Iran Super Thread- Merged

[brihard]

DIME. All of it.

No need to repeat 1930s techniques of accommodations and appeasement. We already know that to the tyrants of the day, everything short of force that doesn't compel them to stop their bad behaviour is a sign of weakness. Solve the problems (Iran, Houthi, whoever) while they're small. Easier in 1936 than in 1939.

That’s a non-answer. What specific forceful/coercive measures do you feel ought be tried that haven’t already? And why would that ‘win’ the strategic problem in your mind versus just burning things on the entire region down further through Iranian reprisal?

 

[Furniture]

Yup. The ugly reality is the U.S. is probably in a predicament without a likely strategic win. It will probably be an eventual exit with concessions.

I don't think people suggesting this have thought it through..

If America allows Iran to control the SoH, international shipping dies. Some group will claim the SoM, BAM, SoG, etc... and the rest of the world will just have to comply.

Iran can't "win" unless we as a collective give-up on international shipping, and "we" as a collective can't do that and survive as modern societies.

I feel as though too many people are hung-up on Trump and not enough are considering the real world implications of an American withdrawal.

 

[brihard]

I don't think people suggesting this have thought it through..

If America allows Iran to control the SoH, international shipping dies. Some group will claim the SoM, BAM, SoG, etc... and the rest of the world will just have to comply.

Iran can't "win" unless we as a collective give-up on international shipping, and "we" as a collective can't do that and survive as modern societies.

I feel as though too many people are hung-up on Trump and not enough are considering the real world implications of an American withdrawal.

Why does international shipping die? Think it through logically. Countries controlling key waterways are in no way served in the long run by keeping them choked off. A new equilibrium would probably mean some relatively modest ‘transit fee’; a buck a barrel or what have you. Shippers then just price that rent in. Costs go up a bit, demand reduces a bit accordingly… from a strict economic standpoint, it’s perfectly manageable, even if it’s economically inefficient rent seeking.

Now, do I recognize that as lawful or legitimate? Absolutely not. Legally, UNOS and conventional international law firmly recognize the transit passage rules for such straits. From a practical standpoint, I’d rather not the extra couple cents per liter at the pump that would mean. I fully agree with you on the principle of the matter. But I personally don’t have anything I can do about it. We’ve seen in the past few years that international law increasingly means only what those with leverage and power decide it means.

Can big states do anything about a new order of maritime extortion? Well, the biggest state in the world in terms of raw power seems flummoxed in trying to impose its way militarily. Ironically, we had an order of free transit in the Strait of Hormuz, and the U.S. chose to launch a war that has very predictably upended that.

Iran of course is a rogue state already substantially severed from a lot of global systems. They started with less to lose. Am I worried about other maritime straits being similarly extorted? Well, Bab el Mandeb, for sure. It’s already in play largely thanks to this same regional conflict. Malacca? Gibraltar? Dover? Danish? I don’t offhand see many other countries who would benefit in the balance.

This will balance out. New weapons have upended things; new defenses and countermeasures will catch up. I’m just calling it as I see it now.