh
Nihilamealienum@reddit
How many rockets did Poland launch at German civilians? One answer. and then I'll gtfo with pleausre.
shitty_user@reddit
yeah i mean it's practically buried under the first sentence of the linked article, there's no way someone could read the second sentence before commenting
Decent_Cheesecake_29@reddit
Article?
Mythosaurus@reddit
Corporate Media has to shield Israel from the consequences of its settler colonialism as much as possible.
BendicantMias@reddit
In this case it's just human laziness. Almost everyone just reads titles, rarely the full article itself. Youtubers are especially fond of leveraging this fact, but the mainstream media does it aplenty too. But ultimately just how much of the story, and especially of its nuances, can you possibly put into a one line title? Personally I don't blame the media for this one - it's the readers that are at fault imo.
FalardeauDeNazareth@reddit
And he confirmed he wanted to wipe Gaza.
Anxious_Katz@reddit
And expanded further into the South. It now includes Tyr, the 4th biggest city in the country and they're ethnically cleansing the entire region.
Hesitation-Marx@reddit
Israel is just a gd damned cancer at this point.
__dontpanic__@reddit
Has been since the Nabka.
WestcoastAlex@reddit
before
Anxious_Katz@reddit
No before, they were just a bunch of terrorists.
WestcoastAlex@reddit
yes
RogerianBrowsing@reddit
What a good time to merge our militaries!
/s
Gleneroo@reddit
They mention in the article: the reason of stopping the negotiations is the attacks on Lebanon and Gaza.
Both have ceasefire too, so that gives an indication of how much the negotiations are useful anyway.
WestcoastAlex@reddit
ceasefire means nothing to israel. they must be made to cease firing and Iran seems like the only willing country to do it
upbeatchief@reddit
Man if only iran didn't try to reportedly mine the strait and weaponize the militias in yemen and iraq.
I am shocked how little western media covered the various times iran broke the deal via their armed groups. But because they are unofficial forces then they aren't directly linked in the western mind.
Iran has been playing dirty in the region for decades now. Yet no one is calling them out for setting their dogs to attack the region while on a "cease fire" or from before the war even.
Strange who only the US is portraited as violating the ceasefire even though iran never upheld it either.
WestcoastAlex@reddit
its an illegal war started by israel. Iran has a right to defend itsself and make israel unlivable
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
Either countries have a right to self-defense or they don't.
So did Israel have the right to defend itself when Hamas attacked?
WestcoastAlex@reddit
Palestinians didnt ask to be occupied. they have been dfending themslves since the 1800's when the Jewish invasion began
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
The "Jewish invasion of the 1800s" framing is doing a lot of work here... Jews were already living in the region, and Jewish immigration into Ottoman Palestine wasn't a military invasion.
I'm not saying Israel or Jewish groups have been without wrongs. Far from it. But reducing 150+ years of migration, nationalism, religious conflict, colonial politics, terrorism, wars, and mutual grievances to "the Jewish invasion began in the 1800s" is an oversimplification to the point of being misleading.
And it still doesn't answer the question: do Israelis have a right to self-defense or not?
WestcoastAlex@reddit
israel is an occupation
occupied people have an internationally recognized right to resist their Extermination
israel is the attacker and always was, even before statehood. the Jewish residents of Palestine were also harmed by the Jewish invasion planned and facilitated by Theodore Herzl and Zeev Jabotinsky
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
Whether you believe Israel should have been created is almost beside the point at this stage.
It exists. Multiple generations have been born there. Millions of people live there. The overwhelming majority of countries on Earth recognize it as a state.
You can argue about the legitimacy of its founding, just like people argue about the legitimacy of countless borders created by wars, empires, and colonial powers. But once you acknowledge that millions of people live there, the question becomes pretty simple:
Do those people have a right to defend themselves when attacked? Because if the answer is yes, then we're debating where that right begins and ends.
If the answer is no, then you're applying a standard to Israelis that you wouldn't apply to virtually any other population on Earth.
WestcoastAlex@reddit
Rhodesia.
your argument is invalid
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
Even if I granted every criticism you've made about Israel's founding, it wouldn't answer the question. There are millions of people living there right now.
Do they have a right to defend themselves when attacked, or are they uniquely excluded from a right you'd extend to every other population on Earth?
WestcoastAlex@reddit
they arent defending themselves. they are the agressors
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
"They're the aggressors" isn't an answer, it's the premise you're using to reach your conclusion.
Do Israeli civilians have a right to defend themselves when attacked, yes or no?
WestcoastAlex@reddit
it is the answer. you just want to start the clock 100 years late
Jewish people made a plan and organized militias and brought thousands of people to fight the largely defenceless indigenous Palestinian villagers
the Palestinians didnt start any of this it is 100% on the Jewish invaders
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
If you want to start the clock 100 years ago, fine, but then don't tell half the story. There was Jewish immigration, zionist militias, and violence against Arabs. There was also Arab violence against Jews, including riots and massacres before Israel existed: 1920 Nebi Musa riots. 1921 Jaffa riots. 1929 hebron (hebroni? I donno how to say it) massacre. 1936–39 Arab revolt. Then the 1947 civil war after Arab leaders rejected partition.
It was competing nationalist movements, communal violence, british imperial collapse, rejected partition plans, militias, terrorism, and war. But you seem intent on making the narrative “peaceful villagers vs cartoon invaders".
And still, none of that answers the question: do Israeli civilians alive today have a right to defend themselves when attacked?
WestcoastAlex@reddit
first, Palestinians arent Arabs by decent
second, that was Palestinians defending themselves from the Jewish invaders who showed up to murder them for their land
israel is the agressor. the Jewish colonists were the agressors even before statehood. its always been Jewish invaders attacking and its always been indigenous Palestinians defending their ancestral homeland
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
You're doing exactly what I described. Every act of Arab violence becomes "self-defense," while every act of Jewish violence becomes "aggression." If only there was a word to describe this train of thought ..
The problem is that history doesn't fit your narrative. The Nebi Musa riots, Jaffa riots, and Hebron massacre all happened before Israel existed, and the victims included Jewish communities that had been there for generations. It was a messy, violent conflict between competing national movements. And none of that changes the question you're still avoiding:
Do Israeli civilians alive today have a right to defend themselves when attacked?
WestcoastAlex@reddit
first, Palestinans arent Arabs by decent
second, Palestine was invaded not the other way around.
israelis are and always were the agressors.. always.. you just want to start the clock way late and ignore the fact Palestinians (Muslims, Christians, Jews and others) were living happily there when Jewish invaders showed up and began murdering non-Jews for their land, homes and livestock
your inability to see this is typical of Colonialists
Palestinians had a right to defend themselves in the 1800's and have been defending themselves ever since because western powers keep arming the Jewish invaders and propping them up at the UN .. its disgusting
israel has zero right to exist and every israeli involved in the 120 plus years of genocide is complicit and should face punishment
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
So, you're not going to answer the question? Then we've found the disagreement. I think civilians have a right to defend themselves when attacked regardless of what their great-grandparents did. You apparently don't when it comes to Israelis.
WestcoastAlex@reddit
israeli civillians are occupiers.. they are continuing the genocide their great grandparent started
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
So I'll answer the question for you. Your position appears to be that Israeli civilians alive today do not have the same right to defend themselves as other civilians because you hold them responsible for actions committed by previous generations.
I disagree. I don't think people inherit moral guilt from their ancestors, and I don't think civilians lose their right to self-defense because of where they were born.
WestcoastAlex@reddit
israelis are occupiers. their country is an occupation which was formed by terrorists in living memory not some hazy past.. there are hundreds of living Nakbah survivors
the Jewish invaders attacked and are still attacking.. Palestinians have always been defending themselves.
Prosthemadera@reddit
Yes, it did. And then it didn't after committing war crimes.
Chipay@reddit
No, no, you punched me once at the bar so know I have the right to end your entire bloodline, that's how self-defence works.
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
It's Reddit, homie, bots and shills. Anime_titties used to be a safe haven for actual discussion, but now any comment that is Pro-USA will have 10 downvotes in less than 2 minutes.
We just need to accept that a lot of political reddit interactions aren't human. This site is a propaganda machine first.
And because I know people will disagree, researchers have published multiple studies on bot activity, political influence campaigns, and state-sponsored troll networks operating on the platform. I'm sure this will be downvoted on the merit instead of agenda.
Bot Detection in Reddit Political Discussion (2019): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332340547_Bot_Detection_in_Reddit_Political_Discussion
An Empirical Analysis of Human-Bot Interaction on Reddit (2020): https://aclanthology.org/2020.wnut-1.14/
TROLLMAGNIFIER: Detecting State-Sponsored Troll Accounts on Reddit (2021): https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.00443
Blarg_III@reddit
Have you considered that pro-USA positions have simply become less defensible?
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
Sure, but those are two separate arguments.
A position can be unpopular, wrong, right, defensible, or indefensible and still be amplified by bots. The existence of one doesn't disprove the other. And researchers have documented bot networks, coordinated accounts, and influence campaigns on Reddit for years.
And, yes, it's also possible some of what we're seeing is demographic rather than bots. Reddit skews younger and more politically left than the general population. Whether that's because of life experience, demographics, or simply different priorities, I wouldn't expect Reddit's political views to be representative of the broader public in the first place.
What I do find difficult to believe is that every pro-USA or pro-Trump comment getting buried within minutes is entirely organic. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. But given what we know about Reddit's demographics and the documented existence of coordinated activity, I don't think it's an unreasonable question to ask.
Also, none of that suddenly makes Iran the good guy.
Blarg_III@reddit
Sure, there is tons of bot activity, but at the same time, this is a subreddit that caters significantly more to Reddit's international audience. An audience which makes up a slight majority of the platform.
The US is not popular internationally at the moment, and Trump is broadly reviled. Even in the US Reddit's demographics skew strongly towards the liberal. Bots or no bots, unpopular opinions get downvoted into oblivion.
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
I think you're actually proving part of my point.
My original comment wasn't "Trump is right," "the war is good," or "the U.S. should be in another Middle Eastern conflict." It was that Iran does not appear to have the upper hand militarily.
Somehow that gets interpreted as pro-Trump, pro-war, or pro-USA propaganda, and that's where I start questioning whether people are responding to what I actually said or what they assume I believe. It's completely fair to hate the US and Trump while still acknowledging that they could dessumate Kharg, and by extension Irans economy, in an afternoon. I don't think that's worthy of being called divisive.
As for the bot discussion, I'm not claiming every downvote is a bot. I'm saying it's hard not to raise an eyebrow when a comment that basically amounts to "Iran is not stronger than the United States" picks up 10+ downvotes almost immediately.
Maybe that's entirely demographics. Maybe coordinated activity plays some role too. Given Reddit's documented history, I don't think it's unreasonable to question it.
Blarg_III@reddit
Sure, they could do that, but that would very likely force an escalatory reaction from the Iranian government. Since they can't strike at the US directly, it has to be at US allies in the region and since the targets would need to be relatively proportionate, we're looking at oil refineries, ports and desalination plants, which IMO the US is not willing to risk.
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
I think that's a much stronger argument than "Iran controls the Strait" because now we're talking about political willingness rather than military capability.
I completely agree that taking out Kharg would likely trigger escalation and retaliation against regional infrastructure. My point has never been that escalation would be free or painless. What I've been pushing back on is the idea that the Strait remaining dangerous somehow proves Iran can indefinitely impose its will on the U.S. and its allies.
To me, the fact that those obvious escalation targets are still standing suggests the conflict is being deliberately limited by both sides, not that either side has exhausted its options.
WestcoastAlex@reddit
100% 👍
GianfrancoZoey@reddit
Lmfaooo
This whole website is US state department propaganda and you've gone on one of the only communities that isn't drowned in it and complained that it's manipulated. If I didn't know better I'd think this was satire
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
Please, cite literally any source showing that this sub in particular isn't subject to bot activity.
GianfrancoZoey@reddit
I'm not going to do that because that's not what I claimed
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
How incredibly convenient.
Reddit is supposedly flooded with propaganda and influence campaigns, but when asked for evidence that this particular subreddit is somehow exempt from that, suddenly there's no evidence to support the claim.
Prosthemadera@reddit
No, you made the claim, you need to prove it. You can't just make a claim and demand that everyone else disprove it - by proving a negative, even, which is impossible.
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
Wait, so I provide studies showing extensive bot activity exists on Reddit, and your response is that I now need to prove this specific subreddit is affected?
Okay, then prove this specific subreddit isn't affected.
You don't get to dismiss evidence of a platform-wide phenomenon and then demand proof of a specific instance while providing none for the opposite claim.
Prosthemadera@reddit
Considering being pro USA is a pretty terrible stance to have what do you expect? Your problem isn't that there is no actual discussion, your problem is that people are tired of the US.
"Reddit users are not human because they downvote me for being pro US"
Insane, dude.
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
That's not actually what I said. I didn't say everyone who disagrees with me is a bot. I said researchers have documented bot networks, troll farms, coordinated influence campaigns, and state-sponsored accounts operating on Reddit.
Those are two very different claims.
And yes, I'd be shocked if the U.S. wasn't engaged in information operations too. The existence of U.S. influence efforts doesn't somehow make Russian, Chinese, Iranian, or other influence efforts disappear.
My point isn't that disagreement proves bots. My point is that pretending coordinated influence campaigns don't exist on Reddit is contrary to the available evidence. Well, that and I had 10 downvotes in less than a minute. Organic interaction? Maybe, but doubtful.
BendicantMias@reddit
Yes, there's lot of bots on the internet, including on Reddit. But meanwhile we have the opposite in the world news sub, where friggin Ghislaine Maxwell is still listed as a mod - https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/r45a5n/here_is_the_evidence_that_reddit_user_maxwellhill/
WestcoastAlex@reddit
also look up Ashraf 3
ParagonRenegade@reddit
Your country is led by warmongering barbarians who murder women and children and commit genocide with total impunity. Your president is a pedophile who was in close contact with a literal deep state pedophile ring.
BendicantMias@reddit
What deal? There hasn't been a deal, apart from in Trumps' addled mind. There's been a ceasefire, which technically has been constantly violated as both Iran and Pakistan made it clear included Lebanon, but Israel didn't abide by that. The US blockade also violates the ceasefire, as a blockade is an act of war. Neither of these are sporadic incidents - both have been the case throughout this wonky supposed 'ceasefire'.
upbeatchief@reddit
Man, i wonder why people are upset Lebanon wasn't included in the deal, while the militias iran arms and supports where also launching attacking in the region.
It takes too to tango. If fighting in Lebanon is to stop, then iran should muzzle their dogs in iraq and yemen first.
WestcoastAlex@reddit
they did but the genocidal israelis just kept attacking
you havent really been paying attention huh
Silberbaum@reddit
Sooo, USA, Israel and Iran. Every actor did a lot of shit, so can i say "Idiots and assholes everywhere."?
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
100% fair, but the reddit bots need you to believe Iran is in charge.
phaedrus910@reddit
Reality shows Iran is in charge.
WestcoastAlex@reddit
yes. Iran has no real reason to negotiate.. im sure everyone would be happy to see tel aviv getting bombed again
upbeatchief@reddit
Fair enough.
BendicantMias@reddit
Besides the Israel problem, there's also the issue that Trump needs to be able to present this to his base as a 'win', so he stubbornly refuses to offer Iran anything at all as a carrot, apart from relief from sanctions that he himself imposed. This is NOT how you negotiate when trying to retreat. He wants to dictate terms to Tehran, yet is also simultaneously terrified of invading Iran. Something has to give, and it evidently isn't the Iranians. Most commentators, including in the US, are already speaking of this war as a loss that will inevitably result in an American surrender in all but name. But Trump is desperate to avoid it looking like that, so he's stuck repeating the same maximalist demands. I imagine the Iranians find it very tiresome.
NearABE@reddit
Trump can present almost anything to “his base”. The problem here is that the Israeli State decided to expand their genocide. No need for excess pessimism though. Trump’s ability to gloss *anything* over means that he can also cut all military aid to all of the middle east. He could just tell China and Europe that they have to solve this nuisance now. It is a China to Europe trade route.
Your flair says Bangladesh. We (USA and Bangladesh) can trade via the Pacific. You have a population of 175 million. Offer Iran to station peace keeper infantry in Gaza and Lebanon. USA could supply Bangladesh with natural gas for a fraction of the cost of supplying weapons to the genocidal militants.
This may be the dumbest suggestion I have ever posted on Reddit. Nonetheless it remains less dumb for USA than continuing to support the Israeli State. Most MAGA could not find Bangladesh or Lebanon on an unlabeled map.
NetworkLlama@reddit
The US can't replace the shipments from the Middle East anytime soon. Existing LNG terminals are already booked solid, and while new terminals are under construction, they will take time to come online. Meanwhile, the rest of the world starves for energy and turns away from the US to make basic survival deals.
BendicantMias@reddit
Funnily enough, apparently China (the supposed other target for this blockade) may be somewhat saving the rest of the world, by completely defying western expectations for how badly an oil supply shock would affect it - https://www.channelnewsasia.com/commentary/iran-war-china-cuts-oil-imports-energy-prices-6109266
steauengeglase@reddit
I'm never forgetting that he had a better deal than JCPOA and then he torpedoed it at the last minute.
Firecracker048@reddit
So really this is a move to save hezzbollah as Israel is breaking through across the Litani right now
Also Iran hasny abided by the ceasefire itself, either. It's fired a few missiles at us ships and fires one off occasionally at the gulf states.
NationCrusher@reddit
If only we didn’t bomb Iran in the first place
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
"If only" is easy when you start the timeline at the bombing.
If only Iran hadn't spent years funding Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. If only it had fully cooperated with nuclear inspectors instead of repeatedly restricting access and fighting with the IAEA over undeclared sites. If only it hadn't spent decades threatening its neighbors while building a regional network of armed proxies.
Israel and the US have plenty to answer for too, but pretending this all began the day the bombs fell is ignoring an actual chain of events.
WestcoastAlex@reddit
iran is the only UN member state willing to actually follow international laws and put a stop to israeli agressions
if only the other 194 member states respected their obligations under the UN Charter israel would be gone and we could have peace in the ME
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
If Iran is your example of a country faithfully following international law, then I think we've reached the point where words no longer have meanings.
WestcoastAlex@reddit
https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/03/09/lebanon-israel-unlawfully-using-white-phosphorus
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
That link would be relevant if my claim was that Israel has never violated international law... But wasn't.
Your claim was that Iran is somehow an example of faithfully following international law.
Those are two very different arguments.
WestcoastAlex@reddit
in this case they are
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
Funny how the claim keeps shrinking. First it was "Iran faithfully follows international law." But now it's "Iran is following international law in this particular instance."
Progress.
WestcoastAlex@reddit
no. you are attacking a quote you made up that does not accurately represent what i wrote in my comment
its called a Strawman Argument and doesnt really require or deserve response
have a nice day
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
No, you said:
«"Iran is the only UN member state willing to actually follow international laws"»
I responded by challenging that claim and you then amended your position to:
«"in this case they are"»
I pointed out that those are different claims.
Now you're accusing me of making up quotes and strawmanning, even though I'm quoting statements that were actually made in this thread? At least have some honor.
If your position is "Iran is acting lawfully in this very specific case," then just say that. But that's a very different argument from "Iran is the only UN member state willing to follow international law", which is what you said.
WestcoastAlex@reddit
not really. Iran generally follows international law just as most other countries do
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
So now we've now gone from "Iran is the only UN member state willing to actually follow international law" to "Iran generally follows international law like most countries." Not remotely the same claim.
And even your weaker claim is debatable given the IAEA findings, sanctions history, inspector disputes, and Iran's support for armed proxies... But at least now we're discussing a position that can be defended, which is progress.
WestcoastAlex@reddit
Iran was in good standing with the IAEA until trump made a show of tearing up the joint agreement in his first term. Iran's retaliation was a direct result of that and they STILL didnt build a nuke
your argument is invalid and always was.. just take the L and go away
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
It's interesting how the claim keeps changing. First we had:
«"Iran is the only UN member state willing to actually follow international law."»
Then it became:
«"Iran generally follows international law like most countries."»
Now it's:
«"Iran was in good standing with the IAEA until Trump withdrew from the JCPOA."»
You can reasonably argue Iran was (mostly) complying with the JCPOA before the U.S. withdrawal. What you can't reasonably argue is that Iran was simply in "good standing" with inspectors. The IAEA spent years dealing with undeclared sites, uranium traces at locations Iran hadn't declared, inspector access disputes, and explanations it deemed not technically credible.
So yes, we've made progress. We've gone from "Iran is the only country following international law" to "Iran was mostly compliant with a specific agreement before 2018."
That's a much narrower claim, and a much more defensible one.
WestcoastAlex@reddit
each thing i wrote and you quoted is correct without change..
still stands
Your only real 'point' against tgem so far is the temporary IAEA thing.. do i need to remind you israel has Never allowed inspections Nor signed the NPT which Iran signed decades ago?
seriously bro.. just take the L and go about your day.. i promise your Mom wont find out
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
The funniest part is watching the claim shrink in real time.
First it was "Iran is the only country following international law."
Now it's "What about Israel?"
At some point you have to stop retreating to a smaller position and pretending it's the one you started with.
WestcoastAlex@reddit
i havent.. you just keep framing it that way.
WestcoastAlex@reddit
in this case it is true. our countries have been negligent and when Iran actually stepped up we punish them for it
Prosthemadera@reddit
If Israel hasn't spend years bombing Palestinians and Lebanese and Iranians and whoever else.
What a joke. Israel has nuclear bombs. When was the last time they let in nuclear inspectors and
If only Israel hadn't spent decades threatening its neighbors while building an alliance with the US.
Like what?
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
You're arguing against a position I never took. I never claimed Israel was innocent. In fact, I explicitly said Israel and the U.S. have plenty to answer for.
My point was simply that the timeline didn't start on the day the bombs fell. Pointing out that Israel has also done bad things doesn't actually refute that.
your_red_triangle@reddit
in the last 100 years, which country has Iran actually attacked first?
cun7_d35tr0y3r@reddit
Depends what you mean by "attacked." If your standard is "crossed a border with tanks," then sure, Iran doesn't have a long list of conventional invasions.
But if your standard includes funding, arming, training, and supporting groups engaged in attacks across the region, then it's a very different conversation. Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen, and various Iraqi militias didn't become major regional actors in a vacuum.
More importantly, though, this still doesn't address my point. I never claimed Iran started every conflict in the Middle East. I said the timeline didn't begin the day Israel started bombing Iran.
That's why I brought up things like Iran's support for regional proxies, decades of hostility toward Israel, attacks on shipping, attacks on U.S. personnel through proxy groups, and the long-running dispute over its nuclear program.
You can disagree about who bears more responsibility, but pretending the history of the conflict began the moment Israeli bombs started falling is just replacing one oversimplified narrative with another.
your_red_triangle@reddit
it's a very simple question. Yet you can't answer it without shitty Hasbara propaganda. The answer is ZEERO!
So stop deflecting to a strawman argument..
There's only one terrorist state that bears all responsibility and that's the one that bombed a girls school killing 164 school girls. But that doesn't matter for people like you. You'll happily defend the murder of children to support a genocidal regime, while trying to school us on who's good and bad. What a pathetic way to live.
Firecracker048@reddit
I agree, we shouldn't have attacked Iran. I've been pretty clear on that point I thonk
21DaBear@reddit
Abiding by a ceasefire that your enemies are actively stomping on would be a strategy. Israel never stopped in Gaza, and won't stop in Lebanon unless forced
Firecracker048@reddit
Israel had stopped in Lebanon until hezzbollah inserted themselves into the conflict.
Prosthemadera@reddit
Lies. Israel is destroying whole fucking villages, restaurants, schools, none of that has anything to do with Hezbollah.
WestcoastAlex@reddit
https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/03/09/lebanon-israel-unlawfully-using-white-phosphorus
Prosthemadera@reddit
Israel always uses it. Scum.
WestcoastAlex@reddit
its not a fact. its hasbarist bullshit bro.. you have a scitzoid comment pattern sometimes you make sense and then youndrop nonsense like this. whats up
Firecracker048@reddit
It is? Then how come no invasion happened until Hezzbollah started firing rockets? Or is that just a coicidence?
lol what.
WestcoastAlex@reddit
israel is in constant violation of international laws and we are all obligated as member states under the UN Charter to stop them. Iran is the only country actually fulfilling their obligation as we all stand around or worse yet help the genocidal israelis and their Jewish Supremicist doctrine
israel literally Never ceased firing .. invasion isnt the only way to violate ceasefire.. and you yourself just confirmed Hezbolla wasnt firing until israel attacked Iran again
https://www.nrc.no/news/2025/november/lebanon-israels-attacks-continue-one-year-into-ceasefire
israel had been attacking Lebanon the whole time. they never actually stopped
Firecracker048@reddit
Israel attacking Iran doesn't mean hezzbollah gets involved does it?
And hezzbollah never ceasefiring either. In fact, in 2024 they agreed, again, like they did in 2006 to withdraw above the Litani. Funny how that part just gets constantly ignored by you guys
WestcoastAlex@reddit
why not?
Hezbo stopped firing. israel did not. Lebanon has a right to defend itsself
Firecracker048@reddit
Lol so hezzbollah dragged itself back into another war it's not ready for to try and help Iran. Ain't working
Sure lebnannon does. But Lebanon isn't being attacked.. hezzbollah is. People are mighty upset they are losing, too.
And no, hezzbollah never stopped. Let alone again, being below the Litani, a full 20 year Violation
Prosthemadera@reddit
What the hell? I get it you are pro Israel but to argue that Lebanon isn't being attacked when Israel is literally occupying and destroying Southern Lebanon right now is completely insane even for you.
WestcoastAlex@reddit
the war never ended. israel has clearly been tryj g to take south Lebanon for decades
Lebanon is being attacked. your argument is invalid
Firecracker048@reddit
They would have just stayed there in 2024 if they wanted it. They were winning then too
WestcoastAlex@reddit
they were repelled
Prosthemadera@reddit
Always the same excuse. "They fired rockets, we had no choice but to ethnically cleanse the whole area".
Who falls for this anymore?
Prosthemadera@reddit
You mean as Israel is ethnically cleansing Lebanon.
So Israel and the US violate ceasefires and your response is "but Iran does it, too"?
WestcoastAlex@reddit
https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/03/09/lebanon-israel-unlawfully-using-white-phosphorus
anxious_cat_grandpa@reddit
Hope those IDF cunts get their faces blown off by a quadcopter
RevengeWalrus@reddit
I don't think a deal is happening while Trump is in charge, and even then the next person is going to have to make some pretty big moves.
Hunker down everyone, this is gonna be a wild summer
ButterflyFX121@reddit
Honestly, I think a deal is gonna hinge on the US no longer supporting Isreal. That's more than likely the minimum to even get the foot in the door.
RevengeWalrus@reddit
Israel really doing everything in its earthly power to get itself cut off
imunfair@reddit
Good luck getting the US to cut off Israel. Just look at the last presidential election, when it was clear Trump had the pro-Israel vote locked up and Kamala still didn't pander to the Palestinian side. It might not have won her the election but it definitely would have gained her more votes and she didn't do it which says volumes about Israel's influence over the American political system.
Not to mention stuff that's codified in law like anti-BDS regulations, which are crazy to me. I don't care what foreign state it is, that shit is treasonous.
RevengeWalrus@reddit
I dunno, you can only bite the hand that feeds you so much before there's only a stump. AIPAC money is suddenly political poison in primary races, favorability has plummeted, and what do you even get anymore? Money? They're drowning in it. A foothold in the middle east? They're volatile and alienating. Votes from a bunch of Floridian geriatrics? They're locked down by fox news.
Vast_Particular_@reddit
They are preparing for the building turn against Israel in the American electorate by tightly incorporating Israel into the American defense industrial complex, even more than it is now.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/israel-us-military/
RevengeWalrus@reddit
maybe, but also maybe this: https://www.axios.com/2026/06/01/trump-netanyahu-israel-lebanon-call
Onuus@reddit
I think I’m just gonna park my car in the garage and use the, ‘ I can’t afford anything’ excuse to be a hermit for the next 6 months.
Depressing shit man. Never thought I would live through this again
NearABE@reddit
The Iranians were quite willing to make deals. The Israeli State decided to continue *expanding* their genocidal campaigns instead of ceasing to fire.
WestcoastAlex@reddit
👍
https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/03/09/lebanon-israel-unlawfully-using-white-phosphorus
NekoCatSidhe@reddit
Not surprising, given that Trump bombed them unprovoked twice in two days (claiming “self-defense” to add insult to injury), while Israel kept pushing through and occupying more and more of South Lebanon, all the while with Trump constantly blowing hot and cold on a deal without making any significant concessions towards Iran for literally weeks. And they know the West is going to start running out of oil in the coming weeks.
AI_moderated_failure@reddit
The West isn't running out of oil. Other products, maybe. But oil is just being priced higher. Western nations are able to afford this with belt tightening and no small amount of irritation at the US and Israel. It's the developing nations that don't have domestic oil sources that are going to cave first because they can't afford to bid for the oil still available at the same rates western ones can. Countries like the Philippines are really struggling.
upbeatchief@reddit
Where are those people that were saying Iran's civil politicians still have power and that the IRGC commanders didn't sideline everyone else.
This is classic bullheaded strongman tactic. I will harm you in everway possible no matter how much it harms my people. Ths Iranian people already hate the IRGC. Now they fuel the fire more.
Being a stubborn revolutionaries might take down the local shah, but a hardline top brass commander wont feel the same pressure as a local family. The epitome of you all will die for my ideals.
Kinperor@reddit
USrael bombed civilian infrastructure including an elementary school for girls.
You're out of your mind if you think it's only fringe IRGC commanders that support closing the strait of Hormuz, or other similar strategies to fight off the rabid American dog.
upbeatchief@reddit
Iran armed Hezbollah and al assad while they levelled entire cities. They don't get brown points here.
Not to mention the arming militas in Lebanon, iraq, syria and yemen. Iran is responsible for all of their crimes.
Hezbollah starved entire cities. 400k suffered from their actions, all backed by iran and the IRGC.https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/1/10/nearly-400000-syrians-starving-in-besieged-areas
Prosthemadera@reddit
This thread is not about Hezbollah. This is not really the place to bring up everything from the past.
upbeatchief@reddit
The crimes of Hezbollah and al assad against millions of syrians are the responsibility of iran.
The massive civil war only happened due to russian and Iranian support of the assad regime. The blood of hundreds of thousands os syrians is on the hand of iran. You and all iran supportors have no right to portray iran as some innocent country being attacked for no reason at all. The world should have attacked iran to stop them from supporting the many massacers of syrians they propagated.
your_red_triangle@reddit
dog shit Hasbara. try again with a better whataboutism
upbeatchief@reddit
I, like many people, saw the US, Israel and iran soend last few decades being directly responsible for the mass death of civilans and came to hate them all equally.
You conflate me disparaging people for celebrating a regime that killed more of their own people in 2026 than the people they are at war with, for being in favor of Israel or the US. I don't want anyone to glorify any party in this conflict. They all deserve rach other.
your_red_triangle@reddit
pure bullshit, all your comments are use Israeli Hasbara talking points.
do you think the terrorist regime of Israel is committing genocide? should the world attack it to stop it committing genocide?
WestcoastAlex@reddit
israel is no different than Assad
NearABE@reddit
I thought Assad actually cease firing when ceasefire agreements occurred. I could be wrong, I did not follow the civil war in detail.
WestcoastAlex@reddit
true.
Assad was better than 'israel' you are right.
israeli rape dungeons were probably happenning the whole time they were complaining about Assad jails
Kinperor@reddit
Start over. None of this is related to what we discussed.
upbeatchief@reddit
You said the US attacked civilians infrastructure as an excuse for irans actions. I pointed out that iran actively armed and supported groups that were shilling sntire cities in syria. 400k civilians at one time were starbed due to al assad and Hezbollah. Iran is amoral and targeted civilians before.
they don't get to cry about it now it's them on the reserving end.
WestcoastAlex@reddit
Assad as no worse than israel . israel must be stopped the same way
Prosthemadera@reddit
How? Iran is being attacked, they are defending themselves, while Trump is lying about making deals just in time for the weekend when markets close. Why would that make Iranians hate their government more?
upbeatchief@reddit
Why are they attacked. Iran spent the last 40 years under sanctions for arming terrorist groups that massacred civilians like Hezbollah in syria. And for their enrichment of uranium..all because the IRGC wants to globalize the revolution.
The average Iranian suffers because of the regimes global ambitious and terrorism sponsoring. Now they suffer because some wannabe che Guevara wants to sacrifice civilians in the name of resistance, resistance so that all the world would follow the word of the ayatollah Khomeini.
Token993@reddit
So when do you hold the US and Israel to account for their funding and arming of terrorist groups over an even longer period than 40 years?
upbeatchief@reddit
I am not the one defending any side of this conflict.
I sm against glorifying one terrorist state because a bigger terrorist state attacked it. Iran was party to many ethnic and religious mass slaughters in syria, arming militas acroos the middle east and slaughtering protestors.
Iran, the US and israel are aweful and i am against justifying or excuse any of their actions.
Clean-Ad-6642@reddit
But you are defending. You are running apologetics for Israel & hand waiving them sponsoring terrorism while criticising Iran. It's clear as day. Why are you trying to obfuscate your agenda?
upbeatchief@reddit
Iran , israel and the US spent decades decades slaughtering civilians. The world would be better without them.
Can you say the same?
Prosthemadera@reddit
Trump doesn't give a shit about any of that.
Israel is ethnically cleansing Lebanon. That justifies attacking Israel, no?
They also suffer because of Israel and the US.
Iran is inherently evil because they think it's fun. Iran is fucked up because the US and Israel made it that way.
Why is that any resistance against Israel gets dismissed but whatever Israel does and supports it's justified? You are not arguing as a neutral observer who just wants the best for everyone, you are arguing from a pro-Israel stance.
BendicantMias@reddit
Are you talking about Iran, or Trump? The latter is known for strongman tactics, all over the world.
Gotta be honest, this still sounds better than - you will all die for my approval ratings, as is the case for Trump. At least the Iranian one has ideals, whether you like them or not. What does Trump have?
WestcoastAlex@reddit
an israeli handler
sovietarmyfan@reddit
People dont realise it yet but this may become a harsh winter for Europe. No gas, no oil, no fertilizer that helps grow food. Depending on how harsh the winter will be it may be normal or very very bad this year.
BendicantMias@reddit
Can I just say that I LOVE how clever the OP has been to get this news to us? This is global news, happening abroad and mattering to the whole world. But this sub would not let you know about it, due to the silly automod. The OP worked around that, and I greatly appreciate that he did. Once again showing how dumb the automod is, and how ineffective as well. The mods refuse to improve it, forcing sub users to work around it. Kudos!
__dontpanic__@reddit
What does the automod block?
ffpeanut15@reddit
The explicit mentioned of US. This sub banned US, China, and some words in the title to avoid news spams related to these countries. Since it is indiscriminating, people have to to resort to bypass like this
ACupOfLatte@reddit
Ah, make sense on the surface I guess. Other subs are just completely inundated with US domestic politics that it gets annoying as all hell for everyone who isn't in the US.
Rather they just have a blanket rule for it to catch all that crap then.
BendicantMias@reddit
A handful of words identifying the post as being about the US, China or India. Things like those country's names, or even just 'Trump'. It's just a dumb word filter for titles, it doesn't understand anything, and the title of this post highlights that perfectly. The OP made a very slight alteration to the title, and the automod let it through.
Rule 2.3 is supposed to be about blocking their domestic politics from being posted here (mostly to prevent Americans from their constant Trump posting), and even has specifics about how many paragraphs of the article can be about them - precisely in order to allow actual world news involving them to get through. But the automod they use understands none of that - it's just a dumb word filter looking at titles. This has been pointed out umpteen times, but the mods are adamant about keeping it as is and get angry whenever its shortcomings are highlighted.
For example, this story is about Cuba, but unless altered the automod will make a fuss over it simply cos it mentions the US and China in its title - https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/article/as-the-us-starves-it-of-oil-cuba-is-pulling-off-one-of-the-fastest-solar-revolutions-on-the-planet-with-chinas-help/
WestcoastAlex@reddit
this 👍
ChillAhriman@reddit
The full headline should be: "Iran stops negotiations with US. (...) over Israel's attacks on Lebanon", as per Iran's official statements. But CNBC can't have headlines that put the focus on Israel's responsibility.
Parshath_@reddit
One of the best decisions I've done in my life was to look at the American elections and deciding to go for a 5 year fixed term for my mortgage.
Thanks and congratulations to all those involved.
Parshath_@reddit
One of the best decisions I've done in my life was to look at the American elections and deciding to go for a 5 year fixed term for my mortgage.
Thanks and congratulations to all those involved.
GrenMTG@reddit
Shocking news to absolutely no one considering how this administration has been handling things.
What a joke.
AutoModerator@reddit
The link you have provided contains keywords for topics associated with an active conflict, and has automatically been flaired accordingly. If the flair was not updated, the link submitter MUST do so. Due to submissions regarding active conflicts generating more contrasting discussion, comments will only be available to users who have set a subreddit user flair, and must strictly comply with subreddit rules. Posters who change the assigned post flair without permission will be temporarily banned. Commenters who violate Reddiquette and civility rules will be summarily banned.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.