The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
No bio...
User ID: 174
It's not a fire. It's Iran. They have agency. They chose to harm Europe (and China and India and Pakistan and even Thailand) in response to the US and Israel harming it.
Stunning inability? Maritime insurance rates weren't through the roof five minutes ago.
Thanks, London Insurance Cartel.
And unlike the rest of Western Europe, Denmark wanted the EU countries to support opening the Strait of Hormuz.
Because Trump's blather about things the US wouldn't rule out, magnified into a threat by journalists with TDS, doesn't hold a candle to their actual interests.
Even if we ignore the stunning inability to assign agency to any country but the US in the present time, perhaps you've heard of the Red Sea Crisis?
When it comes right down to it, America is the one who went in and started killing people and blowing things up.
Yes.
Without consulting anyone, without giving a shit about the rest of the world, Trump just decided 'I'mma kill these guys now.'
No, actually. Many parties were consulted -- Israel and the Gulf states.
But, as I said earlier:
And the Europeans aren't willing to lift a finger to defend themselves against damage caused by Iran's war crimes (yes, attacking neutral shipping is a war crime), and instead blame America for provoking Iran into doing it.
Europe consists of Neville Chamberlain's children, the lot of them.
I'm tired of being friends with the big aggressive guy who keeps getting into fights with the people who make the stuff my civilisation needs to stay alive.
You know who else makes the stuff Iran makes to keep your civilization alive? Russia. It's OK to get into fights there, apparently.
And the Europeans aren't willing to lift a finger to defend themselves against damage caused by Iran's war crimes (yes, attacking neutral shipping is a war crime), and instead blame America for provoking Iran into doing it.
There's no gain to taking it. If we want to stop Iranian oil we can do a blockade of Iran and stop the (defenseless) tankers in the Gulf of Oman with much less trouble. If we don't want to stop Iranian oil, we don't need to take Kharg. It's important to Iran, but it's not vital long-term; they could build other export facilities. Anyway, the regime obviously isn't interested in bargaining.
Engineering or pre-law?
It's intermittent at least since the Reagan administration -- and corresponds to whether the President has a (D) or an (R) after his name.
"Watching the feet" tells me there's going to be a major escalation in the near future -- I actually suspect it's been delayed by the problems with the Ford. I expect an invasion of the strait islands (everyone talks about Kharg, but Kharg is useless without the strait and un-needed with it, so if Iran has actually reinforced it as they claim, I would guess they just get more bombing) and maybe the coastline near Bandar Abbas. If this succeeds the US will (after doing minesweeping and patrolling the coast for hidden marine drones and such) declare the strait open, and the next move will belong to the P&I cartel.
Investments in alternate routes make sense, but even without them, defecting back (closing Hormuz and Iranian ports to the rest of the traffic) seems easy enough and a viable response.
Except that Iran could then respond by destroying most of the oil infrastructure of the GCC. This is MAD, of course, but MAD doesn't work against an actually-fanatic opponent.
But maybe it does seem like the entire conflict was poorly-thought-out.
Maybe. Won't know until it concludes.
Imagine the outcomes that an educated, civic-minded intellectual powerhouse could create in their home country if they were properly educated and pushed towards making an effective difference.
Imagine a Haitian Elon Musk returning to Haiti.
Oh, right, he gets set on fire.
Those "effective changes to their place of origin" aren't limited by money or (usually) even talent. They're limited because those in power at the place of origin are actively preventing them from happening.
The Iraq war definitely harmed the relationship, but the Obama administration did a lot to salvage it.
No, Obama being elected and having that all-important (D) after his name did a lot to salvage it. Obama bombed the shit out of brown people with the best of them.
The US needs to re-open the strait for several reasons.
-
Having Iran in control makes a case for Iran having won.
-
The US's Gulf allies need the strait open. Saudi Arabia can redirect most, but not all of its oil elsewhere, but Kuwait cannot.
-
Iran tolling the strait helps Iran rebuild its weapons programs, which means the job isn't done.
-
Sustained high oil prices will hurt Trump domestically, despite the US being a net exporter; there's a lot more gasoline buyers than oil company workers.
The hypothesis that the US would destroy the Iranian regime but leave the strait closed or tolled doesn't make sense. Either the new Iranian regime would have to keep the strait closed by force (in which case it's the enemy), or Oman (in coalition with the rest of the GCC, probably) and the new Iranian regime and the US would have to agree to do so in violation of long-standing treaties, which seems unlikely. That would throw freedom of navigation worldwide into utter chaos, which the US has long considered against its interests.
There's one way of threading the needle, which is that the US beats back the Iranian regime but they can still fire a few missiles or drones from a distance (which can be shot down with high probability). In that case the P&I cartel might decide to continue their effective blockade, at which point the US can probably spin up and certify a new insurer, effectively collecting the same "toll" the P&I clubs used to. This would require utter stupidity on the part of the cartel, but given what Europe has been doing lately, it's not impossible.
Well, except "Ireland" and "Aryan".
Neither "Ireland" nor "aristocrat" has the same root as "Aryan" or "Iran".
I suppose if we ignore not just Trump I, but also Bush II, Reagan, Nixon, and of course Eisenhower over the whole Suez Crisis.
Hmm, I sense a commonality between those Presidents.
The big difference is the lack of buildup. There was no effort to sell the war to the public or to the international community.
There was no way Donald Trump could do so. The "public" (meaning the mainstream media) and the "international community" (meaning Euro liberals) could not be convinced by Donald Trump. So he quite rationally did not waste any effort on this unachievable goal. He does seem to have brought the Gulf states into the fold (with the help of a feckless IRGC, granted).
SCOTUS remanded this case. I expect to see it back in the high court in a couple of years, after the district court finds that Colorado has a compelling state interest in protecting gay children from deconversion or something.
Every ethnicity in Iran is light skinned, and the dominant one has an extremely long history of civilization.
The name "Iran" is derived from the same root as "Aryan".
When I hear "unserious country" nowadays it's usually someone on the right talking about the U.K. or Germany.
Isn't there some conservative college, who's name escapes me, that makes a point of not accepting any federal help so they aren't on the hook for Title IX, and all the other federal fuckery, and the Dems are still always looking for ways to force them to run it their way?
There was, Bob Jones University. They lost not just Federal funds but their tax-exempt status, and then knelt at the altar of equality.
Meanwhile, the University of California and others have explicit political tests for their faculty (in some cases also being fig-leaves for RACIAL tests), and that's fine. It's all who/whom and all very tiresome, and if Trump refuses to let them continue doing that he's not breaking any precedent except in aiming that power at the left for a change.
The Poland thing seems to be fake news. The US made a general request to all the allies for Patriot batteries, and Poland said no -- but Poland only HAS the two, so this was probably expected.
As for the Euros, they probably think the US will give up with Iran in control of the strait and are trying to position themselves to be able to suck up to Iran for oil.
- Prev
- Next

Fighting BACK is utterly reasonable and should be no reason for Europe to intervene. Shooting at the US and Israel, and US and Israeli merchant traffic even. Smashing neutrals is another thing entirely. What did Gibraltar (UK), Malta, Palau, the Bahamas, Thailand, Japan, and Liberia have to do with it? Iran hit ships with all those flags, owned by companies from various uninvolved nations. And they threatened any vessel transiting the strait regardless of involvement. That was their choice.
More options
Context Copy link